## Facts

- Merley Polo Murphy and John Dale Myers cohabited for about three months in 1991 and had sexual relations.
- Myers alleged Murphy falsely stated she had been sterilized (tubal ligation) and showed him abdominal scars as proof.
- Murphy became pregnant; Myers ended the relationship; Murphy gave birth to M.M. on May 7, 1992.
- Murphy brought a paternity and child-support action; Olmsted County joined to recover public assistance (AFDC) paid after the child’s birth.
- Court-ordered blood testing showed a 99.97% probability Myers was the father.
- Myers asserted fraud and misrepresentation as affirmative defenses and sought to present those defenses to a jury and to compel a photograph of Murphy’s abdominal scars.
- The district court denied the motion, and Myers waived a jury trial; the court adjudicated him M.M.’s father based on the genetic evidence and proof Murphy had no other sexual partner during the relevant period.
- An administrative decision set ongoing support and ordered reimbursement to the county for AFDC payments.

## Issues

1. Whether fraud and misrepresentation are available as affirmative defenses to defeat paternity adjudication under Minnesota’s Parentage Act.
2. Whether the district court erred by considering the child’s best interests in adjudicating paternity.

## Decision

- Affirmed.
- Fraud and misrepresentation were not permissible affirmative defenses to a Parentage Act paternity action.
- The district court’s reference to the child’s best interests did not constitute reversible error in adjudicating paternity on strong genetic and access evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Parentage Act proceedings primarily determine biological and legal status; defenses must relate to the accuracy of paternity, not alleged deception leading to conception.
- A child’s right to support and the public interest in establishing parentage are not defeated by misconduct allegations between the parents regarding contraception or sterilization.
- Consideration of the child’s best interests may be a permissible policy consideration in parentage disputes and does not invalidate an adjudication otherwise supported by competent evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that alleged deception about sterilization could not be used to avoid paternity or child-support obligations under the Parentage Act, and it upheld the paternity adjudication supported by near-certain genetic testing and evidence of exclusive access, notwithstanding the district court’s best-interests language.


Murphy v. Myers, 560 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)