Sec. 160.308. CHALLENGE AFTER EXPIRATION OF PERIOD FOR RESCISSION.
(a) After the period for rescission under Section 160.307 has expired, a signatory of an acknowledgment of paternity or denial of paternity may commence a proceeding to challenge the acknowledgment or denial only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The proceeding may be commenced at any time before the issuance of an order affecting the child identified in the acknowledgment or denial, including an order relating to support of the child.
(b) A party challenging an acknowledgment of paternity or denial of paternity has the burden of proof.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a collateral attack on an acknowledgment of paternity signed under this chapter may not be maintained after the issuance of an order affecting the child identified in the acknowledgment, including an order relating to support of the child.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a), evidence that, based on genetic testing, the man who is the signatory of an acknowledgement of paternity is not rebuttably identified as the father of a child in accordance with Section 160.505 constitutes a material mistake of fact.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1.01, eff. June 14, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 478 (H.B. 209), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1221 (S.B. 502), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
In Re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Likewise, Texas Family Code section 160.308, offered as authority by P.”
In Re C.S., Relator, 277 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.308 (a) (Vernon Supp.”
in Re the Dallas Grp. of Am., Inc. & Action Pers., Inc., 434 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. App. 2014).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.308 (allowing signatory of acknowledgment of paternity to challenge acknowledgment on bases of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, but only before issuance of order affecting child identified in acknowledgment).”
In Re McMillan, 265 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App. 2008).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.308 (West Supp.2008).”
in the Interest of S.R.B., 262 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App. 2008).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.308(a). Thomas was a minor when she signed the AOP; but, Flowers was not a minor when he signed it.”
In Re Cs, 277 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.308 (a) (Vernon Supp.”
in the Interest of A.M.S., a Child (Tex. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Fraud Alternatively, in response to Leedy’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment, Solbakken argued that in the event the trial court found an executed AOP, it was the product of fraud or coercion. Texas Family Code § 160.”
In Re Srb, 262 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.308(a). Thomas was a minor when she signed the AOP; but, Flowers was not a minor when he signed it.”
in the Interest of E.H.L v. (Tex. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “Laws 1337 , 1337 (amended 2011) (current version at Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.308 ). 1 paternity he signed in 2005.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 160.308(a) — 12 cases
In Re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App. 2008).
“Likewise, Texas Family Code section 160.308, offered as authority by P.”
In Re C.S., Relator, 277 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App. 2009).
“See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.308 (a) (Vernon Supp.”
in the Interest of S.R.B., 262 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App. 2008).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.308(a). Thomas was a minor when she signed the AOP; but, Flowers was not a minor when he signed it.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 160.308(c) — 2 cases
— Tex. Fam. Code § 160.308(d) — 3 cases
In Re C.S., Relator, 277 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App. 2009).
“See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.308 (a) (Vernon Supp.”
In Re Cs, 277 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App. 2009).
“See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.308 (a) (Vernon Supp.”
In Re Srb, 262 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App. 2008).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.308(a). Thomas was a minor when she signed the AOP; but, Flowers was not a minor when he signed it.”
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.