Sen. Holstrom pushes amendment to let genetic tests unset notarized paternity acknowledgments

Sen. Bob Holstrom introduced AM 23‑96 to LB 1139 on the Judiciary Committee floor, saying the amendment would add two sections to Nebraska paternity law to permit challenges to notarized acknowledgments of paternity using scientifically reliable genetic testing performed by a College of American Pathologists‑accredited (or equivalent) laboratory. Holstrom said the change would allow courts to set aside a final judgment, support obligation, or other legal determination of paternity if testing excludes the acknowledged father and the challenge is brought within applicable time limits.

Why it matters: Under current Nebraska law a notarized acknowledgment of paternity creates a rebuttable presumption and, after a 60‑day rescission period or the filing of an administrative or judicial action, generally functions as a legal finding of parentage. Holstrom said AM 23‑96 would create an additional, statutorily defined pathway to set such acknowledgments aside when reliable genetic evidence shows the acknowledged father is not the biological father. He told the committee the amendment also contains an applicability clause to cover cases pending on the statute’s effective date.

Proponents gave personal testimony. Roy Henry, who described an ongoing paternity case in Douglas County, said he had DNA proof his son is his biological child but that an acknowledgment was ‘‘mistakenly signed by another person’’ and that he has struggled through multiple attorneys to assert his parental rights. ‘‘I just wanna be a part of his life,’’ Henry said, describing losing access to his child and pursuing appeals and other legal avenues.

A neutral legal perspective: Family‑law attorney Josh Livingston testified in a neutral capacity and praised the amendment’s intent but warned of unintended consequences. ‘‘Without clearer guardrails, I’m concerned that the language could create new problems while attempting to solve an existing one,’’ Livingston said, explaining that allowing a third party to set aside an acknowledgment without also requiring that challenger to establish parentage could leave a child without a legal father if the challenger declines to assume parental responsibilities.

Committee concerns and possible fixes: Senators pressed on timing and effects. Members asked how the four‑year statute of limitations would run and whether the clock might start upon discovery of genetic results; Holstrom said he had seen case law suggesting discovery‑based tolling in some circumstances but would review the authorities. Committee members and Livingston discussed several procedural safeguards: requiring a challenger who succeeds to concurrently file to establish parentage; limiting the time frame for challenges; and preserving the court’s consideration of the child’s best interests, custody and support obligations. Livingston urged making any set‑aside contingent on the challenger’s affirmative willingness to assume parental obligations if testing confirms parentage.

Technical requirements and scope: Holstrom said the amendment requires the genetic testing to be performed by a CAP‑accredited or equivalent laboratory. He also said the bill would apply to actions pending on the effective date and those filed thereafter, and that he may ask counsel about including an emergency clause to accelerate the amendment’s effect for pending cases.

Outcome and next steps: The hearing recorded testimony for and against the amendment and closed with Holstrom saying he would continue to work with the bar and committee counsel on language if the committee advances the bill. The committee did not take a formal vote during the hearing; further consideration, drafting tweaks, and possible committee action were left for a later date.