Dad Discovers Mom Used His Last Name To Set A Support Trap

Added: 2026-05-07

[00:00:02]Jacob McMillan versus um Licia Jackson.

[00:00:08]It is 2025 DM337.

[00:00:12]I don't see your client, but Miss Adams appears on behalf of Jacob. Miss Jackson is at the courthouse.

[00:00:20]Um and she is appearing by Zoom separately uh from Miss Hawk who appears for DCF. This case originated out of a child support enforcement case and uh it is scheduled for trial on the motion to set aside the um voluntary acknowledgement of paternity on um May 19th from 1 to 5.

[00:00:55]There's also a motion to add a putitive father.

[00:01:04]Um, and there was a response um by Miss Hawks. And frankly, Miss Adams, I'm inclined to um agree with Miss Hawks. So I think the first stage of this proceeding is whether or not his VAP is going to be set aside or not.

[00:01:31]And then if it gets set aside, uh, I'll order genetic testing.

[00:01:38]And then if he's not the father then DCF can proceed against him or um I mean I guess you can join him as a party if the genetic testing is ordered.

[00:02:01]It just seems to me uh if the VAP is set aside and your client is excluded, maybe you want to prove who the father is. Um because >> I think at that point, your honor, I don't really care. But >> well, I know. I know. So, I I I don't I'm not going to grant your request to add a party that doesn't appear to voluntarily want to be involved and mother has not indicated is involved until we get past the whole BAP issue, which is what we're going to hear hopefully here shortly on the 19th.

[00:02:46]Um, so and I I don't think you're asking me to do genetic testing before I've ruled on the BAP issue, are you?

[00:03:01]Your honor, I would take genetic testing whenever I can get it. That's the whole point behind all of this. Um, I understand the court's position that the VIP is in place and that we need to um argue whether or not that should be set aside. I just my problem is it's not in the best interest of this child to have the wrong father attached to the to them for the rest of their lives. Nor is it fair to Mr. for McMillan who does not have a relationship with his child um specifically because he asked for genetic testing um to pay child support. So um I guess I mean I don't want to argue what we're going to be discussing on the 19th. Uh, I mean, >> yeah. Well, I understand that he wishes he'd never sign that VAP and, um, I think it's kind of interesting how definitive the law is on that issue. Um, but so it's I got to follow the law. It isn't really what's fair or not fair.

[00:04:17]It's not even a point of what's in the child's best interest, particularly. I don't even get to that. When there's a VAP, um the question is, is it a lawful VAP or um is it not? And is it one that the court has the authority to set aside or not? So, that's where we got to go. That's what he's been wanting to do. And of course, now he has counsel he can put on a case.

[00:04:46]Um and I'm anxious to hear the case, frankly.

[00:04:50]Um >> your honor.

[00:04:52]>> Yes, >> if I may. Um I and I did ask to have the issue of genetic testing addressed today. Um and and I kind of discussed some of this with mother. So when this case was filed, it's it's really the agency's standpoint that um you know that however this proceeds that it that it just happens by you know by statute.

[00:05:18]And so when this case was filed, Mr. McMillan did file it before the year deadline. And at that point, his his option was to set it aside via or to prove fraud, duress, and material mistake it back to have that set aside.

[00:05:32]And then at that point, he could have the option of genetic testing. Um uh but I do want to let the court know that there on April 9th um the governor did sign a Senate bill, Senate Bill 408 408 that significantly changes that statute and that will take effect July 1st and um >> I guess I've seen that. Sorry.

[00:05:57]>> Yeah. uh it's not the agency's um you know intentions to punish somebody for being a couple months early on a case and um I ultimately our our hope is to just have finality to have a a situation where you know both parents recognize or both parties recognize they are the parent and are are willing to co-parent and provide support for a child. Um, and so that is one of the reasons I asked to go ahead and have this issue um, before the court because I I do believe mother is not in agreement with genetic testing um, at least based on our last conversation. But that Senate bill ultimately would allow the court to take into consideration the best interests of the child. So um >> well I know my and my thought is not very supported by anybody which is my basic belief about best interest of a child is that I think the child always has a right to know who their biological parent is. Um and if there's any doubt um that you know it ought to be um confirmed uh especially at a early infancy stage.

