CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anton W. v. Nadine V.

This case concerns a paternity proceeding initiated by the petitioner father for the child Nia, born January 18, 1992. Despite blood tests excluding him as the biological father, the petitioner sought an order of filiation based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The respondent mother had consistently represented the petitioner as the child's father to family, hospital staff, and the CWA caseworker, accepting his financial and emotional support and allowing a strong father-child bond to develop. The court found the respondent's later denial of paternity incredible and applied equitable estoppel, concluding it was in the child's best interests to maintain the established father-child relationship. Consequently, an order of filiation was granted to the petitioner, adjudicating him as the child's father.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelOrder of FiliationBest Interests of the ChildFather-Child RelationshipBlood Test ExclusionChild Protective ProceedingParental RightsFamily LawChild Support
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Edith S. v. Victor C.

This case addresses a respondent's challenge to a paternity hearing, specifically an objection regarding a Support Magistrate's authority to determine estoppel issues. The court found the respondent's procedural objection unavailing, noting that the Support Magistrate correctly referred the equitable estoppel matter to a Family Court Judge as per Family Ct Act § 439 (b). Evidence presented established a familial relationship between the 13-year-old child and the respondent, with the child considering him her father and a social worker testifying about the emotional harm genetic testing would cause. Consequently, the Family Court properly concluded that the respondent is estopped from denying paternity based on the child's best interests.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSupport MagistrateGenetic TestingFamilial RelationshipPanel DecisionJudicial ReferralChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tamara B. v. Pete F.

The petitioner-appellant sought an order of filiation to declare the respondent as the father of her child. The Family Court dismissed the paternity petition after a fact-finding hearing, discrediting the petitioner's testimony and crediting a defense witness who claimed to have had sexual intercourse with the petitioner during the period of conception and was accused of paternity by her. Although the petitioner presented strong HLA and RBC test results showing a 99.86% probability of paternity, the respondent's expert successfully challenged the analytical method used for these tests. Subsequently, the petitioner's motion to reopen proceedings to present rebuttal expert testimony was denied as untimely. On appeal, the higher court found that given the high probative value of HLA tests, the Family Court erred in denying the motion for expert rebuttal testimony. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the orders dismissing the paternity petition and denying the motion to reopen, reinstated the petition, granted the motion, and remanded the matter.

Paternity PetitionHLA Blood TestRBC Blood TestExpert Witness TestimonyStatistical AnalysisPaternity IndexReversal of OrderRemand for RebuttalFamily Court JurisdictionTimeliness of Motion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brian v. Johns

Petitioner Carol Brian initiated an action against respondent Frank T. Johns to establish paternity for her child, Sara, born March 4, 1973, and to secure child support. A court-ordered blood grouping test, conducted at the respondent's expense following an order on January 2, 1974, excluded Mr. Johns as the father. Unsatisfied with these results, the petitioner requested a second blood test, but the court denied this motion after reconsideration, citing respondent's opposition and the lack of statutory authority in Section 532 of the Family Court Act for ordering a second test over objection. The court ruled that the trial should proceed, requiring the respondent to present the performing doctor as a witness to explain the test's basis and procedure, allowing the petitioner to question its accuracy. The decision acknowledged a potential margin of error in such tests and affirmed the petitioner's opportunity to rebut the blood test evidence, as it is not the sole determinant of paternity.

paternityblood testFamily Court Actevidencetrialmotion deniedchild supportmedical examination accuracyserologyhemotology
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Heaven A. A. (Tyrone W.--Stephanie A.)

The case addresses whether a Family Court can terminate a putative father's parental rights for abandonment without first establishing paternity. SCO Family of Services petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Stephanie A. and putative father Tyrone W. for abandonment of their child, Heaven. Tyrone W. disputed paternity and requested a DNA test, which the Family Court denied, proceeding to find abandonment. The appellate court reversed, holding that a Family Court must make a threshold factual determination of paternity, through DNA testing if requested, before ruling on abandonment to terminate parental rights. The court emphasized the potential negative stigma of an abandonment finding on an individual whose paternity has not been established.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentPaternity DisputeDNA TestingFamily LawAdoption ConsentPutative Father RegistrySocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1994

St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services v. Terry E.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County, which adjudicated the respondent as the father of a child born to Julie D. An earlier paternity proceeding had excluded Richard M. as the father. The mother, Julie D., testified to having unprotected sexual relations with the respondent during the critical period of conception. Blood tests, including HLA and DNA analyses, indicated a high probability of the respondent's paternity. The respondent presented testimony from several witnesses attempting to cast doubt on the mother's claims and her credibility regarding other potential fathers. However, the Family Court found the mother's testimony credible and struck the testimony of the respondent's brother due to a lack of corroboration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's determination, concluding that the evidence, particularly the mother's credible testimony and the highly probative blood test results, amply supported the paternity finding. The court also found no merit to the respondent's contention of ineffective assistance of counsel.

PaternityChild AdjudicationBlood Genetic Marker TestHLA TestDNA AnalysisCredibility AssessmentWitness TestimonyFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual History
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. Norden

This case addresses whether an admission of paternity made to a social worker by a reputed father, in the presence of the mother, is a privileged communication under CPLR 4508. The court applied four conditions for establishing privilege and determined that the benefit of disclosing relevant paternity evidence outweighs any potential injury to the social worker-client relationship, as a correct paternity determination is vital for the child, mother, and community. Furthermore, drawing an analogy to attorney-client privilege, the court held that statements made to a social worker when two parties consult on a matter of common interest are not confidential in a subsequent action between them. Consequently, the court denied the motion to exclude the social worker's testimony, deeming the statements admissible in this civil filiation proceeding.

PaternitySocial Worker PrivilegeCPLR 4508ConfidentialityFamily Court ActEvidence AdmissibilityChild SupportIllegitimate ChildFiliation ProceedingWigmore Evidence
References
13
Case No. 9419-13267 / 01-A-01-9511-JV-00508
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1996

Michael Scott Evans v. Karen Marie Bisson Steeman - Dissenting

Michael Scott Evans seeks to establish paternity and legitimize Jacob Ryan Steelman, a child born to Karen Marie Bisson Steelman while she was married to another man. Despite initial acknowledgment, Ms. Steelman later returned to her husband, listing him as the father. Evans's petition for legitimation was dismissed without blood tests, based on a prior court's interpretation of Tennessee's legitimation statutes regarding children 'born in lawful wedlock.' This dissenting opinion argues that the majority's decision to affirm the dismissal is based on an erroneous and outdated judicial interpretation. The dissent contends that the statute should be reinterpreted in light of modern understanding of parental rights and reliable paternity testing, asserting that a biological father who takes prompt action should have standing to pursue legitimation.

PaternityLegitimationParental RightsMarital PresumptionStare DecisisStatutory ConstructionDue ProcessEqual ProtectionBiological FatherChild Support
References
102
Showing 1-10 of 943 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational