Jones v. Mallett
| Docket Number: | 2012-CA-00385-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-14-2013 Opinion Author: Randolph, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Paternity - Petition to disestablish - Section 93-9-10(3) - Stipulated agreement of paternity Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce, King and Coleman, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-16-2012 Appealed from: ATTALA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Edward Fenwick Disposition: The Chancellor granted Mallett's oral motion to dismiss Jones's petition to disestablish paternity. Case Number: 2011-46 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Terence T. Jones |
JOHN FITZGERALD HUGHES |
||
| Appellee: | Annette Brown Mallett, Mississippi Department of Public Health-State Registrar of Vital Statistics and Mississippi Department of Human Services | JOSHUA LEE EURE, TRACY A. BOWEN, DAVID LEE LOVE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Paternity - Petition to disestablish - Section 93-9-10(3) - Stipulated agreement of paternity |
| Summary of the Facts: | Terence Jones and Annette Mallett were involved in a relationship. Mallett gave birth to a child. Jones was named the child’s biological father on the birth certificate, and he signed the birth certificate. Jones entered into a court-approved “Stipulated Agreement of Support and Admission of Paternity” admitting paternity and agreeing to pay $115 each month in child support. Ten years after Jones first learned that he might not be the child’s father, Jones had a DNA test performed, which excluded Jones as the child’s biological father. Jones filed an action to disestablish paternity. The chancery court entered an agreed order for a DNA test to be performed through the Mississippi Department of Human Services, which again excluded Jones as the biological father. The court held a hearing and granted Mallett’s oral motion to dismiss Jones’s petition to disestablish paternity. Jones appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jones’ argument on appeal centers on the interpretation and application of three subsections of section 93-9-10(3). Jones does not dispute that he signed a stipulated agreement of paternity that was approved by the chancery court, which subsection (c) clearly identifies as conduct that precluded the chancery court from setting aside the paternity determination. However, he argues that the chancery court erred by failing to disestablish paternity under subsection (b) or (d). Under subsection (b), Jones argues that he “operated under a material mistake of fact promulgated by assertions by Mallett that he was the father of the minor child” and “he had no knowledge that he was entitled to a DNA test prior to executing the paternity acknowledgement [sic].” However, the facts in this case make subsection (b) inapplicable. Under subsection (d), Jones argues that “[w]hen subparts (c) and (d) are read together, it is evident that Jones meets the test presented by [Section] 93-9-10 in total.” However, subsection (c) prevents a chancery court from setting aside a paternity determination when a legal father has signed a stipulated agreement of paternity, while subsection (d) prevents a chancery court from setting aside a paternity determination when a legal father has signed a stipulated agreement of support. Because Jones does not dispute that he signed a stipulated agreement of paternity that was approved by the chancery court as contemplated by subsection (c), the chancery court did not err by denying Jones’s motion to disestablish paternity. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