[00:07:25]Um, not not so much with older children or a situation where somebody's been the father and they get divorced and then they don't want to pay child support and all of a sudden they want to be proven that they're not um a father. uh in these paternity cases where there's not going to be a relationship and there maybe never was much of a relationship.

[00:07:49]I do think it's important that we identify the other uh parent if you know nothing else for medical reasons but that's not always supported in the law. So um judge I do believe Senate Bill 408 um does significantly I'm I pulled it up. Um change 23-2204.

[00:08:13]He no longer has to prove that um the acknowledgement was based on fraud, dress, threat, or important mistake of fact. Um it and he filed it with he filed it in time. Uh, and if I'm not reading it right now, but I if I remember right when I read this after Miss Hawk called me, um, the court can take into account a paternity test in determining what's in the best interest of the child or whether or not to withdraw the um, BAP.

[00:08:49]And so I I mean my client doesn't want to get out from paying child support that and and and leave a child without a daddy if he's the daddy. He just doesn't want to pay for a child that's not his.

[00:09:05]And so anyway, that's that's kind of where we are.

[00:09:08]>> Hang on just a minute.

[00:09:11]Well, I don't want Wisconsin Senate bill. I want Kansas and um it's my understanding of that Senate bill that a genetic genetic test results with a verifiable chain of command chain of command chain of custo um that the court must find that that is a material mistake of fact if it exps the father.

[00:09:55]That's what I was referring to. I knew I read it. So repeat that again.

[00:10:01]So the exact language is for the purposes of this subsection, genetic test results with a verifiable chain of custody that exclude a signatory father or that rebuttedly identify another man as the father in accordance with KSA 232208 shall constitute a change of circumstances that warrants a material mistake of fact finding by the court.

[00:10:28]So it shall constitute a change of circumstances that warrants material mistake of fact finding by the court.

[00:10:34]>> So that kind of indicates to me >> that you can do the genetic testing before you hear >> that's the way I >> which did not ever appear to me to be the case before.

[00:10:46]>> I don't think it was >> and that the court can order it. I mean I think this child's young enough that we should order the testing and get it get it decided once and for all. I I think my concern when when you look at the strict construction of the VAP that's been part of the statutes for a while always concerned me is there's provisions in there where the hospital is supposed to update their policies.

[00:11:14]The hospital is supposed to update their forms. the the hospital social worker or staff has quite a bit of responsibility in advising uh the the puditive father before he signs it. And um versus the VAP statute as was written appeared to just say if you've got one and it's signed that that's good enough. I mean, there's no obligation for the state or anyone with DCF to investigate or establish whether or not um he was fully advised of his rights and that um it it was a clear understanding to him that he was signing a legal document um that was legally enforcable that he could not um retract um at a later date, which is essentially kind how it was written because the burden's so high for the BAP person. So, um, >> so I guess Miss Hawk, what I'm asking you is, do you think legally today I can make a finding? It's in the best interest of the child to have genetic testing and order it. Uh, I think you can, but I I I would like to see mother have the opportunity to speak and also I think make sure that um maybe there's some testimony that he doesn't have a father child relationship with his child prior to ordering the genetic testing. I don't know that we have any evidence on the record yet as to that.

[00:12:51]>> Okay. Well, I my understanding has been that mom doesn't think there's going to be any doubt about how this is going to turn out once the genetic uh testing is done. But um yes, I'll I'll um address that with her here in a minute. The problem now is are we going to get that done prior to our May date with the results? Probably not.

[00:13:23]>> I do not believe so.

[00:13:25]>> Probably not.

[00:13:27]>> Okay.

[00:13:28]>> Also, judge, the um Senate Bill 408 makes the changes retroactive.

