## Facts

- Dana Greer and Jack Greer married in 2009, separated in 2011, and Dana began a relationship with John Farbo.
- Dana reconciled with Jack in February 2012 and ended the relationship with John.
- Dana informed John in March 2012 that she was pregnant; John believed he was the father and sought involvement and provided support.
- The child, Emily, was born in October 2012 while Dana and Jack were married.
- Genetic testing in January 2013 showed a 99.99% probability that John was Emily’s biological father.
- Kansas law created competing presumptions: Jack as father based on marriage at birth, and John as father based on genetic testing.

## Issues

1. When competing presumptions of paternity exist, whether the court must apply K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 23-2208(c) by weighing which presumption rests on weightier considerations of policy and logic, including the child’s best interests.
2. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the paternity action after treating a Ross best-interests hearing as dispositive, without conducting the statutory weighing of presumptions.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The trial court committed legal error by not weighing the conflicting presumptions under K.S.A. 23-2208(c).
- The trial court misapplied Ross by using it as a stand-alone basis to exclude consideration of genetic testing and to dismiss, rather than applying the statutory framework for resolving conflicting presumptions.

## Legal Principles

- A paternity action determines the child’s legal father and the attendant rights and responsibilities of legal parenthood.
- When presumptions of paternity conflict, K.S.A. 23-2208(c) requires a hearing to decide which presumption is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic, including the child’s best interests.
- A child born during a marriage is presumptively the husband’s child under Kansas common law and K.S.A. 23-2208(a)(1).
- Genetic testing that meets statutory requirements can create a competing presumption of paternity.
- A Ross hearing is limited; it is generally required when no pre-filing genetic-test presumption exists or when test results are inadmissible due to a proper statutory objection, and it does not displace the statutory resolution of conflicting presumptions.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required the district court to apply K.S.A. 23-2208(c) by explicitly weighing the marital and genetic presumptions of paternity—using best interests as part of that inquiry—before determining legal parentage.


Greer ex rel. Farbo v. Greer, 324 P.3d 310 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014)