Interest of C.L.S., a Child
Colorado Court of Appeals
313 P.3d 662 (2011)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
S.V. (mother) and T.V. (husband) (plaintiff) conceived C.L.S. while married. S.V. had an affair with T.R.S. (boyfriend) (defendant) at the same time. S.V. and T.V. divorced shortly after C.L.S. was born in late 2006. C.L.S.’s birth certificate did not list a father. In 2007, S.V. and T.R.S. resumed their relationship. A paternity test excluded T.R.S. as the child’s father, but T.R.S. acted as C.L.S.’s father, signed an acknowledgement of paternity, and added his name to C.L.S.’s birth certificate. T.R.S. and S.V. broke up in 2008. T.R.S. petitioned the court for parental responsibilities over C.L.S. and was granted parenting time. T.R.S. paid S.V. child support. When S.V. applied for government benefits, the child-support enforcement unit filed this case to determine the child’s legal father. In the face of competing paternity presumptions, the magistrate held that it was in the child’s best interest for T.R.S. to be declared the father. T.V. appealed, arguing the magistrate should have used the clear-and-convincing standard to weigh the conflicting presumptions of paternity rather than the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. The district court affirmed, and T.V. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bernard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.