[00:13:34]>> I mean, they were pretty when they wanted to change that statute, they changed it. And so, um I to answer your question, yes, I think you have the authority to make that finding today.

[00:13:47]>> Okay. Okay. Okay.

[00:13:49]>> That's why I was bringing that up.

[00:13:50]Sorry.

[00:13:51]>> Okay. Okay. Well, that's what I wanted to do in the beginning, but it appeared that I couldn't. And that's fine. Um, but I understand that things change sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

[00:14:04]But I like I said, I think when these tests have gotten so good, the tests and the child is, you know, under the age of three and there's no um relationship that's established that it is just a wise thing to do. So, but anyway, I will um Miss Jackson, I'm going to have you raise your right hand, please.

[00:14:30]You do solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth shall help you, God.

[00:14:38]Yep.

[00:14:39]>> Okay. And um you do you understand that um Jacob is uh McMullen is wanting to set aside um the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. Yes, I do.

[00:15:00]>> And you understand that he's identified who he thinks the father might be, but most importantly, he just wants to be excluded if he's not the father.

[00:15:12]>> Yes, I do. I >> go ahead.

[00:15:15]>> I was going to say I do have proof over text of Jacob saying that he is the father when we were like in the when we broke up when he texted me. But I do have proof of him saying that he is that my son, our son is his and that he's the father.

[00:15:31]>> Okay. Well, but you you understand that a genetic testing is going to confirm or deny that?

[00:15:42]>> Yes, I do understand.

[00:15:43]>> Okay. And do you have a a reason why you believe it's not in the child's best interest for the court to just answer the question once and for all by just ordering the genetic testing?

[00:15:55]>> I do not I like I do not mind, but I just wanted to put it out there that I do have proof. That's the one reason why, but I am down to do the genetic testing.

[00:16:09]>> Right. And I think the point that you're making that you should make that should be acknowledged is you would not when you get any benefits from a state, you're required to um give them the authority to find father and make father pay child support. Um and you even if you don't want a father, somebody doesn't want a father involved because they don't think they're good for the child. um they can't even prevent that from happening um even on that basis. So um it is when you disclose a potential father to them um it is a big deal. Um, and of course you have the VAP here, so that's a little bit different. But um I understand that you don't want to make it appear that you without any basis or that you had a belief that someone else was the father and you um just told Jacob that he was that you have a reasonable basis to believe yourself and a reasonable basis to believe that he uh at some point conceded that he was the father. And this isn't something that you've contrived or um falsified or made up. Is that a fair statement?

[00:17:32]>> Yeah.

[00:17:33]>> Okay.

[00:17:34]>> Okay. Well, I understand that um that you don't want me to just find it as if maybe you you just um tried to make him the father when he when there was no reason to believe that he was the father because I don't think that's what you did at all. Um, so I uh am going to Well, let me ask you this. How how much contact I think we talked about this before.

[00:18:01]Did you mo did you move to Newton or am I confused?

[00:18:06]>> I moved in Andover back to Andover.

[00:18:09]>> Okay. But how much contact has he had?

[00:18:13]>> It's been about since end of December around December.

[00:18:24]>> Okay.

[00:18:24]>> We broke up at the last month of November of 2024 >> and we still had a little contact, but he did contact me last year about this all. He said all this for a DNA test. That's all he said and that's the last thing I heard. But it wasn't anything about my son. So, I did not respond.

[00:18:47]>> Okay. Okay. Well, I am going to find that there is not a substantial relationship um between him and his son. I am a little concerned that the child has his name and I'm not sure how we how we're going to look at that or handle that. And I do now with ordering the gen genetic testing. Um I I do understand a little bit uh why um Miss Adams would ask um that this other individual be joined just to make sure that if her client is excluded um that your son isn't without a an identified father who will be required to uh pay support and that kind of thing. But, um, I'm going to assume that you would just like to stick with determining whether or not Jacob is the father at this point.

[00:19:54]>> At this point, your honor, I will I will stick with that.

