UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT
(Last Amended or Revised in 2002)
drafted by the
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
and by it
APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT
at its
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-NINTH YEAR
ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA
JULY 28 – AUGUST 4, 2000
WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS
Approved by the American Bar Association
Seattle, Washington, February 10, 2003
For an electronic version of the Act, see
www.nccusl.org http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ulc_frame.htm
December 2002
DRAFTING COMMITTEE TO REVISE
HARRY L. TINDALL, 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2200, Houston, TX 77056-3014, Chair
JACK DAVIES, 687 Woodridge Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1809
FRANK W. DAYKIN, 4745 Giles Way, Carson City, NV 89704-9158, Committee on Style Liaison
GAIL H. HAGERTY, P.O. Box 1013, 514 E. Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58502-1013
LYLE W. HILLYARD, 175 E. 100 N., Logan, UT 84321-4688
PETER K. MUNSON, P.O. Box 1949, 123 S. Travis Street, Sherman, TX 75091-1949
JAMES C. NELSON, Montana Supreme Court, 215 N. Sanders Street, Room 425, P.O. Box 20031, Helena, MT 59601-4522
ARTHUR H. PETERSON, 350 N. Franklin Street, Juneau, AK 99801-1148, Enactment Plan Coordinator
ELWAINE F. POMEROY, 1415 S.W. Topeka Boulevard, Topeka, KS 66612-1818
JOHN J. SAMPSON, University of Texas Law School, 727 E. Dean Keeton Street, Austin, TX 78705-3299, Reporter
EX OFFICIO
JOHN L. McCLAUGHERTY, P.O. Box 553, Charleston, WV 25332-0533, President
ROBERT C. ROBINSON, P.O. Box 568, 12 Portland Pier, Portland, ME 04112-0568, Division Chair
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADVISOR
NINA VITEK, 222 E. Mason Street, 2nd Floor, Milwaukee, WI 53202-3602
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FRED H. MILLER, University of Oklahoma, College of Law, 300 Timberdell Road, Norman, OK 73019, Executive Director
WILLIAM J. PIERCE, 1505 Roxbury Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, Executive Director Emeritus
OBSERVERS
RICHARD K. BAYS, Nat’l. Assoc. for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems, 1100 W. 49th St., Austin, TX 78756-3191
MARY LOUISE FELLOWS, American Law Institute, 229 19th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55455-0401
AMI JAEGER, Bio Law Group, 7 Ave. Vista Grande, Suite 7B-205, Santa Fe NM 87505
GEORGE C. MAHA, Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, 1440 York Court Extension, Burlington, NC 27215
SUSAN NOTAR, Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, 370 L’Enfant Promenade SW, Washington, D.C. 20447
WALLY MURRAY, Natl. District Attorneys’ Assoc., 206 10th Ave. S.E., Olympia, WA 98501-1333
SUSAN F. PAIKIN, Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Assoc., 13 Deer Run, Newark, DE 19711-2424
PAULA ROBERTS, Center for Law & Social Policy, 1616 P Street NW, Suite 150, Washington, D.C. 20036-1492
MARILYN RAY SMITH, Natl. Child Support Enforcement Assoc., 141 Portland St., 10th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139-1937
ELLEN A. YARRELL, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 1900 St. James Pl., Suite 850, Houston, TX 77056
UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
SECTION 102. DEFINITIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SECTION 103. SCOPE OF [ACT]; CHOICE OF LAW.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
SECTION 104. COURT OF THIS STATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SECTION 105. PROTECTION OF PARTICIPANTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SECTION 106. DETERMINATION OF MATERNITY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
ARTICLE 2
PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
SECTION 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
SECTION 202. NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON MARITAL STATUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
SECTION 203. CONSEQUENCES OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PARENTAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
SECTION 204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
ARTICLE 3
VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY
SECTION 301. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
SECTION 302. EXECUTION OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
SECTION 303. DENIAL OF PATERNITY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
SECTION 304. RULES FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DENIAL OF PATERNITY.. . . . . . . .19
SECTION 305. EFFECT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR DENIAL OF PATERNITY.. . . . . . . . . .20
SECTION 306. NO FILING FEE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
SECTION 307. PROCEEDING FOR RESCISSION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
SECTION 308. CHALLENGE AFTER EXPIRATION OF PERIOD FOR RESCISSION.. . . . . . . . 21
SECTION 309. PROCEDURE FOR RESCISSION OR CHALLENGE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
SECTION 310. RATIFICATION BARRED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
SECTION 311. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
SECTION 312. FORMS FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DENIAL OF PATERNITY.. . . . . . . 23
SECTION 313. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
SECTION 314. ADOPTION OF RULES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
ARTICLE 4
REGISTRY OF PATERNITY
SECTION 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
SECTION 402. REGISTRATION FOR NOTIFICATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
SECTION 403. NOTICE OF PROCEEDING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
SECTION 404. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS: CHILD UNDER ONE YEAR OF
AGE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
SECTION 405. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS: CHILD AT LEAST ONE YEAR
OF AGE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
PART 2
OPERATION OF REGISTRYSECTION 411. REQUIRED FORM.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
SECTION 412. FURNISHING OF INFORMATION; CONFIDENTIALITY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
SECTION 413. PENALTY FOR RELEASING INFORMATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
SECTION 414. RESCISSION OF REGISTRATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
SECTION 415. UNTIMELY REGISTRATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
