The Oklahoma Bar Journal January 2026

CONCLUSION

The great number of unique

fact patterns, along with the complexities that don’t always fit neatly into the parameters of the UPA, make this topic challenging. With a case load of over 150,000 cases statewide, CSS has seen its fair share of the most unusual parentage cases. We hope our experience has helped illuminate the path and the way forward. Authors’ Note: This article was drafted with contributions from Mark Gutel, state attorney at the Midwest City office, and Ben Jury, state attorney at the south Oklahoma City office.

The great number of unique fact patterns, along with the complexities that don’t always fit neatly into the parameters of the UPA, make this topic challenging.

acknowledgment was not techni cally a legal father yet, and §631 allows a presumption to be dis proved by genetic test results iden tifying another man as the father. However, determining which man to test should be the result of careful and thoughtful consider ation. What if the acknowledged father had a relationship with the child? Genetic testing of him, as a method of disproving the hus band’s parentage under 10 O.S. §7700-631, could have been detri mental to the child’s best interest if he had an established relationship and bond with the child, and the results showed he was not the biological father. Getting the facts and the time line early in the case is essential. Think about how the approach and results might have changed if our timeline was missing this essential fact in the scenario above: The man who signed the invalid acknowledgment also lived with the child for the first two years of the child’s life and held the child out as his own. Who are the legal fathers? The husband is the marital presumed father; the man who signed the acknowledg ment is also a presumed father. 59

Which man should be genetically tested is answered by who could pass the §608 best interest factors. In that scenario, the man with no relationship to the child should be tested first because the risk of harm to the child is lower. If the husband was determined not to be the father by genetic testing after a successful challenge under 10 O.S. §7700-607(B), who is left? The man who lived with the child for the first two years of the child’s life and held the child out is the presumed father, and his acknowledgment arguably springs to life. The court could simply con firm the legal father-child relation ship created by the presumption and the acknowledgment. If you hadn’t asked the question about whether any man had lived with the child for the first two years of the child’s life and held the child out as his own, you would have missed the fact that the child had two legal fathers and that the two year presumed father would likely not be eligible for genetic testing. Missing this fact could have led to improper genetic testing of the two-year presumed father and harm to the child’s best interests.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ann Murray is the

managing attorney of the Office of Impact Advocacy

and Legal Outreach at Oklahoma Human Services Child Support Services.

Julie Bushyhead is the programs manager for attorney and management development at Oklahoma Human Services Child

Support Services.

ENDNOTES

1. 10 O.S. §7700-102(3). 2. 10 O.S. §7700-102(16). 3. 10 O.S. §7700-102(1). 4. 10 O.S. §7700-102(2). 5. 10 O.S. §7700-201(B). 6. 10 O.S. §7700-204.

7. 10 O.S. §7700-204(A)(2), but this presumption has been the law in Oklahoma since enactment by the first legislative assembly. 1890 Oklahoma Statutes Chapter 63, Article 1 §2 (pg. 746). See, e.g., In re Davis’ Estate , 1934 OK 491, 36 P.2d 471, 169 Okla.133. 8. 10 O.S. §7700-204(A)(4). 9. 10 O.S. §7700-204(A)(5). 10. Clark v. Eden , 2011 OK 28, ¶11-12, 254

P.3d 672, 676.

11. 10 O.S. §7700-301. 12. 10 O.S. §7700-303. 13. Id. 14. 10 O.S. §7700-502(B).

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

36 | JANUARY 2026

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL