J.F. v. R.B.

454 N.W.2d 561, 154 Wis. 2d 637, 1990 Wisc. App. LEXIS 111
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin
DecidedJanuary 23, 1990
DocketNo. 89-1363-FT
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 454 N.W.2d 561 (J.F. v. R.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
J.F. v. R.B., 454 N.W.2d 561, 154 Wis. 2d 637, 1990 Wisc. App. LEXIS 111 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

LaROCQUE, J.

J.F. appeals an order dismissing his paternity action to declare him the father of T.R.B. (D.O.B. Nov. 10,1986).1 The child's mother was married to another man at the time of conception, and remained so thereafter. The circuit court dismissed J.F.'s paternity claim without reaching the merits on grounds that the action is not in the best interests of the child. We hold that sec. 767.458(lm), Stats., requires a hearing to determine the child's best interests.2 We therefore reverse and [639]*639remand for further proceedings.

After filing the paternity action, J.F. requested that blood tests be ordered and that he be allowed to visit the child. The child's mother and her husband filed a motion to dismiss. During a teleconference to address the motion, the circuit court, after hearing counsel's arguments, granted the motion and dismissed the action pursuant to sec. 767.458(lm), Stats. Interpretation of paternity statutes is a question of law that this court decides independently of the circuit court. See F.E.W. v. State, 143 Wis. 2d 856, 860, 422 N.W.2d 893, 895 (Ct. App. 1988).

The dismissal without a hearing was apparently based upon the court's perception that the child was the beneficiary of a stable, intact marriage and that preservation of that relationship would be threatened by a paternity proceeding. If both factors were based upon established facts, or inferences from established facts, they form a sufficient basis to support a decision to dismiss. Absent evidence or a stipulation, however, these considerations remain mere assumptions.

Further, J.F. has the right to present relevant evidence, if any exists, that may outweigh or contradict the preceding considerations. The court may then make its determination based upon the facts of record.

"A discretionary determination, to be sustained, must demonstrably be made and based upon the facts appearing in the record . . . [MJost importantly, a discretionary determination must be the product of a rational mental process by which the facts of the record and law relied upon are stated and are considered together for the purpose of achieving a reasoned and reasonable determination."

[640]*640Thorp v. Thorp, 108 Wis. 2d 189, 195, 321 N.W.2d 237, 240-41 (1982) (quoting Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66, 306 N.W.2d 16, 20 (1981)). (Emphasis supplied.)

While sec. 891.41(1), Stats., raises a presumption of paternity adverse to J.F., that presumption is rebuttable, not conclusive. See Strawser v. Strawser, 126 Wis. 2d 485, 491, 377 N.W.2d 196, 199 (Ct. App. 1985).3

We therefore reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand this matter to the circuit court for an eviden-tiary hearing to determine whether a paternity action is in T.R.B.'s best interests. On remand, the court should also appoint a guardian ad litem as required by sec. 891.39(1), Stats.

By the Court. — Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Callender v. Skiles
591 N.W.2d 182 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1999)
In Re Paternity of TRB
454 N.W.2d 561 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
454 N.W.2d 561, 154 Wis. 2d 637, 1990 Wisc. App. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jf-v-rb-wisctapp-1990.