SECTION 416. FEES FOR REGISTRY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
SECTION 421. SEARCH OF APPROPRIATE REGISTRY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
SECTION 422. CERTIFICATE OF SEARCH OF REGISTRY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
SECTION 423. ADMISSIBILITY OF REGISTERED INFORMATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
SECTION 501. SCOPE OF ARTICLE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
SECTION 502. ORDER FOR TESTING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
SECTION 503. REQUIREMENTS FOR GENETIC TESTING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
SECTION 504. REPORT OF GENETIC TESTING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
SECTION 505. GENETIC TESTING RESULTS; REBUTTAL.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
SECTION 506. COSTS OF GENETIC TESTING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
SECTION 507. ADDITIONAL GENETIC TESTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
SECTION 508. GENETIC TESTING WHEN SPECIMENS NOT AVAILABLE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
SECTION 509. DECEASED INDIVIDUAL.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
SECTION 510. IDENTICAL BROTHERS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
SECTION 511. CONFIDENTIALITY OF GENETIC TESTING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
ARTICLE 6
PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICATE PARENTAGE
SECTION 601. PROCEEDING AUTHORIZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
SECTION 602. STANDING TO MAINTAIN PROCEEDING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
SECTION 603. PARTIES TO PROCEEDING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
SECTION 604. PERSONAL JURISDICTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
SECTION 605. VENUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
SECTION 606. NO LIMITATION: CHILD HAVING NO PRESUMED,
ACKNOWLEDGED, OR ADJUDICATED FATHER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
SECTION 607. LIMITATION: CHILD HAVING PRESUMED FATHER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
SECTION 608. AUTHORITY TO DENY MOTION FOR GENETIC TESTING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
SECTION 609. LIMITATION: CHILD HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED OR ADJUDICATED
FATHER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
SECTION 610. JOINDER OF PROCEEDINGS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
SECTION 611. PROCEEDING BEFORE BIRTH.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
SECTION 612. CHILD AS PARTY; REPRESENTATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
PART 2
SPECIAL RULES FOR PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICATE PARENTAGE
SECTION 621. ADMISSIBILITY OF RESULTS OF GENETIC TESTING; EXPENSES.. . . . . . . .52
SECTION 622. CONSEQUENCES OF DECLINING GENETIC TESTING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
SECTION 623. ADMISSION OF PATERNITY AUTHORIZED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
SECTION 624. TEMPORARY ORDER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
PART 3
HEARINGS AND ADJUDICATION
SECTION 631. RULES FOR ADJUDICATION OF PATERNITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
SECTION 632. JURY PROHIBITED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
SECTION 633. HEARINGS; INSPECTION OF RECORDS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
SECTION 634. ORDER ON DEFAULT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
SECTION 635. DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
SECTION 636. ORDER ADJUDICATING PARENTAGE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
SECTION 637. BINDING EFFECT OF DETERMINATION OF PARENTAGE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
ARTICLE 7
CHILD OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
SECTION 701. SCOPE OF ARTICLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
SECTION 702. PARENTAL STATUS OF DONOR.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
SECTION 703. PATERNITY OF CHILD OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
SECTION 704. CONSENT TO ASSISTED REPRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
SECTION 705. LIMITATION ON HUSBAND’S DISPUTE OF PATERNITY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
SECTION 706. EFFECT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE OR WITHDRAWAL OF
CONSENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
SECTION 707. PARENTAL STATUS OF DECEASED INDIVIDUAL.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
ARTICLE 8
GESTATIONAL AGREEMENT
SECTION 801. GESTATIONAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
SECTION 802. REQUIREMENTS OF PETITION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
SECTION 803. HEARING TO VALIDATE GESTATIONAL AGREEMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
SECTION 804. INSPECTION OF RECORDS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
SECTION 805. EXCLUSIVE, CONTINUING JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
SECTION 806. TERMINATION OF GESTATIONAL AGREEMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
SECTION 807. PARENTAGE UNDER VALIDATED GESTATIONAL AGREEMENT.. . . . . . . .74
SECTION 808. GESTATIONAL AGREEMENT: EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE.. . . .75
SECTION 809. EFFECT OF NONVALIDATED GESTATIONAL AGREEMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . 75
ARTICLE 9
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SECTION 901. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
SECTION 902. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
SECTION 903. TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
SECTION 904. REPEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
SECTION 905. TRANSITIONAL PROVISION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
APPENDIX: FEDERAL IV-D STATUTE RELATING TO PARENTAGE
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has addressed the subject of parentage throughout the 20th Century. In 1922, the Conference promulgated the “Uniform Illegitimacy Act,” followed by the “Uniform Blood Tests To Determine Paternity Act” in 1952, the "Uniform Paternity Act" in 1960, and certain provisions in the “Uniform Probate Code” in 1969. The “Uniform Illegitimacy Act” was withdrawn by the Conference and none of the other Acts were widely adopted. As of June 1973, the Blood Tests to Determine Paternity Act had been enacted in nine states, the “Uniform Paternity Act” in four, and the “Uniform Probate Code” in five.
