## Facts

- Erin Colleen DeVaux (later Zaback) and Richard Arlen DeVaux II married in 1979; a child was born in 1986.
- In 1989, a Nebraska district court entered a dissolution decree expressly finding the child was “the only issue born to the marriage,” awarding Erin custody, granting Richard visitation, and ordering Richard to pay child support.
- In 1990, Erin filed an application to modify, alleging she discovered through blood tests that Richard was not the child’s biological father and requesting a finding of nonpaternity and termination of Richard’s support and visitation.
- Richard filed a demurrer asserting, among other defenses, that paternity had already been conclusively determined in the dissolution decree (res judicata); the trial court overruled the demurrer.
- Erin admitted she had sexual relations during the marriage with her current husband, Terry Lee Zaback, and did not disclose this information before entry of the dissolution decree.
- Erin testified she began questioning paternity in 1990 and obtained blood-test results indicating a 98.4% likelihood that Terry was the biological father.
- The district court found Terry was the natural father and modified the decree by terminating Richard’s child support obligation and visitation rights.
- Richard appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court took the case from the Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the dissolution decree’s express finding that the child was born of the marriage constituted a final adjudication of paternity that barred a later modification proceeding seeking a contrary paternity determination.
2. Whether later-obtained genetic test evidence and previously undisclosed extramarital relations constitute grounds to modify child-support and visitation provisions by undoing the decree’s paternity determination.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions.
- The court held the dissolution decree’s finding that the child was an issue of the marriage was an adjudication of paternity binding on the parties under res judicata.
- The court ruled Erin could not use a post-decree modification proceeding to collaterally attack and overturn the paternity determination based on later genetic testing.
- The court reversed the modification order to the extent it set aside Richard’s adjudicated paternity and terminated his support and visitation on that basis, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A dissolution decree that expressly determines a child is an issue of the marriage constitutes a final adjudication of paternity between the parties.
- Res judicata bars later attempts, in subsequent proceedings between the same parties, to relitigate paternity determined in the dissolution decree.
- A modification proceeding is intended to adjust custody, visitation, or support prospectively based on post-decree changes, not to vacate or nullify final factual determinations underlying the original decree.
- Later-discovered evidence of biological paternity does not, by itself, authorize a collateral modification that displaces legal parentage established by a final dissolution decree; any challenge must proceed through an appropriate direct mechanism for relief from judgment, if available.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court treated the dissolution decree’s finding of parentage as final and preclusive, holding that a parent may not use a routine modification action to reverse an adjudicated father’s legal status, or terminate support and visitation, solely on later genetic evidence that another man is the biological father.


DeVaux v. DeVaux, 514 N.W.2d 640 (Neb. 1994)