AZ court orders fit Dad to pay child support.

photo from, Could Meaningful Child Support Reform Be On The Horizon? by Shawn Garrison

Mikel Johnson filed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity back in 2017. Two years later, Andre Daniels finds out through a DNA test that he is the child’s father, so he files a paternity action. The superior court entered a paternity judgment in Daniels’s favor. Johnson moved to set aside the judgment and petitioned for parenting time, legal decision-making, and child support.

The court set aside Johnson’s voluntary-acknowledgment-based paternity judgment and denied the request for relief. Johnson petitioned for special action relief. Now, the court says it “erred” and grants Mikel Johnson paternity despite the fact that the DNA test shows that Andre Daniels is the biological father. To top that off, the court granted the wannabe Dad child support.

“We previously accepted jurisdiction and granted relief by order, with a decision to follow. This is that decision. The superior court properly recognized that Johnson’s voluntary acknowledgment constituted a judgment of paternity and that Daniels’s paternity judgment could not stand unless Johnson’s paternity judgment was set aside. The court erred, however, by setting aside Johnson’s paternity judgment without a cognizable basis under A.R.S. § 25-812(E). Under that provision, a paternity judgment based on a voluntary acknowledgment can be challenged “only on the basis of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact,” and only for a period of six months; after that time, it can be attacked only in exceptional circumstances, such as fraud on the court. A.R.S. § 25-812(E); Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 85(c)(1), (d). Applying the plain language of A.R.S. § 25-812(E) and Rule 85 (which is expressly incorporated into the statute), we hold that these time limitations apply even to a genetic father’s paternity petition challenging a voluntary acknowledgment signed by someone else. Accordingly, and because Daniels offered no timely, cognizable ground under § 25-812(E) to set aside Johnson’s paternity judgment, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief by vacating Daniels’s paternity judgment and reinstating Johnson’s paternity judgment. We similarly reinstate Johnson’s petition to establish parenting time, legal decision-making, and child support, which the superior court has not yet addressed on the merits.”

To see the court’s opinion click here.

Minding Hearts is building advocacy and peer support groups in each state.  The groups are created to raise awareness, educate, and advocate for those that might not otherwise be heard. We are here for encouragement, education, and support. We are here to support families and develop resources that maintain family integrity. We look forward to your support. If you would rather become active by donating, then visit the donation page.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.