The most important uniform act addressing the status of the nonmarital child was the Uniform Parentage Act approved in 1973 [hereinafter referred to as UPA (1973)]. As of December, 2000, UPA (1973) was in effect in 19 states stretching from Delaware to California; in addition, many other states have enacted significant portions of it. Among the many notable features of this landmark Act was the declaration that all children should be treated equally without regard to marital status of the parents. In addition, the Act established a set of rules for presumptions of parentage, shunned the term “illegitimate,” and chose instead to employ the term “child with no presumed father.”
UPA (1973) had its genesis in a law review article, Harry D. Krause, A Proposed Uniform Act on Legitimacy, 44 Tex. L. Rev. 829 (1966); see also Krause, Equal Protection for the Illegitimate, 65 Mich. L. Rev. 477 (1967). Professor Krause followed with a pathfinding book, Illegitimacy: Law and Social Policy (1971), and then went on to serve as the reporter for UPA (1973). When work on the Act began, the notion of substantive legal equality of children regardless of the marital status of their parents seemed revolutionary. Even though the Conference had put itself on record in favor of equal rights of support and inheritance in the Paternity Act and the Probate Code, the law of many states continued to differentiate very significantly in the legal treatment of marital and nonmarital children. A series of United States Supreme Court decisions invalidating state inheritance, custody, and tort laws that disadvantaged out-of-wedlock children provided the both the impetus and a receptive climate for the Conference to promulgate UPA (1973).
Case law has not always reached consistent results in construing UPA (1973). Moreover, widely differing treatment on subjects not dealt with by the Act has been common. For example, California courts have held that a nonmarital father does not have standing to sue an intact family to assert his rights of fatherhood. Another UPA (1973) state, Colorado, has declared that under its state constitution the father may not be denied such rights. Texas, which has adopted many of the provisions of UPA (1973), reached much the same conclusion. Similarly, a judgment’s binding effect on the child or on others seeking to claim a benefit of the judgment or to attack the judgment collaterally is confused in the case law. Adding to the confusion is the fact that UPA (1973) is entirely silent regarding the relationship between a divorce and a determination of parentage. Finally, the incredible scientific advances in parentage testing since 1973 warrant a thoroughgoing revision of the Act.
Beginning in the 1980s, states began to adopt paternity registries in an attempt to deal with the risk of a man’s subsequent claim of paternity after the mother relinquishes a child for adoption. Although at that time the Conference rejected a paternity registry as a solution, it promulgated the Uniform Putative and Unknown Fathers Act in 1988 (UPUFA) to deal with the rights of such men. However, UPUFA has not been enacted by any state. In 1988 the Conference also adopted the Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act (USCACA). Assisted reproduction and gestational agreements became commonplace in the 1990s, long after the promulgation of UPA (1973). The USCACA resembled a model act more than a uniform act because it provided two opposing options regarding “gestational agreements.” To date, only two states have enacted USCACA, each choosing a different option.
The promulgation of the Uniform Parentage Act in 2000, as amended in 2002, is now the official recommendation of the Conference on the subject of parentage. This Act relegates to history all of the earlier uniform acts dealing with parentage, to wit, UPA (1973). UPUFA (1988), and USCACA (1988). The amendments of 2002 are the end-result of objections lodged by the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and the ABA Committee on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children, based on the view that in certain respects the 2000 version did not adequately treat a child of unmarried parents equally with a child of married parents. Because equal treatment of nonmarital children was a hallmark of the 1973 Act, the objections caused the drafters of the 2000 version to reconsider certain sections of the Act. Through extended discussion and a meeting of representatives of all the entities involved, a determination was made that the objections had merit. As a result of this process, the amendments shown in this Act were presented by mail ballot to the Commissioners and unanimously approved in November 2002.
