Opinion
No. 56109-0-I.
June 12, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-3-01623-5, Glenna Hall, J., entered March 28, 2005.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Vladimir Puchkarev (Appearing Pro Se), 3815 NE 4th St., #c081, Renton, WA 98056.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Jason Timothy Vail, Northwest Justice Project, 401 2nd Ave S Ste 407, Seattle, WA 98104-3811.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
The statutory two-year limitation for filing an action to disprove paternity is not based on a man's discovery that he may not be the father of a child. And without an adequate record for review, this court cannot address challenges to sufficiency of the evidence. Because Vladimir Puchkarev admits that he did not meet the statutory requirements for challenging paternity, and because he did not provide this court with an adequate record on appeal, we affirm the trial court's findings in this case.
DISCUSSION
After a hearing, a King County trial court filed a decree dissolving the marriage of Alla Puchkareva and Vladimir Puchkarev. Puchkarev appeals, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for genetic testing of the couple's youngest child to determine paternity, the trial court's finding that there was a history of domestic violence, and the division of property and assignment of credit card debt.
Under RCW 26.26.116,
A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(a) He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage.
In order to rebut this presumption, a man may initiate a proceeding to disprove the father-child relationship. RCW 26.26.530(2) states that
A proceeding seeking to disprove the father-child relationship between a child and the child's presumed father may be maintained at any time if the court determines that:
(a) The presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception; and
(b) The presumed father never openly treated the child as his own.
Puchkarev contends that the trial court failed to consider the fact that his wife was the one who initially said the child was not his, and that he requested genetic testing less than a year after she made this claim. He also argues that his wife was on holiday during the time of probable conception. But the statute does not base its time limitation on the date of discovery of possible non-paternity; rather, the two-year time limitation for challenging paternity runs from the date on which the child reaches its second birthday. Puchkarev does not dispute that he did not comply with this time limitation. Because he failed to meet the statutory requirements, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for genetic testing.
Puchkarev's other arguments are based on the sufficiency of the trial court's findings. Findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. State v. Macon, 128 Wn.2d 784, 799, 911 P.2d 1004 (1996). If findings of fact are not supported by the evidence, the reviewing court is not bound by them. Truck Ins. Exch. v. Merrell, 23 Wn. App. 181, 184, 596 P.2d 1334 (1979).
Puchkarev has not provided this court with a transcript of the hearing. Without the record of proceedings in the trial court, it is impossible for this court to determine whether the trial court's findings are adequately supported by the evidence. In addition, credibility determinations are for the trial court, and we will not review them. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990). Therefore, we decline to address these issues and affirm the trial court's decision.
DWYER, GROSSE and COX, JJ., Concur.