Greer ex rel. Farbo v. Greer
Kansas Court of Appeals
324 P.3d 310 (2014)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
After two years of tumultuous marriage, Jack Greer filed a petition for divorce against Dana Greer (defendant) in Missouri. During the Greers’ separation but prior to the issuance of a divorce decree, Dana began a relationship with John Farbo (plaintiff). John then moved to Kansas. Dana reconciled with Jack and ended the relationship with John. Subsequently, Dana learned that she was pregnant with a daughter, Emily. After the birth of Emily, genetic testing confirmed that John was Emily’s father. John filed a paternity action to establish Emily’s legal paternity. The trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to In re Marriage of Ross, 783 P.2d 331 (Kan. 1989), to determine whether admitting the results of the genetic test and finding that John was Emily’s natural father would be in Emily’s best interests. At the hearing, John testified that he had seen Emily approximately 22 times, formed a parental bond with Emily, and financially assisted Dana in caring for Emily. Dana did not refute John’s testimony, but stated that her husband, Jack, had also formed a parent-child relationship with Emily. The trial court dismissed the paternity action, concluding that considering the genetic testing was not in Emily’s best interests because she already had a strong father figure in Jack. John appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Arnold-Burger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.