In brief outline, UPA (2002) is structured as follows: Article 1, General Provisions, adds many new definitions to clarify the participants in determinations of parentage and adapt the Act to recent scientific developments. Article 2, Parent-Child Relationship, will look familiar to past users of UPA (1973) because it continues a number of the 1973 provisions with little or no change, while eliminating the ambiguous term “natural” to describe a genetic parent. Article 3, Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity, is entirely new and is driven by federal mandates that states provide simplified nonjudicial means to establish paternity, especially for newborns and young children. Article 4, Registry of Paternity, is entirely new and incorporates a tightly integrated registry law to deal with the rights of a man who is neither an acknowledged, presumed or adjudicated father. A primary goal of this article is to facilitate adoption proceedings. Article 5, Genetic Testing, comprehensively covers that subject in ten separate sections (the 1973 Act had one section on the subject). Article 6, Proceeding to Adjudicate Parentage, sets forth the parties to, and the procedures for, adjudicating parentage and challenging acknowledgments, presumptions, and judgments. Article 7, Child of Assisted Reproduction, recodifies USCACA (1988), but applies its provisions to nonmarital as well as marital children born as a result of assisted reproductive technologies. The bracketed Article 8, Gestational Agreement, is based upon USCACA (1988), but follows only the option that permits enforcement of a gestational agreement. Moreover, the Act makes a number of important changes in that option.
UPA (1973) contained a number of other substantive provisions, including those applicable to child support and custody. These subjects are omitted from UPA (2002) because other state law adequately provides for them.
Finally, Uniform Parentage Act (2002) is consistent with the provisions of two other uniform acts of great significance, namely the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act [UIFSA (1996) and UIFSA (2001)] and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA (1997)].
(Prefatory Note updated December 2002)
UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A word about a drafting convention of the Conference that appears throughout this Act. Brackets in the statutory text are inserted to warn legislative draftsmen in the several states that the suggested language is likely to be subject to local variation. For example, a State may not refer to UPA(2000) as an “[Act],” but may label it as a “chapter,”, “title,” etc. Often times the brackets flag terminology that is known to vary greatly, e.g., [petition], or is clearly subject to local option, e.g., [30 days].
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. This [Act] may be cited as the Uniform Parentage Act (2000).
SECTION 102. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act]:
(1) “Acknowledged father” means a man who has established a father-child relationship under [Article] 3.
(2) “Adjudicated father” means a man who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the father of a child.
(3) “Alleged father” means a man who alleges himself to be, or is alleged to be, the genetic father or a possible genetic father of a child, but whose paternity has not been determined. The term does not include:
(A) a presumed father;
(B) a man whose parental rights have been terminated or declared not to exist; or
(C) a male donor.
(4) “Assisted reproduction” means a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. The term includes:
(A) intrauterine insemination;
(B) donation of eggs;
(C) donation of embryos;
(D) in-vitro fertilization and transfer of embryos; and
(E) intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
(5) “Child” means an individual of any age whose parentage may be determined under this [Act].
(6) “Commence” means to file the initial pleading seeking an adjudication of parentage in [the appropriate court] of this State.
(7) “Determination of parentage” means the establishment of the parent-child relationship by the signing of a valid acknowledgment of paternity under [Article] 3 or adjudication by the court.
(8) “Donor” means an individual who produces eggs or sperm used for assisted reproduction, whether or not for consideration. The term does not include:
(A) a husband who provides sperm, or a wife who provides eggs, to be used for assisted reproduction by the wife;
(B) a woman who gives birth to a child by means of assisted reproduction [, except as otherwise provided in [Article] 8]; or
(C) a parent under Article 7 [or an intended parent under Article 8].
(9) “Ethnic or racial group” means, for purposes of genetic testing, a recognized group that an individual identifies as all or part of the individual’s ancestry or that is so identified by other information.
(10) “Genetic testing” means an analysis of genetic markers to exclude or identify a man as the father or a woman as the mother of a child. The term includes an analysis of one or a combination of the following:
(A) deoxyribonucleic acid; and
(B) blood-group antigens, red-cell antigens, human-leukocyte antigens, serum enzymes, serum proteins, or red-cell enzymes.
[(11) “Gestational mother” means an adult woman who gives birth to a child under a gestational agreement.]
(12) “Man” means a male individual of any age.
(13) “Parent” means an individual who has established a parent-child relationship under Section 201.
(14) “Parent-child relationship” means the legal relationship between a child and a parent of the child. The term includes the mother-child relationship and the father-child relationship.
(15) “Paternity index” means the likelihood of paternity calculated by computing the ratio between:
(A) the likelihood that the tested man is the father, based on the genetic markers of the tested man, mother, and child, conditioned on the hypothesis that the tested man is the father of the child; and
(B) the likelihood that the tested man is not the father, based on the genetic markers of the tested man, mother, and child, conditioned on the hypothesis that the tested man is not the father of the child and that the father is of the same ethnic or racial group as the tested man.
(16) “Presumed father” means a man who, by operation of law under Section 204, is recognized as the father of a child until that status is rebutted or confirmed in a judicial proceeding.
(17) “Probability of paternity” means the measure, for the ethnic or racial group to which the alleged father belongs, of the probability that the man in question is the father of the child, compared with a random, unrelated man of the same ethnic or racial group, expressed as a percentage incorporating the paternity index and a prior probability.
