B.Y.F. v. K.D.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: A-0631-24
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0631-24

B.Y.F.,1

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

K.D.,

Defendant-Appellant. ________________________

Submitted January 12, 2026 – Decided February 24, 2026

Before Judges Walcott-Henderson and Bergman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FD-14-0224-24.

K.D., self-represented appellant.

Weiner Law Group, LLC, attorneys for respondent (William G. Johnson, Special County Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

1 We use initials and pseudonyms for the parties and child to protect the minor's privacy. See R. 1:38-3(d). Defendant K.D. appeals from the Family Part's September 17, 2024 order

denying his motion contesting the establishment of paternity and related child

support obligations concerning the parties' child, K.D. ("Kelly"). Having

reviewed the arguments in light of the record and applicable legal principles, we

affirm for the reasons expressed by Judge James M. DeMarzo in his thorough

oral decision.

I.

We limit our factual recitation to those relevant in this appeal. On July

12, 2017, the court established a child support order in the amount of $114 per

week payable by defendant to plaintiff for the benefit of their child, Kelly,

presumably based on defendant's signature on the certificate of parentage in

2008. Thereafter, in August 2018, the court entered an order suspending child

support based on defendant's application for paternity testing and plaintiff's

nonappearance and failure to provide a genetic sample for herself and the child.

The record exhibits defendant had previously submitted a DNA sample at

the Essex County Courthouse on June 11, 2018, but plaintiff and the child did

not submit their samples at the time. Eventually, after relocating to

Pennsylvania, plaintiff provided genetic samples on February 1, 2019 at a

A-0631-24 2 LabCorp facility in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The test results indicated a

"99.99[percent]" probability of paternity for defendant.

In 2023, after plaintiff moved to Morris County and applied for

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Morris County Office of

Temporary Assistance ("MCOTA") made application to reinstate child support.

On August 8, 2023, a Family Part judge in Essex County ordered plaintiff and

the child to comply with genetic test but the prior 2019 test results were

eventually located and presented to the court.

At a hearing on October 13, 2023, where plaintiff, defendant, and MCOTA

appeared, the court referenced the LabCorp test from February 2019 and asked

defendant if he was Kelly's father. Defendant replied "Yes." On that same date

the judge entered an order for paternity "by consent and DNA testing dated

2/1/2019," and established child support payable by defendant in the amount of

$149 per week.

Subsequently, venue was transferred to Morris County where defendant

moved for a new round of DNA testing, challenging the validity and chain of

custody of the 2019 results and arguing procedural irregularities and possible

fraud. The motion judge denied the application. The judge found the evidence

of paternity was overwhelming, noting consistent paperwork, thumbprints, and

A-0631-24 3 account numbers in the LabCorp documentation; defendant's sample in Essex

County; plaintiff's sample in Pennsylvania; and a certificate of parentage signed

by both parties from 2008 when the child was born.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial judge failed to address

fundamental procedural defects and testing irregularities and violated his due

process rights constituting reversible error. Specifically, defendant contends the

judge: (1) accepted compromised unauthenticated testing evidence constituting

an abuse of discretion; (2) relied on an allegedly fraudulent certificate of

parentage despite evidence of misrepresentation; (3) erred by failing to find the

procedures surrounding the paternity testing constituted extrinsic fraud; and (4)

demonstrated prejudicial bias, undermining his right to a fair hearing.

Plaintiff opposed, arguing defendant provided no evidence of mistake,

fraud, or newly discovered facts sufficient to vacate the paternity and child

support orders under Rule 4:50-1. Plaintiff contends all procedures, including

chain of custody, were followed, and that defendant's admission under oath, his

prior conduct, and the genetic testing results support affirmance.

II.

"Our review of a Family Part judge's findings is limited[,] . . . 'afford[ing]

substantial deference to the Family Part's findings of fact because of that court's

A-0631-24 4 special expertise in family matters.'" Voynick v. Voynick, 481 N.J. Super. 207,

220-21 (App. Div. 2025) (quoting W.M. v. D.G., 467 N.J. Super. 216, 229 (App.

Div. 2021)). Pursuant to this standard, "we are bound to uphold a finding that

is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." Moynihan v. Lynch,

250 N.J. 60, 90 (2022) (citing Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998)). "We

will reverse only if we find the [court] clearly abused [its] discretion." Voynick,

481 N.J. Super. at 221 (alterations in original) (quoting Clark v. Clark, 429 N.J.

Super. 61, 72 (App. Div. 2012)).

"We apply that deference to a Family Part judge's decision regarding a

child support obligation." Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App.

Div. 2012). However, the "[court's] legal conclusions, and the application of

those conclusions to the facts, are subject to [a reviewing court 's] plenary

review." Spangenberg v. Kolakowski, 442 N.J. Super. 529, 535 (App. Div.

