Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paternity Acknowledgment Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeal over voluntary paternity acknowledgment withdrawn after testimony; judge stresses rescission limits
Summary
An appeal from a child-support magistrate over a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity was withdrawn after testimony. The court reviewed the 60-day rescission rule for voluntary acknowledgments and discussed that setting aside an acknowledgment after the rescission window requires proof of fraud, duress or material mistake.
A Cheatham County Circuit Court session that included an appeal from a child-support magistrate ended with the appellant withdrawing the appeal after testimony from the mother and the man who signed the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity.
Alicia Eagle testified by Zoom that her son Jackson was born Nov. 25, 2014, and identified Randy Hits as Jackson’s biological father; Eagle said Hits is deceased. She described her household situation, work and income (she testified she earns about $15 an hour, roughly 32–40 hours a week) and that a family health-insurance plan had been applied for and was pending. When asked whether Mister Toler had held himself out as Jackson’s father while living with the family, Eagle answered yes.
Christopher Odell Toler appeared and described his relationship with Eagle. On cross-examination counsel and the court explored whether Toler signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity with knowledge or under a misapprehension. The court explained the statutory mechanics: a voluntary acknowledgment has a 60-day rescission period and becomes conclusive thereafter unless set aside on grounds of fraud, duress or material mistake. As the judge summarized, the post-rescission standard is narrow and the biological father retains avenues to assert rights where appropriate. The court observed that, historically, challenges often hinge on competing claims about biology and procedural protections.
Counsel for the appealing party told the court they would strike the appeal; the court accepted the withdrawal and struck the appeal from the docket. The judge also noted that the case files can be further developed if the parties seek to present evidence of fraud, duress or material mistake within the legal standard.
The hearing record shows the court placed witnesses under oath during the Zoom testimony and allowed both direct and cross-examination before resolving the procedural posture of the appeal.
