Finality in Parentage: The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirms Limits on Challenging Voluntary Acknowledgments of Paternity
In a recent decision, A.D. v. K.S., SJC-13665 (April 24, 2025), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed the critical question of when, if ever, a biological father may challenge a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage after the statutory deadlines have passed.
Consequently, the ruling reinforces the finality of parentage acknowledgments under Massachusetts law, emphasizing that once the statute of repose set forth in G.L. c. 209C, § 11 expires, the acknowledgment is binding—even if new genetic evidence reveals a different biological father.
In this regard, this case underscores key issues for parents, prospective parents, and family law attorneys in Massachusetts. It concerns paternity, biological relationships, and legal parentage.
The Facts: Two Fathers, One Legal Parent
The case involves a child born in May 2017 to an unmarried woman. Immediately following the child’s birth, the mother and another man, Q.T., executed a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage (VAP). As required by law, the VAP was properly filed with the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics. Consequently, Q.T. was listed on the child’s birth certificate and assumed the legal responsibilities of fatherhood.
However, several years later, genetic testing revealed that another man, K.S., was in fact the child’s biological father. Upon discovering this, K.S. filed a Probate and Family Court complaint. He sought adjudication as the child’s father, despite the unchallenged VAP.
His efforts raised a complex question. Can biological parentage override legal parentage after statutory deadlines to rescind a VAP expire?
Procedural History: The Challenge to Legal Finality
Initially, the Probate and Family Court judge declined to dismiss K.S.’s complaint. The court reasoned that it might be inequitable to allow the VAP to stand unchallenged in light of the biological evidence.
However, on interlocutory appeal, the SJC took the opportunity to clarify the law and provide guidance for future cases involving late challenges to parentage determinations.
The court’s focus was not on the equities of the individual situation, but rather on the meaning and enforceability of Massachusetts statutes governing parentage.
The Legal Framework: Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage and Statutory Deadlines
Under Massachusetts law, parentage for children born to unmarried parents can be established through a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage pursuant to G.L. c. 209C, § 11. This form, when properly executed and filed, carries the full legal effect of a court adjudication of parentage.
Notably, the statute imposes strict limits on when a VAP may be challenged:
- 60 days from signing, for any reason; or
- Up to one year after signing, if the challenge is based on allegations of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact.
If no timely challenge is made, the acknowledgment becomes final and irrevocable. The statute is not merely procedural—it embodies a statute of repose, designed to extinguish the right to contest parentage after the designated period has passed.
This design reflects a strong public policy: to promote the stability of family relationships and the welfare of children by providing certainty about who their legal parents are.
The SJC’s Decision: Upholding the Statute of Repose
In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Kimberly S. Budd, the SJC reaffirmed that the statutory deadlines governing VAP challenges are strict and mandatory. Once the statutory period expires, neither biological facts nor equitable considerations can undo the acknowledgment.
The Court emphasized several key principles:
- Statutory Repose Reflects Strong Public Policy
The repose provisions of G.L. c. 209C, § 11 are not mere technicalities. They serve critical societal interests by ensuring that parentage determinations are stable and final, protecting children from the uncertainty and instability that could result from belated challenges. - Equitable Powers Do Not Override Express Statutory Limits
While courts possess broad equitable authority in many family law matters, they cannot disregard or rewrite clear statutory provisions. The SJC firmly rejected the notion that judges may invoke equity to circumvent the statutory deadlines. - Biological Parentage is Not Dispositive
Although biological relationships are important, Massachusetts law recognizes that legal parentage—the parentage established through VAPs or adjudications—is equally, and often more, critical to protecting the best interests of the child. - Finality Protects Children’s Best Interests
Permitting challenges years after an acknowledgment has been finalized would risk destabilizing the emotional and financial foundations on which children rely. The law favors finality to promote the child’s welfare, not the biological parent’s interests.
Applying these principles, the SJC held that K.S.’s attempt to establish his paternity years after the VAP had been signed and filed was barred. The acknowledgment naming Q.T. as the child’s father remained legally binding.
Why This Case Matters: Lessons for Parents and Practitioners
The SJC’s decision in A.D. v. K.S. carries important lessons for anyone involved in parentage matters in Massachusetts.
1. Signing a VAP is a Serious Legal Act
Executing a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage is not just a formality. It carries the full legal force of a judicial finding. Individuals should seek legal advice before signing a VAP, particularly if there is any uncertainty about biological parentage.
Once signed and filed, the VAP establishes permanent legal rights and obligations, including custody, parenting time, and financial support.
2. Deadlines Are Strict and Final
Anyone wishing to challenge a VAP must act quickly. The initial 60-day period provides a window for reconsideration. Beyond that, the door closes rapidly: only limited challenges based on fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact are allowed within the first year.
After one year, the acknowledgment is conclusive, even in the face of DNA evidence.
3. Biological Truth vs. Legal Stability
This decision illustrates a profound reality of family law: biological truth is not always determinative. Rather, the law prioritizes legal stability and the best interests of the child over biological parentage when conflicts arise.
For children, stability in parental relationships is often more important than genetic links. Massachusetts law reflects that understanding.
4. Courts Cannot Create New Exceptions
Family law judges are often called upon to do equity and to craft creative solutions. But, as A.D. v. K.S. makes clear, courts cannot rewrite statutes. Where the Legislature has provided clear rules—especially statutes of repose—judges must apply them as written.
This limitation promotes predictability and fairness for all parties involved.
Conclusion: Certainty, Stability, and the Best Interests of the Child
The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in A.D. v. K.S. sends a clear and resounding message: once parentage is established through a properly executed Voluntary Acknowledgment, it is final after the statutory periods expire.
In conclusion, challenges to parentage must be made promptly, and litigants cannot rely on equitable arguments or newly discovered biological facts years later to undo the acknowledgment.
At Turco Legal, we understand the profound implications of parentage determinations. Whether you are considering signing a VAP, facing a paternity dispute, or navigating the complex intersections of biological and legal parentage, we are here to provide trusted guidance tailored to your family’s needs.
If you have questions about paternity, parentage, or your rights under Massachusetts family law, contact us today to schedule a consultation. We are committed to helping you move forward with clarity and confidence.