## Facts

- Debra L. McGee gave birth to a child.
- McGee and Justin Gonyo executed and filed a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage (VAP) stating they were the child’s biological parents, and the birth certificate listed Gonyo as a parent.
- At the time of filing, both McGee and Gonyo knew Gonyo was not the child’s biological father; the biological father was unaware of the child.
- The Vermont Office of Child Support (OCS) intervened to address support and sought genetic testing, which confirmed Gonyo was not the biological father.
- The family division entered an order of nonparentage, set aside the VAP as fraud on the court, and ruled Gonyo lacked standing to pursue a parentage action.
- Gonyo appealed, arguing the VAP created a presumptive determination of parentage and should not have been vacated as fraud on the court.

## Issues

1. Whether a man who knows he is not the biological father has statutory authority and standing under Vermont’s Parentage Proceedings Act to file a VAP or bring a parentage action.
2. Whether a VAP knowingly misrepresenting biological parentage can create a presumption of legal parentage.
3. Whether the VAP could be set aside after the statutory rescission period as “fraud on the court” under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the order of nonparentage.
- The court upheld setting aside the VAP under V.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) as fraud on the court.
- The court concluded Gonyo could not rely on the VAP to obtain or maintain parentage status because the acknowledgment was knowingly false and contrary to the statutory scheme.
- The court rejected the attempt to use the VAP process to create legal parentage for a nonbiological adult outside adoption or other authorized procedures.

## Legal Principles

- Vermont’s VAP statute contemplates an acknowledgment executed by the child’s biological parents; it is not a mechanism for creating parentage by agreement when both signers know the man is not the biological father.
- A properly filed VAP ordinarily creates a presumptive legal determination of parentage; rescission is limited to a short statutory period, and later challenges proceed under Rule 60.
- “Fraud on the court” includes conduct that corrupts the adjudicative process itself and deprives affected nonparties (including the child, the biological father, and the State acting to protect the child’s welfare) of a fair opportunity to be heard.
- Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief in extraordinary circumstances, including fraud on the court, to vacate a parentage determination obtained through knowingly false filings.
- A party cannot invoke statutory presumptions or standing derived from an instrument whose legal effect is vitiated by the filer’s intentional misrepresentation to the adjudicative system.

## Conclusion

The court held that a voluntary parentage acknowledgment knowingly misrepresenting biological parentage constituted fraud on the court and could be vacated under Rule 60(b)(6); once set aside, the nonbiological man could not use it to establish standing or legal parentage, and the nonparentage order was affirmed.


McGee v. Gonyo, 140 A.3d 162 (Vt. 2016)