A.__Expressly identifies a child as a "child of the marriage" or "issue of the marriage" or by similar words indicates that the husband is the father of the child; or

B.__Provides for support of the child by the husband unless paternity is specifically disclaimed in the order.

4.__Determination a defense.__Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a determination of parentage may be a defense in a subsequent proceeding seeking to adjudicate parentage by an individual who was not a party to the earlier proceeding.

5.__Challenge to adjudication.__A party to an adjudication of parentage may challenge the adjudication only under law of this State relating to appeal, vacation of judgments or other judicial review.

Comment

(This is section 637 of the UPA.)

A considerable amount of litigation involves exactly who is bound and who is not bound by a final order determining parentage. This section codifies rules regarding the effect of such orders. Subsection (a) provides that, if the order is issued under standards of personal jurisdiction of the UIFSA (1996), the order is binding on all parties to the proceeding. This solves the problem of an order issued without the appropriate jurisdiction, as would be the case of a divorce based on status jurisdiction in which the court lacked the requisite personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party.

Subsection (b) partially resolves the question of whether a child is bound by the terms of the order. UPA (1973) required that the child be made a party to a parentage proceeding, and be bound. However, the 1973 Act did not address whether a divorce decree had a legal impact on paternity. A majority of jurisdictions hold that the child is not bound by the divorce decree because the child was not a party to the proceeding. A minority of states hold that the child is bound by the order and that the child is in privity with the parents. In its present formulation, this subsection adopts the majority rule, which does not bind the child during minority unless the parentage order is based on genetic testing or the child was represented by an attorney ad litem (each state supplies its own terminology).