## Facts

- Robin Y. conceived a child (Ry R.–Y., born Nov. 16, 1981) by artificial insemination using Thomas S.’s semen pursuant to an oral understanding that he would not assume a parental role.
- Robin and her lifelong partner, Sandra R., paid pregnancy and delivery expenses; Thomas was not listed on the birth certificate and provided no support during the child’s early years.
- For roughly the first three years, Thomas saw the child only sporadically, consistent with the parties’ original arrangement.
- Later, at Robin and Sandra’s invitation, Thomas’s contact increased substantially over several years; the child came to know Thomas as her father and expressed affection toward him.
- A dispute arose when Thomas sought unsupervised travel with the children and disclosed a desire to establish a paternal relationship; Robin and Sandra refused unsupervised contact and declined counseling or mediation.
- After being denied contact for months, Thomas filed a Family Court petition seeking an order of filiation under Family Court Act (FCA) § 542 and visitation.
- Genetic marker testing ordered under FCA § 532 showed a 99.9% probability Thomas was the biological father.
- Family Court dismissed the petition and refused to enter filiation, applying equitable estoppel based on the original donor understanding and course of conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether, after paternity is established by clear and convincing evidence, a known sperm donor is entitled to an order of filiation under FCA § 542 notwithstanding the mother’s claim of equitable estoppel.
2. Whether the record permitted a determination of visitation, and if not, what further proceedings were required.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal on the law and remanded.
- The court directed entry of an order of filiation naming Thomas as the child’s father.
- The court held equitable estoppel was not a basis to deny filiation on these facts.
- The court remanded for reassignment and further proceedings, including a visitation hearing under FCA article 5, part 4.

## Legal Principles

- When paternity is established as required by FCA § 542, the court must issue an order of filiation; filiation is not discretionary based solely on a prior informal donor arrangement.
- Equitable estoppel in paternity matters cannot be used to defeat an order of filiation where the mother fostered a father-child relationship and the child knows the petitioner as her father.
- Genetic marker testing under FCA § 532 may provide clear and convincing proof of biological paternity.
- Visitation following filiation is a separate, fact-specific inquiry governed by the child’s best interests and requires an adequate evidentiary record.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that proven biological paternity entitled the petitioner to an order of filiation and that equitable estoppel did not bar recognition of paternity where the mother encouraged a paternal relationship; it remanded for a best-interests hearing on visitation.


Thomas S. v. Robin Y., 209 A.D.2d 298, 618 N.Y.S.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1994)