(18) “Record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
(19) “Signatory” means an individual who authenticates a record and is bound by its terms.
(20) “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(21) “Support-enforcement agency” means a public official or agency authorized to seek:
(A) enforcement of support orders or laws relating to the duty of support;
(B) establishment or modification of child support;
(C) determination of parentage; or
(D) location of child-support obligors and their income and assets.
Comment
Four separate definitions of “father” are provided by the Act to account for the permutations of a man who may be so classified. Subsection (1), “acknowledged father,” directly responds to a 1996 federal mandate encouraging states to adopt nonjudicial means for a man to identify himself as the father of a child in order to achieve an early determination of paternity. The term “acknowledged father” is given a relatively narrow meaning, rather than the broader definition previously accorded to the term. Only a man who acknowledges paternity of a child in accordance with the formal requirements established in Article 3 qualifies as an “acknowledged father.” Because the mother of the child must concur in the formal acknowledgment, the federal mandate declares that the states must treat the action as the equivalent of an adjudication of paternity.
Subsection (2), “adjudicated father,” although self-defining, presents a policy choice reached by the Conference that contested parentage matters are reserved for courts to resolve. The definition is limited to judicial adjudication of parentage, rather than providing for an alternative of administrative determination of parentage.
Subsection (3), “alleged father,” is derived from the UPUFA § 1(1), although much of the terminology has been changed. A man who is asserted to be, or asserts himself to be or possibly to be, the father of a child is the primary target of the Uniform Parentage Act.
Subsection (16), “presumed father,” is more fully defined by the factual circumstances establishing a presumption of paternity in § 204, infra.
Closely related to the definitions of “father,” Subsection (12) is derived from the UPUFA § 1(1). Defining "man" to include all male humans eliminates the connotation of adulthood, thereby satisfying the obvious need for the Act to cover under-age progenitors. Although objection to calling a 14-year-old father a "man" was raised when UPUFA was considered by the Conference, for purposes of procreation such a teen-age boy is a man.
Note that a wide variety of other terms historically employed to identify the male parent are not defined in this section. Specifically, the term “putative father” has been replaced by the broader term “alleged father.” According to Webster’s, “putative” means “commonly accepted or supposed.” Clearly, many “alleged fathers” do not fit that definition. Further, UPUFA chose the term “biological father” over more ambiguous “natural father.” Because one woman may be the genetic mother of a child while another woman is the gestational mother, for consistency the term “genetic father” was substituted for “biological.” Definitions are not supplied for such terms as “unknown father, legal father, real father, and the like,” either because the term is self-defining or because it is ambiguous.
Subsection (8) was amended in 2002 to clarify that an individual who becomes a parent through assisted reproduction as provided in Article 7 is not a “donor.” Similarly, if bracketed Article 8, Gestational Agreement, is enacted, an individual who is an intended parent through the procedure implemented in that article is not a “donor.” No substantive change is intended by this clarification.
Subsection (9), “ethnic or racial group,” relates to an individual only for purposes of genetic testing. The genetic tests themselves do not determine the race or ethnic group of the individual. Rather, if a tested individual is not excluded, his race or ethnic group provided is used in the paternity calculations because those calculations give the most conservative result, that is, those most favoring non-paternity.
Subsection (10), “genetic testing,” contemplates that paternity testing must be broadly defined to include all of the traditional genetic tests, such as blood types and HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen), as well as newer DNA technologies. In the past the term “blood test” was commonly applied to paternity testing. However, this usage actually referred to the sample collected; in fact, the tests were genetic tests performed on blood samples. The Act uses the scientific term “deoxyribonucleic acid.” This is to accommodate the changes in technology used to evaluate the DNA. Early DNA testing involved RFLP technology (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism), followed by PCR techniques (Polymerase Chain Reaction); these may be replaced by newer technology, such as SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). The type of DNA technology to be employed is best left to scientific bodies, such as accreditation agencies, see § 503(a), infra.
Subsection (11), ”gestational mother,” is derived from USCACA (1988) § 1(4), which employed the now-discarded term “surrogate mother” to define the same factual circumstances dealt with in bracketed Article 8, Gestational Agreement, infra. For purposes of this Act, a woman giving birth to her own genetic child, a.k.a. “birth mother,” is distinguished from a “gestational mother.” The former is both a gestational and genetic mother, while the latter also gives birth to a child, who may or may not be her genetic child. In the Act the term “gestational mother” is narrowly defined to restrict it to a situation in which a woman gives birth to a child pursuant to a gestational agreement validated under Article 8. If Article 8 is not enacted, this definition should be omitted from the Act. The 2002 amendment providing that the gestational mother must be an adult corrects a drafting oversight.
A 2002 amendment deleted former subsection (12), “intended parents,” as adopted in UPA 2000. That term is now employed exclusively in bracketed Article 8, and thus is no longer appropriate as a definition for the Act.
