In re the Custody of: D.T.R.
Annotate this CaseD.T.R., a minor, was born in 2004 to Lynette Marthe and her then-husband Derek Reiter. At the time, both believed Reiter was D.T.R’s biological father. However, in 2007, genetic testing would prove that Michael Richards was D.T.R.’s biological father. In 2008, Richards sought joint legal custody of D.T.R., and named Marthe and Reiter as parties. Before trial, the parties stipulated paternity, but could not agree who should be deemed D.T.R.’s “legal” father. The case proceeded to trial in 2009. While the paternity suit was pending, Marthe and Reiter had filed for divorce. In 2010, the district court filed detailed and thorough findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issued an order that concluded that a parent-child relationship existed between Reiter and D.T.R., and adjudicated Reiter as the child’s “legal” father. Marthe appealed the court’s determination of paternity, but Richards did not. The appellate court questioned Marthe’s standing to appeal the dismissal of Richards’ petition. After additional briefing on the issue, the appellate court dismissed Marthe’s appeal. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Marthe argued that she had standing to appeal as an aggrieved party pursuant to the applicable state case law and the Minnesota Parentage Act. Reiter asserted that Marthe did not have standing because her rights were not affected by the judgment adjudicating paternity. According to Reiter, Marthe’s rights would be affected when her individual interests were at stake, such as a decision determining custody, parenting time or child support. The Supreme Court concluded that Marthe had standing to appeal as an aggrieved party the district court’s determination of D.T.R.’s paternity. The Court reasoned that the determination of paternity directly impacted her responsibility for child support and her rights related to child support. The Court reversed the appellate court’s holding, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.