## Facts

- Cleo A.E. and Rickie Gene E. married in 1981; Amber Dawn E. was born during the marriage.
- The parties separated in 1985, and Cleo obtained a West Virginia divorce in 1986 with custody; no child support was ordered because none was requested.
- In 1987, Rickie signed a written agreement to pay monthly child support, but it was never incorporated into an order.
- In 1992, the West Virginia Child Advocate Office (CAO) initiated proceedings to obtain child support; a Florida court entered a temporary support order in a reciprocal support action.
- Rickie denied biological paternity and asserted that another man could be the father.
- In the divorce case, Cleo and Rickie stipulated that Rickie was not Amber’s father.
- The trial court entered an amended divorce order declaring Rickie not to be Amber’s father, changing Amber’s legal status and eliminating the basis for support.
- The CAO appealed, arguing the amended order was entered without adequate protection of the child’s interests.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may accept a parental stipulation disestablishing paternity of a child born during the marriage when the result is to render the child illegitimate.
2. Whether the trial court must independently examine evidence and make best-interests findings before entering an order that bastardizes a minor child.
3. Whether the child must have separate representation, including appointment of a guardian ad litem, in proceedings that could disestablish paternity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the amended divorce order and remanded.
- The court held that a stipulation between the adults was insufficient to overcome the strong presumption that a child born during wedlock is legitimate.
- The trial court erred by entering an order disestablishing paternity without active judicial fact-finding, meaningful consideration of the child’s best interests, and adequate representation of the child (ordinarily through a guardian ad litem).
- On remand, any effort to change the child’s legal paternity status required appropriate procedures, including evidentiary development (such as scientific testing where appropriate) under applicable guidelines.

## Legal Principles

- A child born during a marriage is presumed to be the husband’s legitimate child; the presumption is among the strongest known to law and cannot be displaced by parental agreement alone.
- In any proceeding that would bastardize a minor child, the controlling consideration is the child’s best interests, not the parents’ litigation preferences.
- Parents may not, by stipulation, deprive a child of the legal status and rights incident to legitimacy (including support-related rights) without judicial safeguards.
- When an order would change a child’s status from legitimate to illegitimate, the trial court must appoint a guardian ad litem and must itself conduct a careful examination of the evidence.
- Evidentiary safeguards used in paternity adjudications, including standards for scientific testing, apply when a proceeding—regardless of its label—would effectively disestablish paternity.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a divorce amendment that disestablished paternity based solely on the parents’ stipulation, holding that bastardization of a child born in wedlock requires active judicial inquiry, a best-interests determination, and independent representation of the child, typically through a guardian ad litem.


Cleo A.E. v. Rickie Gene E., 438 S.E.2d 886 (W. Va. 1993)