In Re the Marriage of K.E.V.

specially concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with that part of the majority’s opinion which affirms the District Court’s finding and conclusion that the doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes M.L.V. from contesting the presumed father-child relationship between K.E.V. and K.R.V.

I dissent from that part of the majority’s opinion which concludes that M.L.V.’s challenge to K.E.V.’s paternity is not barred by the statute of limitations found at § 40-6-108(l)(b), MCA (1983).

The majority’s conclusion that M.L.V.’s challenge to K.E.V.’s paternity was not barred by the statute of…