COURT SHOULD DISMISS PATERNITY PETITIONS ON GROUNDS OF ESTOPPEL AND BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
It is well settled that although a Court may order genetic testing or genetic marker tests in cases involving custody of children. In order to to determine paternity of an alleged father, the Court may impose the defenses of equitable estoppel or res judicator in custody or paternity cases in order to protect the best interests and status of a subject child who was led to believe that some one else other than their biological parent is their parent, where the child is already stabilized in an operative parent-child relationship. Family Court Act Section 532(A). Also see Dustin G. v. Melissa I. and Charles H., 69 A.D.3d 1019, 891N.Y.S2d 735, (January 7, 2010.) There are other instances where there is reverse equitable estoppel in cases where the child is already in a secure relationship and an intervener attempts to disrupt that relationship through a paternity petition in New York Family Court. In the case of Dustin G., supra, the Court held that genetic testing was not in the best interests of the subject child because the father took no action to assert his paternity for seven (7) years, his name was not on the birth certificate, he never signed an acknowledgment of paternity at the hospital. The Court held, in pertinent part, that: “Although a court may order a genetic marker test “to aid in the determination of whether the alleged father is or is not the father of the child” (Family Ct. Act § 532[a] ), “[t]he courts ‘impose equitable estoppel to protect the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship’ ” ( *737Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y.3d 320, 327, 820 N.Y.S.2d 199, 853 N.E.2d 610 [2006] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Greg S. v. Keri C., 38 A.D.3d 905, 905-906, 832 N.Y.S.2d 652 [2007] ). The doctrine of equitable estoppel “does not involve the equities between the two adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child … [, because] [t]he child is entirely innocent and by statute the party whose interests are paramount” ( Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y.3d at 330-331, 820 N.Y.S.2d 199, 853 N.E.2d 610;see Matter of Greg S. v. Keri C., 38 A.D.3d at 905-906, 832 N.Y.S.2d 652).