Travis Jones v. State of Tennessee, Ex Rel. Keva Coleman

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2006-00540-COA-R3-JV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; December 11, 2006; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Travis Jones appealed the Juvenile Court of Shelby County's decision to overrule a juvenile referee's finding to set aside his voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP) regarding his daughter, Khiara. The appellate court found that the evidence did not support the trial court's conclusion of fraudulent procurement of the VAP. As a result, the appellate court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for reinstatement of the referee's judgment, which had previously granted Mr. Jones’s petition to disestablish paternity. The background of the case included Mr. Jones's relationship with Keva Coleman, the birth of Khiara, and subsequent developments including military deployments and Mr. Jones's discovery of a potential lack of biological paternity, which led him to seek DNA testing. The DNA results excluded him as the biological father. During the de novo hearing requested by the State, Mr. Jones sought a continuance for insufficient preparation time and attempted to introduce DNA test results, both of which were denied by the trial court. The appellate court's decision emphasizes the importance of the referee's initial findings and the evidence surrounding the acknowledgment of paternity.

On February 9, 2005, the trial court dismissed Mr. Jones's petition without prejudice, prompting an appeal that raises four key issues. First, Mr. Jones questions whether the Rehearing Judge erred in dismissing findings related to allegations of fraud, the exclusion of Mr. Jones as the biological father via DNA testing, limited contact with the child, and compliance with TCA §68-3-311. Second, he challenges the Rehearing Judge's determination that fraud could not be established based on a woman's admission of an affair around the time of conception, during which she misled Mr. Jones into acknowledging paternity. Third, Mr. Jones argues that the Rehearing Judge abused discretion by denying his request for a continuance after he received notice of the rehearing and an answer to his petition just a day prior. Lastly, he contends that the dismissal order lacked specific findings, thereby constituting an abuse of discretion as it contradicted previous determinations.

Additionally, T.C.A. 24-7-113 (2000) outlines the conditions under which voluntary acknowledgments of paternity may be rescinded. Specifically, such acknowledgments—once completed—constitute a legal finding of paternity unless rescinded within a designated timeframe or challenged based on fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. A challenge must be initiated within five years of the acknowledgment's execution, although claims of fraud by the mother may extend this period if they do not adversely affect the child's interests. The validity of the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP) is assumed for the purposes of this appeal, as its authenticity is not contested by either party.

The case is reviewed de novo due to being tried without a jury, with a presumption that the trial court's findings of fact are correct unless contradicted by preponderant evidence. Mr. Jones contests the Validity of Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP) based on alleged fraud, which under Tennessee law requires proof of four elements: intentional misrepresentation of a material fact, knowledge of the falsity, reasonable reliance by the plaintiff, and the misrepresentation relating to an existing or past fact. Ms. Coleman admitted to having a sexual relationship with Darnell King during the month Khiara was conceived but did not inform Mr. Jones of the affair when she told him about the pregnancy, indicating recklessness regarding the truth of her statements. The evidence suggests Ms. Coleman had reason to believe Mr. King could be the father, yet she claimed Mr. Jones was, which Mr. Jones relied upon to his detriment. Consequently, the evidence weighs against the trial court's finding of no fraud regarding the VAP. The court finds that Mr. Jones proved fraud, and pursuant to T.C.A. 24-7-113(e)(2), DNA testing should have been allowed. Since a Referee had ordered DNA testing previously, remanding the case for a new order is deemed unnecessary, and the results of the already ordered DNA test are admitted. Additionally, the trial court confirmed that the relief sought would not adversely impact the child or the interests of the state or Title IV-D agencies, with the evidence supporting this finding. As a result, the appellate court vacates the trial court's order and remands for the reinstatement of the prior judgment disestablishing paternity, with costs assessed to the Appellee, State of Tennessee ex rel. Keva Jones.