When the child was 16 years old in a Houston case, the Attorney General brought suit to disprove paternity of the child’s presumed father based on non-access and to establish paternity of the alleged father. The alleged father challenged jurisdiction and filed a motion to dismiss which was denied and the trial court issued an order disproving the presumed father’s paternity.
The alleged father file a mandamus which was denied and the case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. The alleged father then filed a no evidence Motion for Summary Judgment on these issues.
The AG filed a response and attached certain evidence in support of the claim. The alleged father objected and filed a motion to strike the response and the evidence based on three grounds. 1. untimely; 2. unauthenticated; and 3. the evidence contradicted the AG’s prior responses to requests for admissions.
The trial court granted the Motion, and the court of appeals affirmed that those rules should not be softened in family court.