Interpretation of the Parentage Act is a question of law, which we review de novo. Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 427 (Minn.App. 1998); R.B. v. C.S., 536 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Minn.App. 1995). The Parentage Act sets out various circumstances under which a man is legally presumed to be the father of a child.
See Coolen v. State, 288 Minn. 44, 50-51, 179 N.W.2d 81, 86 (1970) (denying postconviction relief when defendant asserted that he only pleaded guilty because he was promised a reduced sentence; nothing in the record supported defendant's assertions on appeal, and they directly contradicted his sworn testimony at the plea hearing); State v. Hamilton, 280 Minn. 21, 23-24, 157 N.W.2d 528, 529 (1968). We also note that even sworn statements made in an affidavit appended to a brief will not be considered on appeal if not presented to the district court. Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 430 (Minn.App. 1998). Thus, this claim lacks a factual basis for consideration on appeal, and the record is devoid of evidence which might support such a claim.
Documents not included in the district court record, and all references to those documents, shall be stricken from an appellate appendix and brief. Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 430 (Minn.App. 1998). Because that letter was not admitted to the trial court record, respondent's motion to strike the letter and all references to it is granted.
Default judgments are to be liberally reopened to promote resolution of cases on the merits, especially in paternity cases. See Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 429-30 (Minn.App. 1998) (noting emphasis courts place on accurate paternity determinations). But the right to be relieved of a judgment is not absolute.
child's father does not deny the county any right deserving protection.' Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 429 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998). [Monmouth County Div. of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Hall, supra at 197, 721 A.2d 738.]
As another jurisdiction has recently recognized, "denying the county the opportunity to collect child support from a man who it knows is not the child's father does not deny the county any right deserving protection." Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 429 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998). Significantly it is unclear on this record what, if any, legal impediment exists to MCDSS's seeking to recover the money from the actual biological father.