## Facts

- Jaime was born in 2006 while Cesar C. and Alicia L., unmarried, were in a relationship and living together.
- The day after Jaime’s birth, Cesar and Alicia signed and notarized an acknowledgment of paternity naming Cesar as Jaime’s father.
- Alicia did not timely seek to rescind or challenge the acknowledgment on statutory grounds (fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact).
- Cesar lived with and cared for Jaime for roughly two years, functioning as the child’s consistent parent.
- Alicia was convicted and incarcerated on drug-related charges and had no contact with Cesar or Jaime until about 2009.
- After Alicia reentered Jaime’s life, she sought custody and requested genetic testing; the testing excluded Cesar as Jaime’s biological father.
- Cesar filed an action to establish paternity, custody, and child support; the district court initially granted him temporary custody.
- The district court treated Cesar as a nonbiological caregiver, applied the parental-preference doctrine in favor of Alicia, awarded her custody, granted Cesar parenting time, and ordered Cesar to pay child support.

## Issues

1. Whether a properly executed, notarized, and unchallenged acknowledgment of paternity establishes legal paternity with the same effect as a judicial determination, notwithstanding later genetic testing excluding the signatory as the biological father.
2. Whether the district court committed plain error by disregarding the legal effect of the acknowledgment and applying the parental-preference doctrine as if the case were between a biological parent and a nonparent.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court held the district court plainly erred by failing to give legal effect to the notarized, unchallenged acknowledgment of paternity.
- The acknowledgment established Cesar as Jaime’s legal father, and the case had to be analyzed as a custody and support dispute between two legal parents.
- Genetic test results excluding Cesar did not negate the legal parent-child relationship created by the effective acknowledgment absent a valid statutory challenge.
- The court reversed the custody and child-support determinations and remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal framework.

## Legal Principles

- A properly executed and notarized acknowledgment of paternity establishes legal paternity with the same force and effect as a judicial determination, subject only to limited statutory challenges.
- An acknowledgment of paternity may be challenged only on specified grounds (fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact) and through the statutorily prescribed procedure and timing.
- When an acknowledgment is effective and unchallenged, custody and support must be decided within a legal parent-child framework; a court may not treat the acknowledged father as a third party based solely on later DNA evidence.
- Plain error may be found where a trial court’s failure to apply the statutory paternity scheme affects the parties’ legal relationship to the child and compromises the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court required recognition of an unchallenged, notarized acknowledgment of paternity as establishing legal fatherhood, rejected reliance on DNA exclusion to reclassify the acknowledged father as a nonparent, and remanded for custody and support determinations as between two legal parents.


Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 800 N.W.2d 249 (Neb. 2011)