2015) (quoting Reese, 430 N.J. Super. at 568). We review questions of law and

statutory interpretation decisions de novo. Cardali v. Cardali, 255 N.J. 85, 107

(2023).

"The decision [as to] whether to vacate a judgment . . . is a determination

left to the sound discretion of the trial court, guided by principles of equity. "

F.B. v. A.L.G., 176 N.J. 201, 207 (2003). "The trial court's determination under

A-0631-24 5 [Rule 4:50-1] warrants substantial deference and should not be reversed unless

it results in a clear abuse of discretion." US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209

N.J. 449, 467 (2012).

When a court has entered a [final order], the party seeking to vacate the

[the order] must meet the standard of Rule 4:50-1, which in pertinent part states:

On motion, with briefs and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a[n] . . . order for the following reasons: (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (c) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; . . . or (f) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment or order.

A party seeking relief from a paternity judgment faces an elevated

standard where prior admissions, certifications of parentage, and DNA test

results are in the record. See F.B. v. A.L.G., 176 N.J. 201 (2003).

Authentication of scientific evidence for purposes of admission requires the

proponent to present sufficient evidence to support a finding the item is what it

purports to be. N.J.R.E. 901. The chain of custody, documentation,

thumbprints, and identification are all relevant to this inquiry.

As found by the trial judge, defendant submitted a genetic sample on June

11, 2018 at the Essex County Courthouse, with a signature, thumbprint, and

A-0631-24 6 photograph. Plaintiff and the minor child provided samples on February 1, 2019

at LabCorp's Bethlehem, Pennsylvania facility. LabCorp, an accredited facility,

processed the samples and reported a 99.99 percent probability of paternity.

Notification letters dated February 8, 2019 were sent to both parties stating the

result. From this record, we conclude defendant presented no credible evidence

to the judge to suggest the results were unreliable as a result of tampering,

mislabeling, or substitution. Defendant provided no expert testimony,

contradictory documentation, or any credible basis to disturb the court's

findings. Moreover, defendant's bare assertions that Essex County "declared the

results fraudulent" are belied by the record.

While defendant contends procedural irregularities occurred, particularly

in the time gap between the collection of the samples and the

publication/issuance of the LabCorp results, these delays were caused by

plaintiff's relocation to Pennsylvania, where she subsequently complied with the

testing requirement and provided samples for herself and Kelly to LabCorp. We

concur with Judge DeMarzo's findings that there is no evidence that the integrity

of the testing process or chain of custody was compromised.

In addition, at the October 13, 2023 hearing, defendant confirmed under

oath he was Kelly's father after the court referenced the genetic testing results.

A-0631-24 7 Even if defendant is correct that he never signed the certificates, he did not

challenge the 2019 genetic testing result until 2023, despite notification of the

results in February 2019. Nevertheless, the trial court reviewed all of the

evidence on the merits, including the genetic testing and found defendant was

the father based on substantial, credible evidence in the record, thus, the court's

finding is entitled to deference. Voynick, 481 N.J. at 220-21.

We now turn to defendant's assertion of extrinsic fraud related to the court

procedures to obtain the genetic testing of the parties and child. Extrinsic fraud

that would justify equitable relief is such that the party asserting it has been

deprived of a fair process. See Zelek v. Brosseau, 47 N.J. Super. 521 (App. Div.

1957). Here, the record exhibits the defendant was properly notified and was

given an opportunity to contest paternity, including access to the genetic testing

and results. Defendant's assertion that he did not receive the 2019 results until

years later does not establish a fraudulent withholding or unreliability in the

testing procedures, but instead reflects his own failure to follow up with a

request to review the results in a timely manner.

We further determine the record does not support defendant's claims of

bias by the judge. We note "judges must avoid acting in a biased way or in a

manner that may be perceived as partial." DeNike v. Cupo, 196 N.J. 502, 514

A-0631-24 8 (2008) (emphasis omitted). However, "bias is not established by the fact that a

litigant is disappointed in a court's ruling on an issue," and the litigant's "belief

that the proceedings were unfair must be objectively reasonable." State v.

Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186, 279 (1997). The record here does not exhibit

objective proof of conduct by the judge manifesting prejudice or partiality that

affected the fairness of the hearing. Although defendant objects to certain

comments made by the court, we conclude the remarks did not show judicial

bias affecting the outcome. Nor can we conclude any comments of the judge

would override the evidence supporting the judge's denial of defendant's motion,

including the certificate of parentage signed by defendant, his admissions of

paternity and, most importantly, conclusive documentary and scientific proof of

his paternity presented through genetic testing. The record shows the court

permitted defendant and his attorney to fully present his case, make inquiries,

and respond to questions, which we conclude resulted in a fair hearing.

To the extent we have not addressed any of defendant's remaining

arguments, we conclude those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-0631-24 9