B.E.B. v. R.L.B.
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRYNER, Justice.
This case requires us to chart the boundaries of the paternity by estoppel doctrine. B.E.B. was not the biological father of his wife R.L.B.’s newborn son, K., but for several years treated K. as his own son. When B.E.B. and R.L.B. eventually divorced, the superior court ordered B.E.B. to make ongoing child support payments, finding that, in order to prevent K. from suffering emotional harm, B.E.B. should be estopped from denying paternity. We reverse, adopting the majority view of paternity by estoppel. Under this view, we apply the doctrine to prevent financial, not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Jamison v. Consolidated Utilities, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1978
- Clevenger v. ClevengerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Knill v. KnillCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Wright v. BlackAlaska Supreme Court · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Kaiser v. SakataAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
- Olivit v. City and Borough of JuneauAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
- S.R.D. v. T.L.B.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2005
- Debra P. v. Laurence S.Alaska Supreme Court · 2013
- T.P.D. v. A.C.D.Alaska Supreme Court · 1999
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.