[00:19:57]>> Okay. All right. Well, again, I'll find there's not a substantial relationship that it is in the child's best interest uh to um have a determination of whether or not the petitioner plan is in fact um the biological father or natural father of the child.

[00:20:18]Uh given the um age of the child and given the fact that the parties were never married. Um and uh so I will order genetic testing. Now will DCF pay for that testing if it's ordered by the court or does that have to be ordered in the support case?

[00:20:41]>> No, your honor. I I believe DCF will pay for it.

[00:20:44]>> Okay.

[00:20:46]So, unless something's changed, um, Miss Jackson, you will have to provide, um, it used to be blood. I don't know.

[00:20:58]You have to provide a sample. They'll have to take a sample from the child and then they'll take a sample from from Jacob.

[00:21:08]Can you update me, Miss Hawk, on the testing process a little bit?

[00:21:13]>> Yeah. I believe it's a swab. Um, so >> good.

[00:21:16]>> Uh, once we get the order back, um, signed from the court, uh, we'll get appointments scheduled. They'll be scheduled at the closest testing center to each, uh, party and then, um, some mother would take the child in. Uh, she'll get the the appointment slip in the mail and, um, she'll just show up for that appointment at that date and time with the child. They'll take a swab. Um, same for the father. He'll get that in the mail, show up for his appointment, and then um they'll provide the results to us.

[00:21:45]>> Okay.

[00:21:47]Um so good. No, no blood tests anymore, just a DNA swap.

[00:21:53]>> So, um and do you use a private clinic?

[00:21:57]What's the turnaround on that?

[00:21:59]>> Uh I think we almost exclusively use LabCore unless they're not available um in that area, which I think they are for campus. Um, uh, turnaround is is really I would say as long as everybody shows up to their first appointment, um, probably could have results back within 60 days.

[00:22:21]>> Okay.

[00:22:23]All right. Then I'm going to go ahead and keep this uh on the docket for May, June.

[00:22:48]I have a domestic date Friday, July 10th. Does that work?

[00:22:54]I'm looking, your honor.

[00:22:57]It works for me.

[00:23:01]I believe so. Let me double check your That works for DC.

[00:23:09]>> I have 9 to 12.

[00:23:12]Uh, then I have first appearances 1:30, 2:30. So, I probably couldn't do it in the afternoon any earlier than 3.

[00:23:22]>> 9 to 12 is fine with me.

[00:23:26]>> Okay. Um, Miss Jackson.

[00:23:29]>> Yes.

[00:23:30]>> This will just be a status. Um, you can appear by Zoom if you have the link. Do you have high-speed internet and a um smartphone or a computer that you can download the Zoom app and participate by Zoom?

[00:23:50]>> Yeah, I do.

[00:23:51]>> Okay. You're free to do that for the next hearing.

[00:23:55]>> Okay.

[00:23:55]>> Okay. So that you don't have to travel anywhere. Um and is there a time you would prefer in the morning?

[00:24:03]>> Um it doesn't really matter to me. Okay, let's do 10:00.

[00:24:09]>> Okay.

[00:24:10]>> On the 10th.

[00:24:13]So, July 10th at 10.

[00:24:15]>> Okay.

[00:24:16]>> All right. And I'm going to take it off the trial calendar at this point.

[00:24:28]All right. Very good.

[00:24:31]If there's nothing further today, we are adjourned. and I appreciate everyone appearing.

[00:24:36]>> Your honor, I just have one more thing.

[00:24:38]>> Yes.

[00:24:38]>> Would Miss Adams um like to review the order for genetic testing prior to me submitting it to you or would she like to wave signature?

[00:24:46]>> Just wave signature.

[00:24:47]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:24:48]>> I trust you.

[00:24:49]>> Yeah, that'll move it faster.

[00:24:50]>> Yeah.

[00:24:51]>> Yeah. Good. All right. And it should move faster with dad being a willing participant.

[00:24:57]>> Oh. Oh, he will show up when when >> Okay. R.