{"id":135,"date":"2025-06-13T11:17:35","date_gmt":"2025-06-13T15:17:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bowditch.com\/allinthefamily\/?p=135"},"modified":"2025-06-13T11:17:35","modified_gmt":"2025-06-13T15:17:35","slug":"finality-over-biology-massachusetts-sjc-upholds-strict-deadlines-to-establish-parentage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bowditch.com\/allinthefamily\/2025\/06\/13\/finality-over-biology-massachusetts-sjc-upholds-strict-deadlines-to-establish-parentage\/","title":{"rendered":"Finality Over Biology: Massachusetts SJC Upholds Strict Deadlines to Establish Parentage"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a recent ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (\u201cSJC\u201d) affirmed the finality of voluntary acknowledgments of parentage (\u201cVAPs\u201d), even if later genetic evidence proves that a parent who signed a VAP has no biological connection to the child. The SJC\u2019s decision in A.D. v. K.S.<\/em> underscores the weight the law places on stability and finality for the child in determining a child\u2019s legal parentage and affirms that the Probate and Family Court has no equitable authority to override the statutory deadlines for challenging a VAP.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

A.D. gave birth to a daughter in 2017 and informed Q.T. that he was her father based on her belief at the time. Q.T. signed a VAP two days after the birth. By signing the VAP (a legal document allowing unmarried parents to establish parentage by signing a form), Q.T. became the child\u2019s legal parent, and he was accordingly listed as such on her birth certificate.<\/p>\n

A little over a month after Q.T. signed the VAP, a DNA test showed that Q.T. was not the child\u2019s biological father. Despite this, neither Q.T. nor A.D. acted within the statutory 60-day window to rescind the VAP. Similarly, neither challenged the VAP on the basis of \u201cfraud, duress or material mistake of fact\u201d within the one-year time period allowed by the statute for a challenge to a VAP.<\/p>\n

Years later, A.D. discovered that another man, K.S., was likely the child\u2019s biological father through a DNA testing platform. The platform indicated there was a \u201cstrong genetic link\u201d between K.S. and the child and labeled K.S. as the child\u2019s father. After A.D. reached out to him, K.S. deleted his profile on the platform.<\/p>\n

A.D. filed multiple actions to rescind the VAP establishing Q.T. as the child\u2019s legal father and to instead establish K.S. as her legal father. DNA tests confirmed that K.S. was in fact her biological father. K.S. moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the VAP had become final under the law and could not be undone. A Probate and Family Court judge refused to dismiss the action, instead rescinding the VAP, declaring K.S. the legal father, and ordering Q.T. to be removed from the child\u2019s birth certificate and K.S. to be added to it. K.S. appealed, and the SJC transferred the case to itself from the Appeals Court.<\/p>\n

The SJC\u2019s Ruling<\/h2>\n

The SJC reversed the Probate and Family Court\u2019s decision. The Court held that:<\/p>\n