Subsection (14), “parent-child relationship,” is derived from UPA (1973) § 1. A wide variety of the rights and duties flowing to and from parents and children are found in many other laws of this state.
Subsection (15), “paternity index,” defines a complex scientific and mathematical concept. Note that the definition includes statistical measures of the mother and tested man. The tested man may be an alleged father, or any other potential biological father. In fact, under appropriate circumstances Article 5 provides for testing without samples from the mother or the alleged father. In these cases the expert statistically reconstructs the missing potential mother or biological father from genetic testing of samples from their relatives. Therefore the definition is correct even in cases involving a missing parent.
Subsection (18) is derived from the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act § 102(13), which establishes a standard for either paper or electronic record keeping.
(Comment updated December 2002)
SECTION 103. SCOPE OF [ACT]; CHOICE OF LAW.
(a) This [Act] applies to determination of parentage in this State.
(b) The court shall apply the law of this State to adjudicate the parent-child relationship. The applicable law does not depend on:
(1) the place of birth of the child; or
(2) the past or present residence of the child.
(c) This [Act] does not create, enlarge, or diminish parental rights or duties under other law of this State.
[(d) This [Act] does not authorize or prohibit an agreement between a woman and a man and another woman in which the woman relinquishes all rights as a parent of a child conceived by means of assisted reproduction, and which provides that the man and other woman become the parents of the child. If a birth results under such an agreement and the agreement is unenforceable under [the law of this State], the parent-child relationship is determined as provided in [Article] 2.]
Comment
The new UPA conforms to the requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(5)(A), that a state must provide that parentage proceedings be available at any time before a child attains 18 years of age or suffer the potential penalty of forfeiture of the federal funds that subsidize child support enforcement by the state, see Appendix: Federal IV-D Statute Relating to Parentage, infra.
Subsection (a) was amended in 2002 in response to objections that the phrase “governs every determination of parentage” was excessively broad and could conflict with other state laws, such as those governing probate issues.
Subsection (b) is derived from the UIFSA (1996) § 303 and UPA (1973) § 8(b). This section simplifies choice of law principles; the local court is directed to apply local law. If in fact this state is an inappropriate forum, dismissal for forum non-conveniens may be appropriate.
Subsection (d) is bracketed. If a state enacts Article 8, Gestational Agreement, this subsection should be omitted. If a state does not enact Article 8, this subsection should be included to make clear that this Act does not affect other law of the jurisdiction on the subject, if any. The 2002 amendment employs consistent language in order to treat married and unmarried couples alike with regard to parentage issues, and reflects the terminology in Articles 2, 7, and bracketed Article 8.
(Comment updated December 2002)
SECTION 104. COURT OF THIS STATE. The [designate] court is authorized to adjudicate parentage under this [Act].
Comment
Source: UPA (1973) § 8(a).
The court having jurisdiction over parentage proceedings under this Act should be identified here. Although a proceeding to determine parentage is most often associated with an action to establish a child support order, the Act departs from the choice made by the UIFSA (1996) § 102, which allows for the establishment of a child support order by an administrative agency. Insofar as establishment of parentage is concerned, the new UPA reflects the deliberate decision by NCCUSL that an “adjudication” should require a judicial proceeding. This procedure is consistent with the practice of most states. In fact, very few states provide for the resolution of disputed paternity through administrative processes, which, of course, is a policy judgment for the Sate legislature to make.
The term “tribunal” found in UIFSA to describe both courts and agencies is not employed in the Act. Rather, the dispute resolution entity in UPA (2002) is limited to a “court.” UPA (2002) conforms to the congressional determination that parentage may also be established by an acknowledgment of parentage under Article 3. Article 7 allows parentage to be established in a written record that presumably could then be approved by an administrative officer. These exceptions create potential disputes that only a judicial proceeding can resolve.
Joinder of a parentage proceeding with an action for divorce, annulment, separate maintenance, or child support and custody is left to state law. This should be considered in choosing which court in a state is to be given jurisdiction over proceedings under this Act.
(Comment updated December 2002)
SECTION 105. PROTECTION OF PARTICIPANTS. Proceedings under this [Act] are subject to other law of this State governing the health, safety, privacy, and liberty of a child or other individual who could be jeopardized by disclosure of identifying information, including address, telephone number, place of employment, social security number, and the child’s day-care facility and school.
Comment
Source: UCCJEA (1997) § 209(e).
SECTION 106. DETERMINATION OF MATERNITY. Provisions of this [Act] relating to determination of paternity apply to determinations of maternity.
Comment
Source: UPA (1973) § 21.
This section provides for a determination of the mother-child relationship if that issue is in dispute. Except in circumstances involving immigration, cases involving disputed maternity are extraordinarily rare. Therefore, the new UPA is otherwise written in terms applicable to the determination of paternity, while maintaining the possibility that a dispute may arise regarding whether a woman claiming maternity actually is the mother of a particular child.
