(1) The signing of a notarized acknowledgment, whether under section 43-1408.01 or otherwise, by the alleged father shall create a rebuttable presumption of paternity as against the alleged father.
(2) The signed, notarized acknowledgment is subject to the right of any signatory to rescind the acknowledgment within the earlier of (a) sixty days or (b) the date of an administrative or judicial proceeding relating to the child, including a proceeding to establish a support order in which the signatory is a party.
(3)(a) After the rescission period, a signed, notarized acknowledgment is considered a legal finding of paternity. Such legal finding of paternity may be challenged and set aside only:
(i) On the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact; or
(ii)(A) By a person who has reason to believe he is the biological father of the child, on the basis of scientifically reliable genetic testing that establishes that such person is the biological father of the child and that the acknowledged father is not the biological father of the child. Such genetic testing shall be performed by a laboratory accredited by the College of American Pathologists or any other national accrediting body or public agency which has requirements that are substantially equivalent to or more comprehensive than those of the college.
(B) A challenge under subdivision (3)(a)(ii)(A) of this section that is filed on or after April 15, 2026, shall only be brought by a person who is also seeking to establish paternity in himself. This requirement does not apply to cases pending on April 15, 2026.
(b) In a challenge under this subsection, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenger, and the legal responsibilities, including the child support obligation, of any signatory arising from the acknowledgment shall not be suspended during the challenge, except for good cause shown.
(4) Such a signed and notarized acknowledgment or a certified copy or certified reproduction thereof shall be admissible in evidence in any proceeding to establish support.
(5) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (3)(a)(ii)(B) of this section, the changes made to this section by Laws 2026, LB935, apply to actions under sections 43-1401 to 43-1418 that are pending on April 15, 2026, and to cases filed on or after such date.
Notes of Decisions
In re Adoption of Jaelyn B., 293 Neb. 917 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 3× “We noted that the Legislature added the “‘legal finding’” provision to comply with a federal mandate as a condition for financial aid.”
State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt, 573 N.W.2d 425 (Neb. 1998).
· cites it 6× “At the time of Keith’s birth in 1992, § 43-1409 (Reissue 1988) provided in part: A person may state in writing that he is the father of a child or perform acts, such as furnishing of support, which reasonably indicate that he considers himself to be the father of such child, and…”
Tyler F. v. Sara P., 306 Neb. 397 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 6× “8 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1409 (Reissue 2016) establishes this legal effect and provides: The signing of a notarized acknowledgment, whether under section 43-1408.”
State on Behalf of JR v. Mendoza, 481 N.W.2d 165 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 11× “Subsumed in the defendant’s first assignment of error is an argument regarding the effect of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1409 (Reissue 1988).”
Benjamin M. v. Jeri S., 307 Neb. 733 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 6× “The district court discussed Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1409 (Reissue 2016), which recognizes that a signed, notarized acknowledgment of paternity can be rescinded within the earlier of 60 days or the date of a judi- cial proceeding relating to the child, including a proceeding to…”
Quintela v. Quintela, 544 N.W.2d 111 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 10× “See § 43-1409 (Reissue 1993). The statute was amended, however, and as of July 1, 1994, an alleged father can be found to have acknowledged paternity only if he executes a notarized writing indicating that he considers himself to be the father.”
In re Interest of Kodi L., 287 Neb. 35 (Neb. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1409 (Reissue 2008), a notarized acknowledgment of paternity creates a rebuttable presumption of paternity that can be challenged only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact.”
State on Behalf of State of Florida v. Julio G., 303 Neb. 207 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 13× “Because we conclude that such appointment is required by due process, we reject the State's claim to the contrary and, accordingly, affirm. STATEMENT OF FACTS Mia G.”
Smith v. King, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 152 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
“See, § 43-1409 (signing of notarized acknowledgment, whether under § 43-1408.”
Evan S. v. Laura H., 990 N.W.2d 27 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 8× “, supra, the Supreme Court looked to the language of the paternity stat- utes, including § 43-1409, which explicitly states that after the expiration of a 60-day rescission period, “a signed, notarized acknowledgment is considered a legal finding which may be challenged only on…”
Dylan H. v. Brooke C., 317 Neb. 264 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 3× “Thereafter, Dylan filed a verified third-party complaint in this action under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1409 (Reissue 2016) against Brooke and Brandon to disestablish Brandon’s paternity on the basis of fraud and material mistake of fact.”
State on behalf of B.M. v. Brian F. (Neb. 2014).
· cites it 57× “Because of the genetic testing results, in an order filed October 29, 2012, the district court for Douglas County treated the action as a challenge to the acknowledgment, as though pursued under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1409 (Reissue 2008); “[set] aside the finding of paternity,” as…”
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.