NO ADJUDICATION OF PATERNITY
DENIED DNA TEST,
NO VAP, NO ADJUDICATION ORDER,
VOID AB INITIO,
DUE PROCESS VIOLATION

​The Ongoing Struggle for Adjudication of Paternity in Case No. 2018-DM-000019

For years, I have been entangled in a legal system that refuses to address one simple, fundamental fact: there has never been an adjudication of paternity in Case No. 2018-DM-000019.
 
Despite Kansas statutes that require paternity to be established by a signed Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP), DNA testing, or a filed adjudication order, no such order exists in this case. I have never signed a VAP. I have never taken a DNA test. The Rush County Clerk has confirmed no adjudication order is on file.
 
Yet, on the foundation of this missing record, Kansas courts have issued years of custody, visitation, and child support orders. These orders, by law, are void. But the system has consistently refused to admit it.
 
Key Facts

• No VAP, No DNA, No Adjudication Order
  By statute (K.S.A. 23-2208, 23-2210), paternity must be formally adjudicated before custody and support orders can issue. That never happened in my case.

• Rush County Clerk Confirmation
  The Clerk’s office confirmed there is no adjudication order in the case file.

• KORA Requests Ignored
  I submitted multiple Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) requests to DCF for a certified adjudication order. Instead of a clear yes/no, I was given irrelevant “file dumps” and evasive statements. General Counsel even wrote that DCF would provide no further response.

• Court Filings Denied Without Hearing
  When I filed motions in Rush County to vacate the void orders, Judge Wilson issued an order on July 11, 2025 denying them — without a hearing, without letting me present argument, and explicitly stating I could never revisit adjudication again.

 
Why This Matters?

A judgment entered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void. Kansas Supreme Court precedent holds that void judgments may be challenged at any time — directly or collaterally. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, cannot be waived, and cannot be assumed.
 
Yet, despite this black-letter law, my filings are repeatedly shut down. Instead of addressing the binary question — does an adjudication of paternity exist in Case No. 2018-DM-000019? — state actors and judges continue to dodge, delay, or redirect.
 
The Courts’ Contradictions

• Judge Bruce Gatterman referred to “adjudication” in orders without citing a record to support it.

• Judge Meryl Wilson denied my motions without hearing and barred me from raising the issue again, despite the fact that jurisdictional defects cannot be waived.

• DCF Marc Altenbernt responded to my KORA request with irrelevant documents instead of the only thing that matters: a file-stamped, signed adjudication order.

• Judge James Fleetwood denied me due process during a hearing by refusing to allow me to speak, despite transcripts showing I had evidence and arguments to present.

The Human Cost?

Because the court refuses to admit the truth, I have been:
 

• Ordered to pay child support on a child who is not mine. Both myself and the mother are Caucasian, yet one child is African-American. I filed motions requesting a DNA test and relief from these obligations. Those motions were denied.

• Denied due process when Judge Fleetwood refused to let me speak at a hearing where I had filed evidence, including photographs of abuse on my son. The transcript confirms I was silenced.

• Ordered to pay child support under void orders — even during times when my children were in my care for months.

• Sanctioned thousands of dollars for raising legitimate jurisdictional arguments.

• Forced to spend years and resources filing motions, appeals, and federal complaints — all met with denial, dismissal, or evasion.

Even the Federal Court Judge Holly Teeter Closed Its Doors

When I raised these due process violations in federal court, backed by documentation, Judge Holly Teeter of the United States District Court denied my complaint with prejudice. That ruling barred me from ever raising the issue again in federal court — even though the evidence was factual, documented, and central to the denial of my constitutional rights.
 
This demonstrates the systemic problem: even when federal courts are presented with undeniable jurisdictional defects and due process violations, they choose to protect state courts instead of addressing the constitutional harm.

The Larger Issue

This case highlights a broader systemic problem: when courts and agencies protect themselves and each other, the rule of law collapses. A missing adjudication of paternity should be fatal to the case. Instead, it has been papered over, avoided, and denied at every turn.

My Position

The question is simple:
 

• Is there a signed adjudication of paternity order in Case No. 2018-DM-000019?

The answer is equally simple: No.
 
Every custody, support, and enforcement order rests on that missing foundation. And until the system admits it, I will continue to be forced into endless filings, appeals, and complaints, just to get the courts to follow their own laws.

Conclusion:
This fight is not about me. It is about accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. Families should not be destroyed because state actors refuse to admit when a record does not exist.