Although certain provisions found in the balance of the Act logically do not apply in a proceeding to establish maternity, the Act continues the decision made in UPA (1973) not to burden these already complex provisions with unnecessary references to the ascertainment of maternity. Except for issues arising from assisted reproduction technologies or gestational agreements, see Article 7 and bracketed Article 8, § 201(a) is the sole provision in the Act that specifically relates to the mother-child relationship. In an actual case, a judge facing a claim for the determination of the mother-child relationship should have little difficulty deciding which portions of the Act should be applied.
(Comment updated December 2002)
PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
SECTION 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP.
(a) The mother-child relationship is established between a woman and a child by:
(1) the woman’s having given birth to the child [, except as otherwise provided in [Article] 8];
(2) an adjudication of the woman’s maternity; [or]
(3) adoption of the child by the woman [; or
(4) an adjudication confirming the woman as a parent of a child born to a gestational mother if the agreement was validated under [Article] 8 or is enforceable under other law].
(b) The father-child relationship is established between a man and a child by:
(1) an unrebutted presumption of the man’s paternity of the child under Section 204;
(2) an effective acknowledgment of paternity by the man under [Article] 3, unless the acknowledgment has been rescinded or successfully challenged;
(3) an adjudication of the man’s paternity;
(4) adoption of the child by the man; [or]
(5) the man’s having consented to assisted reproduction by a woman under [Article] 7 which resulted in the birth of the child [; or
(6) an adjudication confirming the man as a parent of a child born to a gestational mother if the agreement was validated under [Article] 8 or is enforceable under other law].
Comment
Source: UPA (1973), § 4; expanded to include all possible bases of the parent-child relationship
Subsection (b)(5) and bracketed subsections (a)(4) and (b)(6) reflect the fact that Article 7 provides that both a married and an unmarried couple are entitled to assisted reproductive technologies in order to become parents and, if bracketed Article 8 is enacted, to enter into a gestational agreement. If a state enacts Article 8, Gestational Agreement, the brackets should be removed. If a state does not enact Article 8, the bracketed subsections should be omitted.
(Comment updated December 2002)
SECTION 202. NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON MARITAL STATUS. A child born to parents who are not married to each other has the same rights under the law as a child born to parents who are married to each other.
Comment
Source: UPA (1973) § 2 and Massachusetts Gen. Laws ch. 209C, § 1.
From a legal and social policy perspective, this is one of the most significant substantive provisions of the Act, reaffirming the principle that regardless of the marital status of the parents, children and parents have equal rights with respect to each other. As discussed in the Prefatory Note, supra, U.S. Supreme Court decisions and lower federal and state court decisions require equal treatment of marital and nonmarital children without regard to the circumstances of their birth.
Nonetheless, the equal treatment principle does not necessarily eliminate all distinctions in the application of other substantive laws to different kinds of children. For example, as amended in 1991 the Uniform Probate Code § 2-705(b), states:
Y in construing a dispositive provision of a transferor who is not a natural parent, an individual born to the natural parent is not considered a child of that parent unless the individual while a minor lived as a regular member of the household of that parent or of that parent’s parent, brother, sister, spouse, or surviving spouse.
8 U.L.A. 188 (1998)
In short, the UPC provides that an individual is presumed not to be included in a class gift from someone other than the child's parent unless that individual lived as a member of the parent’s family during childhood. This presumed intent of the donor is rebuttable. Although this provision probably has a disproportionate effect on nonmarital children, the disparity is not based on the circumstances of birth, but rather on post-birth living conditions.
(Comment updated December 2002)
SECTION 203. CONSEQUENCES OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PARENTAGE. Unless parental rights are terminated, a parent-child relationship established under this [Act] applies for all purposes, except as otherwise specifically provided by other law of this State.
Comment
Source: USCACA (1988) § 10.
This section may seem to state the obvious, but both the statement and the qualifier are necessary because without this explanation a literal reading of §§ 201-203 could lead to erroneous statutory constructions. The basic purpose of the section is to make clear that a mother, as defined in § 201(a), is not a parent once her parental rights have been terminated. Similarly, a man whose paternity has been established by acknowledgment or by court adjudication may subsequently have his parental rights terminated.
The qualifier, “as otherwise provided by other law of this State,” is necessary because other statutes may restrict rights of a parent. For example, UPC (1993) § 2-114(c) precludes a parent of a child (and the parent’s family) from inheriting from the child by intestate succession “unless that natural parent has openly treated the child as his [or hers] and has not refused to support the child.” Similarly, as discussed in the preceding Comment, UPC (1993) § 2-705(b) affects the right of a child to take under a class gift from a person who is not a parent of the child.
SECTION 204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;
(2) he and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within 300 days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce [, or after a decree of separation];
(3) before the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and the child is born during the invalid marriage or within 300 days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce [, or after a decree of separation];
(4) after the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, whether or not the marriage is or could be declared invalid, and he voluntarily asserted his paternity of the child, and:
(A) the assertion is in a record filed with [state agency maintaining birth records];
(B) he agreed to be and is named as the child’s father on the child’s birth certificate; or
(C) he promised in a record to support the child as his own; or
(5) for the first two years of the child’s life, he resided in the same household with the child and openly held out the child as his own.
