In Jones v. Mallett, 125 So. 3d 650, 651 (¶¶5-7) (Miss. 2013), the chancery court similarly relied on section 93-9-10(3)(c) to deny the plaintiff’s petition to disestablish paternity. Our supreme court affirmed the chancellor because the plaintiff had signed a stipulated agreement of paternity that was approved by the chancery court over a decade prior to the father’s filing for disestablishment. Id. at (¶10). Thus, here we find the chancellor did not err by denying Hicks’s petition.Here is the question I have. Are you entitled to the natural parent presumption if you cannot be disestablished as the parent? I have a similar issue up on rehearing at the Court of Appeals. The law on that issue is not clear and I can make a pretty good sales-pitch either way on this issue.
Monday, December 12, 2016
Last Tuesday, the Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Danny P. Hicks, II v. Department of Human Services, State of Mississippi . The Appellant signed a court order of paternity without getting DNA done. In 2015, a DNA test revealed that Hicks was not the biological father. Hicks filed a Petition to Disestablish Paternity and Terminate Child Support and asked to be reimbursed for the payments made before the DNA test ($1,800). The trial court denied relief and this was affirmed on appeal. The Court noted: