NRS
126.053 Voluntary acknowledgment of paternity or parentage.
1. After the expiration of the period
described in subsection 2, a declaration for the voluntary acknowledgment of
paternity developed by the State Board of Health pursuant to NRS 440.283 or a declaration for the
voluntary acknowledgment of parentage developed by the State Board of Health
pursuant to NRS 440.285 shall be deemed
to have the same effect as a judgment or order of a court determining the
existence of the relationship of parent and child if the declaration is signed
in this or any other state by the parents of the child. A declaration for the
voluntary acknowledgment of paternity or a declaration for the voluntary
acknowledgment of parentage that is signed pursuant to this subsection is not
required to be ratified by a court of this State before the declaration is
deemed to have the same effect as a judgment or order of a court determining
the existence of the relationship of parent and child.
2. A person who signs an acknowledgment of
paternity or an acknowledgment of parentage in this State may rescind the
acknowledgment:
(a) Within 60 days after the acknowledgment is
signed by both persons; or
(b) Before the date on which an administrative or
judicial proceeding relating to the child begins if that person is a party to
the proceeding,
Ê whichever
occurs earlier.
3. After the expiration of the period
during which an acknowledgment may be rescinded pursuant to subsection 2, the
acknowledgment may not be challenged except upon the grounds of fraud, duress
or material mistake of fact. The burden of proof is on the person challenging
the acknowledgment to establish that the acknowledgment was signed because of
fraud, duress or material mistake of fact.
4. Except upon a showing of good cause, a
person’s obligation for the support of a child must not be suspended during a
hearing to challenge a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity or a voluntary
acknowledgment of parentage.
(Added to NRS by 1997,
2301; A 2007,
1524; 2017,
245)
ACTION TO DETERMINE PATERNITY
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case:
St. Mary v. Damon, 309 P.3d 1027 (Nev. 2013).
St. Mary v. Damon, 309 P.3d 1027 (Nev. 2013).
“051(1)(a)-(c), presumptions based on receiving the child into the home and openly holding oneself out as a parent, NRS 126.”
Jamie Kirkpatrick v. Cnty. of Washoe, 792 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2015).
“See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 126.053 (providing that a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity declaration is “deemed to have the same effect as a judgment or order of a court determining the existence of the relationship of parent and child if the declaration is signed .”
Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 3× “See NRS 126.053(3) (providing that a signed VAP may be challenged.”
Franceschi v. Pernia (Child Custody) (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 13× “However, the majority ignores that the district court dismissed this case based primarily on the legal conclusion that under NRS 126.053 voluntary acknowledgments of paternity (VAPs) control the designation of paternity over court-ordered genetic tests.”
Druckman v. Ruscitti, 2014 NV 50 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 8× “The two never married, but Ian voluntarily established himself as the child's father with a written acknowledgment of paternity under NRS 126.053. After the child's birth, the parties lived and parented the child together but did not have a judicial child custody order.”
Druckman v. Ruscitti, 2014 NV 50 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 4× “The two never married, but Ian voluntarily established himself as the child's father with a written acknowledgment of paternity under NRS 126.053. After the child's birth, the parties lived and parented the child together but did not have a judicial child custody order.”
Hammer v. Rasmussen (Nev. 2017).
“While the father and appellant executed a voluntary declaration of paternity, which has the same effect as a written court order, NRS 126.053(1), the district court failed to consider the effect of 'We note that even if we were able to reach this issue, resolution of it here…”
Martinez v. Avila, Jr. (child Custody), 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022).
“5Rosie and Henry additionaily argue that the district court exceeded the scope of remand by considering the issue of fraud. We disagree. The district court merely followed the procedures set forth in NRS Chanter 126, as we instructed, to determine paternity and considered…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 126.053(1) — 4 cases
Druckman v. Ruscitti, 2014 NV 50 (Nev. 2014).
“The two never married, but Ian voluntarily established himself as the child's father with a written acknowledgment of paternity under NRS 126.053. After the child's birth, the parties lived and parented the child together but did not have a judicial child custody order.”
Franceschi v. Pernia (Child Custody) (Nev. 2015).
“However, the majority ignores that the district court dismissed this case based primarily on the legal conclusion that under NRS 126.053 voluntary acknowledgments of paternity (VAPs) control the designation of paternity over court-ordered genetic tests.”
Druckman v. Ruscitti, 2014 NV 50 (Nev. 2014).
“The two never married, but Ian voluntarily established himself as the child's father with a written acknowledgment of paternity under NRS 126.053. After the child's birth, the parties lived and parented the child together but did not have a judicial child custody order.”
Hammer v. Rasmussen (Nev. 2017).
“While the father and appellant executed a voluntary declaration of paternity, which has the same effect as a written court order, NRS 126.053(1), the district court failed to consider the effect of 'We note that even if we were able to reach this issue, resolution of it here…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 126.053(2) — 1 case
Franceschi v. Pernia (Child Custody) (Nev. 2015).
“However, the majority ignores that the district court dismissed this case based primarily on the legal conclusion that under NRS 126.053 voluntary acknowledgments of paternity (VAPs) control the designation of paternity over court-ordered genetic tests.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 126.053(3) — 2 cases
Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 126.053(3) (providing that a signed VAP may be challenged.”
Franceschi v. Pernia (Child Custody) (Nev. 2015).
“However, the majority ignores that the district court dismissed this case based primarily on the legal conclusion that under NRS 126.053 voluntary acknowledgments of paternity (VAPs) control the designation of paternity over court-ordered genetic tests.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 126.053(8) — 1 case
Martinez v. Avila, Jr. (child Custody), 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022).
“5Rosie and Henry additionaily argue that the district court exceeded the scope of remand by considering the issue of fraud. We disagree. The district court merely followed the procedures set forth in NRS Chanter 126, as we instructed, to determine paternity and considered…”
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.