(b) A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by an adjudication under [Article] 6.
Comment
Source: UPA (1973) § 4.
A network of presumptions was established by UPA (1973) for application to cases in which proof of external circumstances indicate a particular man to be the probable father. The simplest of these is also the best known--birth of a child during the marriage between the mother and a man. When promulgated in 1973 the contemporaneous commentary noted that:
While perhaps no one state now includes all these presumptions in its law, the presumptions are based on existing presumptions of ‘legitimacy’ in state laws and do not represent a serious departure. Novel is that they have been collected under one roof. All presumptions of paternity are rebuttable in appropriate circumstances. Uniform Parentage Act (1973), Prefatory Note, 9B U.L.A. 379 (2001).
After amendments adopted in 2002, the Uniform Parentage Act retains all but one of the original presumptions of paternity contained in UPA § 4 (1973). Originally the 2000 version of the new Act limited presumptions of paternity to those related to marriage. The objection by the ABA Steering Committee on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children and the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities that this could result in differential treatment of children born to unmarried parents resulted in the revision to this section.
Subsection (1) deals with a child born during a marriage; subsection (2) deals with a child conceived during marriage but born after its termination; subsection (3) deals with a child conceived or born during an invalid marriage; and, subsection (4) deals with a child born before a valid or invalid marriage, accompanied by other facts indicating the husband is the father.
Added by amendment in 2002, subsection (5), is a significant revision of UPA § 4(4) (1973), which created a presumption of paternity if a man “receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.” Because there was no time frame specified in the 1973 act, the language fostered uncertainty about whether the presumption could arise if the receipt of the child into the man’s home occurred for a short time or took place long after the child’s birth. To more fully serve the goal of treating nonmarital and marital children equally, the “holding out” presumption is restored, subject to an express durational requirement that the man reside with the child for the first two years of the child’s life. This mirrors the presumption applied to a married man established by § 607, infra. Once this presumption arises, it is subject to attack only under the limited circumstances set forth in § 607 for challenging a marital presumption, and is similarly subject to the estoppel principles of § 608.
One presumption found in UPA (1973) is not repeated in the new Act. Former UPA §4(5) created a presumption of paternity if the man “acknowledges his paternity of the child in a writing filed with [named agency] [and] the mother does not dispute the acknowledgment within a reasonable time.” This presumption was eliminated because it conflicts with Article 3, Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity, under which a valid acknowledgment establishes paternity rather than a presumption of paternity.
Finally, subsection (b) is a complete rewrite of UPA (1973) § 4(b). The requirement that a presumption “may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence” was eliminated from the Act. The same fate was accorded the statement that: ”If two or more presumptions arise which conflict with each other, the presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls.” Nowadays the existence of modern genetic testing obviates this old approach to the problem of conflicting presumptions when a court is to determine paternity. Nowadays, genetic testing makes it possible in most cases to resolve competing claims to paternity. Moreover, courts may use the estoppel principles in § 608 in appropriate circumstances to deny requests for genetic testing in the interests of preserving a child’s ties to the presumed or acknowledged father who openly held himself out as the child’s father regardless of whether he is in fact the genetic father.
(Comment updated December 2002)
VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY
Comment
Voluntary acknowledgment of paternity has long been an alternative to a contested paternity suit. Under UPA (1973) § 4, the inclusion of a man’s name on the child’s birth certificate created a presumption of paternity, which could be rebutted. In order to improve the collection of child support, especially from unwed fathers, the U.S. Congress mandated a fundamental change in the acknowledgment procedure. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, also known as the Welfare Reform Act) conditions receipt of federal child support enforcement funds on state enactment of laws that greatly strengthen the effect of a man’s voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(5)(C). This statute is reproduced in Appendix: Federal IV-D Statute Relating to Parentage, infra. In brief, it provides that a valid, unrescinded, unchallenged acknowledgment of paternity is to be treated as equivalent to a judicial determination of paternity.
Because in many respects the federal act is nonspecific, the new UPA contains clear and comprehensive procedures to comply with the federal mandate. Primary among the factual circumstances that Congress did not take into account was that a married woman may consent to an acknowledgement of paternity by a man who may indeed be her child’s genetic father, but is not her husband. Under the new UPA, the mother’s husband is the presumed father of the child, see § 204, supra. By ignoring the real possibility that the child will have both an acknowledged father and a presumed father, Congress left it to the states to sort out which of the men should be recognized as the legal father.
Further, PRWORA does not require that a man acknowledging paternity must assert genetic paternity of the child. Section 301 is designed to prevent circumvention of adoption laws by requiring a sworn assertion of genetic parentage of the child.