210.822. Presumption of paternity — rebuttal of presumption, standard of proof. — 1. A man shall be presumed to be the natural father of a child if:
(1) He and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage, or within three hundred days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or dissolution, or after a decree of separation is entered by a court; or
(2) Before the child's birth, he and the child's natural mother have attempted to marry each other by a marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with the law, although the attempted marriage is or may be declared invalid, and:
(a) If the attempted marriage may be declared invalid only by a court, the child is born during the attempted marriage or within three hundred days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity or dissolution; or
(b) If the marriage is invalid without a court order, the child is born within three hundred days after the termination of cohabitation; or
(3) After the child's birth, he and the child's natural mother have married or attempted to marry each other by a marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law, although the marriage is or may be declared invalid, and:
(a) He has acknowledged his paternity of the child in writing filed with the bureau; or
(b) With his consent, he is named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate; or
(c) He is obligated to support the child pursuant to a written voluntary promise or by court order; or
(4) An expert concludes that the blood tests show that the alleged parent is not excluded and that the probability of paternity is ninety-eight percent or higher, using a prior probability of 0.5.
2. A presumption pursuant to this section may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence, except that a presumption under subsection 1 of this section that arises from a blood test or the filing of an acknowledgment of paternity in a state or territory in which the blood test or the filing creates a conclusive presumption by law also has conclusive effect in Missouri. If two or more presumptions arise which conflict with each other, the presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls. The presumption is rebutted by a court decree establishing the paternity of the child by another man.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
53
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case:
White v. White, 293 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
White v. White, 293 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 13× “That section provides, in pertinent part: An action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship with respect to a child who has no presumed father under section 210.822 may be brought by the child, the mother or the person who has legal custody of the child,…”
Courtney ex rel. Courtney v. Roggy, 302 S.W.3d 141 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 24× “2 Section 210.822 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 4 states, in pertinent part: *146 1.”
State ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enf't v. Hill, 53 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 15× “1988, and the five-year statute of limitations contained therein, governed actions to declare the nonexistence of the presumed father and child relationship as that presumption was defined in subdivisions (1), (2), or (3) of subsection 1 of § 210.822, RSMo Supp. 1988.…”
LeSage v. Dirt Cheap Cigarettes & Beer, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. 2003).
· cites it 16× “836 provides a list of various sources of evidence that can establish paternity, and section 210.822 provides situations where there is a presumption of paternity.”
In re Adoption of NLBMT v. Lentz, 212 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. 2007).
· cites it 7× “040, when the person sought to be adopted is under the age of eighteen years, the written consent of the following persons shall be required and filed in and made a part of the files and record of the proceeding: (1) The mother of the child; and (2) Any man who: (a) Is presumed…”
In re Marriage of Fry, 108 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 7× “8 In a 1993 amendment of URESA, the legislature provided that “[i]n any proceeding under [this Act] in which paternity is at issue, the provisions of sections 210.822 and 210.834, RSMo, shall apply.”
Dice v. Darling, 974 S.W.2d 641 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 10× “And, in their third subpoint, they claim that since the amendment to § 210.822, creating the presumption of paternity for a positive blood test, does not specifically provide for a time limit within which an initial presumption of paternity must be established, such a…”
State v. Salazar, 236 S.W.3d 644 (Mo. 2007).
· cites it 4× “1 authorized the DSCE to issue the order because Salazar was "presumed to be the child's father pursuant to section 210.822. . . ." The DSCE then docketed the default order with the circuit court pursuant to section 454.”
Smith v. Smith, 985 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 9× “1 provides: A child, his natural mother, a man presumed to be his father under subdivision (1), (2), or (3) of subsection 1 of section 210.822, a man alleging himself to be a father or the division of child support enforcement may bring an action at any time for the purpose of…”
State ex rel. State of Illinois v. Schaumann, 918 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “834 are provisions of the UPA which inter alia establish relevant presumptions and burdens of proof in paternity actions. Additionally, they authorize and detail the blood testing procedures to be used to resolve paternity claims.”
Truong v. Truong, 564 S.W.3d 761 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “" The UPA acknowledges a presumption of paternity in various circumstances described by Section 210.822. Section 210.822 states that: *766 1.”
State v. Tuckness, 949 S.W.2d 651 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 5× “The trial court found that based on the blood tests and testimony, Tuckness was presumed to be the natural father under § 210.822, subd. 1(5), RSMo 1994. 1 To rebut the presumption of paternity, Tuckness testified and again offered into evidence, over the State’s objection, four…”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 210.822(1): 2 cases
In re Marriage of Fry, 108 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
“8 In a 1993 amendment of URESA, the legislature provided that “[i]n any proceeding under [this Act] in which paternity is at issue, the provisions of sections 210.822 and 210.834, RSMo, shall apply.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 210.822(2): 1 case
In re Marriage of Fry, 108 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
“8 In a 1993 amendment of URESA, the legislature provided that “[i]n any proceeding under [this Act] in which paternity is at issue, the provisions of sections 210.822 and 210.834, RSMo, shall apply.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.