## Facts

- Cindy Hermanson married David Hermanson in June 1982 while six months pregnant with James; Cindy asserted she told David the child was not his, and David admitted she never said he was the father.
- James was born October 12, 1982; David’s name appeared on the birth certificate.
- The marriage was unstable after James’s birth; Cindy intermittently lived with David, sought protective orders, and stayed in battered women’s shelters between 1982 and 1985.
- Cindy separated in October 1985 and moved with James to Iowa, where she raised James and received welfare while attending nursing school.
- In October 1990, Cindy and James moved to Las Vegas after reconciliation discussions, but the attempt ended in about 30 days; Cindy filed for divorce in December 1990.
- Cindy’s divorce complaint asserted there were no children of the marriage and alleged David knew he was not biologically related; David denied those assertions.
- David moved to have James declared his “defacto child” even if not biological; Cindy opposed and requested blood tests.
- A domestic relations referee recommended treating David as the “real father,” set visitation, and ordered support; the district court adopted the recommendation in substance, applied a conclusive California marital presumption, awarded joint legal custody/visitation, and ordered child support.
- Cindy appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by applying a repealed California conclusive presumption of legitimacy instead of Nevada paternity law.
2. Whether Nevada law required a paternity determination consistent with the child’s statutory rights, rather than a conclusive determination based on foreign law.
3. Whether equitable estoppel or an “equitable adoption” theory could support treating David as the legal father and foreclose paternity testing on this record.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The district court erred by applying California law, including reliance on a repealed conclusive presumption of legitimacy.
- Nevada paternity statutes and policy controlled the adjudication in Nevada.
- The record did not contain substantial evidence supporting equitable estoppel (or a similar equitable-adoption rationale) to conclusively fix paternity and bar testing.
- The court emphasized that minors have a statutory right to have paternity determined and may litigate paternity for three years after reaching age 18.

## Legal Principles

- Nevada courts must apply Nevada paternity law when adjudicating paternity in Nevada, rather than rely on repealed or inconsistent foreign presumptions.
- Nevada recognizes an independent statutory interest of the child in a judicial paternity determination, including a post-majority limitations period permitting litigation for three years after age 18.
- Equitable estoppel (and related equitable-parent theories) requires substantial supporting evidence and cannot be used to defeat Nevada’s statutory framework protecting a child’s opportunity to establish paternity.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court set aside a paternity and custody/support order that treated a nonbiological husband as the child’s legal father based on a repealed California presumption and unsupported equitable theories, and required further proceedings under Nevada paternity law consistent with the child’s statutory right to litigate paternity.


Hermanson v. Hermanson, 110 Nev. 1400, 887 P.2d 1241 (Nev. 1994)