In re C.E.
Texas Court of Appeals
391 S.W.3d 200 (2012)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
In 1995, Christopher Ehrhardt (plaintiff) discovered pictures of his girlfriend, Stephanie Garcia, with a man of an ethnicity different from Ehrhardt’s. Garcia admitted she had a sexual relationship with the other man, but when she announced she was pregnant the following month, she sought child support from Ehrhardt. When Garcia gave birth, she did not explicitly say that Ehrhardt was the child’s father, but she named the child C.E., put Ehrhardt’s name on the birth certificate, and Ehrhardt signed it, acknowledging C.E. as his biological child without requesting paternity testing. Ehrhardt initially believed C.E. was his because they shared similar features. However, as she grew, C.E. no longer resembled Ehrhardt, and Ehrhardt noticed differences between their “facial features and stuff like that.” The state petitioned to establish Ehrhardt’s parent-child relationship and set up child support in 2001, and Ehrhardt signed a child support review order (CSRO) agreeing to pay support. Ten years later, when C.E. was 16, the state petitioned to increase the amount of support. Ehrhardt sued to terminate the parent-child relationship and end child support under Texas Family Code § 161.005(c), which allows a man who agreed to paternity based on a mistaken belief that he was a child’s biological father to disestablish paternity through genetic testing. The trial court found that Ehrhardt failed to show that he relied on a misrepresentation that C.E. was his child when he agreed to the CSRO and refused to order genetic testing. Ehrhardt appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.