## Facts

- T.D. and M.M.M. were married for about seven years.
- During the marriage, T.D. had a long-term relationship with P.W., and a child (C.M.) was born during T.D.’s marriage to M.M.M.
- P.W. suspected he was C.M.’s biological father and had regular contact with the child with T.D.’s consent; later testing confirmed P.W.’s biological paternity.
- After T.D. and M.M.M. separated and divorced, a court awarded custody of C.M. to T.D. and granted visitation to M.M.M.
- T.D. ended the relationship with P.W. and cut off P.W.’s access to C.M.
- P.W. intervened in the custody proceeding and filed an avowal action seeking to establish paternity and related parental rights.
- The trial court recognized P.W. as the biological father, ordered additional proceedings on visitation and child support, and ordered a mental-health evaluation of C.M. to assess potential detriment from recognizing P.W.’s paternal status.

## Issues

1. Whether the equitable doctrine of laches may bar a biological father’s avowal action involving a child born during the mother’s marriage to another man.
2. How Louisiana’s presumption of the husband’s paternity of a child born during marriage interacts with an avowal action supported by genetic testing.
3. What role the child’s welfare, including potential psychological detriment, plays in determining the consequences of recognizing biological paternity in this setting.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review after the court of appeal applied laches to bar P.W.’s avowal action.
- The court reversed the judgment that barred the avowal claim on laches grounds.
- The court reinstated (or effectively restored) the trial court’s ability to proceed with recognition of P.W.’s biological paternity and related determinations.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings concerning the child’s welfare and the practical consequences of the paternity determination (including visitation and support), with attention to evidence bearing on detriment to the child.

## Legal Principles

- In filiation and paternity matters governed by Louisiana’s codified scheme, courts may not use laches to impose a non-statutory time bar that defeats an avowal action.
- A child born during a marriage is subject to a legal presumption of the husband’s paternity, but scientifically established biological paternity may be adjudicated through an avowal action under applicable law.
- Even when biological paternity is established, the child’s welfare remains central in determining the scope and implementation of parental rights and obligations.
- Evidence relevant to possible harm to the child, including mental-health evaluation findings, may guide decisions on visitation and related relief after paternity is adjudicated.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected laches as a basis to bar a biological father’s avowal action for a child born during an existing marriage, reversed the appellate ruling, and remanded for further proceedings focused on the child’s welfare and the resulting visitation and support determinations.


T.D. v. M.M.M., 730 So. 2d 873 (La. 1999)