Tyler Strang v Malay Hernandez

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Petitioner's counsel argued that the biological father was denied due process because he received no notice of the acknowledgment of paternity, which was treated as a judgment against him without his knowledge.
2. The court questioned whether the six-month time limit for challenging paternity under Rule 85 creates an unconstitutional barrier for biological fathers who lack notice of the acknowledgment filing.
3. Petitioner's counsel contended that an acknowledgment of paternity is not equivalent to a court decree under ARS 25-814(C), arguing that the statutory language distinguishes between the two terms.
4. Respondent Hernandez's counsel argued that Mr. Strang had constructive notice of his potential paternity due to sexual intercourse and conversations with the mother, satisfying due process requirements.
5. The court expressed concern that allowing challenges outside statutory time limits could undermine child stability and permit biological fathers to intervene years after a legal father has established a relationship.
6. Counsel for Hernandez argued that the trial court provided adequate due process through evidentiary hearings and briefing, allowing parties to present their positions regarding the child's best interests.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT53M32S · Captions available