|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED October 12, 1995 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-1204-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
IN RE THE PATERNITY OF
KIRSTIA M. C.,
A PERSON UNDER THE AGE
OF 18:
JOAN D. ELORANTA,
as Guardian ad Litem
for
Kirstia M. C.,
Appellant,
v.
MITCH S.,
Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Clark County:
MICHAEL W. BRENNAN, Judge. Affirmed
in part; reversed in part and cause remanded with directions.
Before Dykman, Sundby,
and Vergeront, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Kirstia M.C. appeals by her guardian ad litem from a paternity judgment. We affirm in part; reverse in part and
remand with directions.[1]
Kirstia filed a
paternity petition in April 1993, three days short of her thirteenth
birthday. The petition named Mitch S.
as respondent. Mitch conceded
paternity. The trial court declined, on
the ground of equitable estoppel, to order Mitch to pay support for the period
between Kirstia's birth and the filing of her petition. Kirstia appeals.
Equitable estoppel is
applicable in family law cases. Harms
v. Harms, 174 Wis.2d 780, 784, 498 N.W.2d 229, 231 (1993). A person may be equitably estopped if he or
she takes action or inaction which induces reliance by another to his or her
detriment. Id. at 785,
498 N.W.2d at 231. Here, the trial
court found that Kirstia was equitably estopped from collecting back support
payments because her mother had not pursued a claim against Mitch earlier. We conclude the court erred. Kirstia cannot be estopped by someone else's
action or inaction. As a child, Kirstia
had no say in her mother's activities.
Kirstia asserts, and we
agree, that the trial court may consider her claim for retroactive support in
light of the factors in § 767.51(5), Stats. On remand, the trial court shall review
those factors.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed in part; reversed in part and cause remanded with directions.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.