IN RE THE CUSTODY OF DTR v. Reiter, Minn: Court of Appeals 2012 BY: LAUREN D.

Link for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13445312352992757764&q=child+custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,24&as_ylo=2012 In the Court of Appeals for Minnesota, an appeal was brought to court for a paternity dispute between Michael Richards, the petitioner, and the respondent Derek Reiter. Lynette Marthe and Derek Reiter began dating in 1996 and then were engaged in 2002. During August 2003, Marthe who was still engaged to Reiter met Michael Richards and started having sexual relations with him. Marthe found out that she was pregnant and she also believed that Reiter would be the father. In November of 2003 Marthe and Reiter got married and the child D.T.R was born on May 13, 2004. Reiter’s name was put on the birth certificate. Reiter was a very involved farther to the child, he also supported him financially. In 2006, Reiter and Marthe had another child together. Marthe and Richards, once D.T.R was conceived they were in little to no contact at the time. They were only trading a few e-mails and text messages. Richards was aware that Marthe was married to Reiter and had a child, but Richards did not know that the child was in fact his biological child. In spring 2008, D.T.R turned four; Richard was told that he may be in fact D.T.R’s biological father. He then took a DNA test, and found out on July 2, 2008 that he was the child’s biological father. In 2008, Richards served Marthe and Reiter with a petition for the custody of the child, D.T.R. This was filed with Wright County District Court. After the filed petition in the fall of 2008, Reiter filed for divorce with Marthe. Marthe and Reiter were granted equally-shared parenting time of D.T.R and his brother for a temporary basis. On April 20, 2009 the district court issued a temporary order that granted Richards parenting time with D.T.R one weekend per month so that Richards would be able to start a relationship with the said child. Richards, while the trial was going on only participated in the court-ordered weekends twice. The agreement with Marthe, he spent and additional time with D.T.R which included two or three overnight visits. With visits to the therapist, D.T.R was eventually told that Richards was his biological farther and not Reiter. In December 2009, a district court held an evidentiary hearing to determine which of the two men should be adjudicated the father of D.T.R. Under Minnesota Law, the parties were told that they were both presumed fathers. D.T.R. lived with Reiter since birth and Richards first met D.T.R. and became aware that he may be his farther in spring 2008; Reiter learned that he was not D.T.R.'s biological father in July 2008. Richards decided that he wanted to be in D.T.R life and the child knew that Richards was his biological father. Marthe had said that she wanted D.T.R to be involved with Richards and Reiter. The district court adjudicated Reiter as D.T.R’s father and dismissed the petition with prejudice. Marthe then appealed this adjudication. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing. The Supreme Court reversed this claim and then said that Marthe had standing because of “the determination of paternity directly impacts her responsibility for child support and her rights related to child support, and directly impacts her rights related to care, custody, and control of her child.” Under the Act, Richards and Reiter are both presumed fathers of the minor child. Richards is a presumptive father because of conclusive genetic testing. The district court found that with the “weightier considerations of policy and logic support” they determined that Reiter is D.T.R’s father. Even with biology is not being used with the paternity, the court said that they considered and gave a great thought to D.T.R and Reiter relationship. The court also thought of the best interest of the child. The court said that D.T.R and Reiter have, “spent the last five and half years forging a deep and loving father-son relationship.” Reiter also with being in the child’s life all these years, the court had said that Reiter has provided D.T.R with emotional, physical, and financial support throughout his life. This claim is supported under Minn. Stat. § 518.17. The court also found that D.T.R is close with his brother, who is also Reiter’s biological son, and that D.T.R has also called Reiter “Dad” his whole life. The court of B.J.H affirmed the district courts conflicting paternity conclusions that were in favor of Richards, the biological father. This finding was "consistent with the policy of not unnecessarily impairing blood relationships and is logically based on the facts." D.T.R was at the time only four years old when he had met his biological father, Richards and had only known Reiter has his father. The court B.J.H, the Guardian Ad Litem for the child supported the adjudication of paternity in the biological father which was based on the best interest of the child. The district court applied the statutory standard that policy and logic were in finding for Reiter being favored as D.T.R’s father. The district court affirmed the adjudication of Reiter as D.T.R’s legal father.