Is everyone sure it is WI law that guides?
When I got a girl pregnant, was young and never got a test and signed the recognition of parantage form in Minnesota,
is the state supplied. Was there another thread somewhere?
In Minnesota, the time to rebut the recognition is:
Subd. 2.Rebuttal.
A presumption under this section may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence. If two or more presumptions arise which conflict with each other, the presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls. The presumption is rebutted by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man.
So, the key is what an "appropriate action" is and the statute of limitations on it. But, at least there is a presumption.
But, we have the signed recognition of parentage form with the statute at:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=257.75
With a "revocation of recognition" provision of:
Subd. 2.Revocation of recognition.
A recognition may be revoked in a writing signed by the mother or father before a notary public and filed with the state registrar of vital statistics within the earlier of 60 days after the recognition is executed or the date of an administrative or judicial hearing relating to the child in which the revoking party is a party to the related action. A joinder in a recognition may be revoked in a writing signed by the man who executed the joinder and filed with the state registrar of vital statistics within 60 days after the joinder is executed. Upon receipt of a revocation of the recognition of parentage or joinder in a recognition, the state registrar of vital statistics shall forward a copy of the revocation to the nonrevoking parent, or, in the case of a joinder in a recognition, to the mother and father who executed the recognition.
Yea, not so much. But, what of trying to vacate the recognition?
Subd. 4.Action to vacate recognition.
(a) An action to vacate a recognition of paternity may be brought by the mother, father, husband or former husband who executed a joinder, or the child. An action to vacate a recognition of parentage may be brought by the public authority. A mother, father, or husband or former husband who executed a joinder must bring the action within one year of the execution of the recognition or within six months after the person bringing the action obtains the results of blood or genetic tests that indicate that the man who executed the recognition is not the father of the child. A child must bring an action to vacate within six months after the child obtains the result of blood or genetic tests that indicate that the man who executed the recognition is not the father of the child, or within one year of reaching the age of majority, whichever is later. If the court finds a prima facie basis for vacating the recognition, the court shall order the child, mother, father, and husband or former husband who executed a joinder to submit to blood tests. If the court issues an order for the taking of blood tests, the court shall require the party seeking to vacate the recognition to make advance payment for the costs of the blood tests. If the party fails to pay for the costs of the blood tests, the court shall dismiss the action to vacate with prejudice. The court may also order the party seeking to vacate the recognition to pay the other party's reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements. If the results of the blood tests establish that the man who executed the recognition is not the father, the court shall vacate the recognition. If a recognition is vacated, any joinder in the recognition under subdivision 1a is also vacated. The court shall terminate the obligation of a party to pay ongoing child support based on the recognition. A modification of child support based on a recognition may be made retroactive with respect to any period during which the moving party has pending a motion to vacate the recognition but only from the date of service of notice of the motion on the responding party.
(b) The burden of proof in an action to vacate the recognition is on the moving party. The moving party must request the vacation on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The legal responsibilities in existence at the time of an action to vacate, including child support obligations, may not be suspended during the proceeding, except for good cause shown.
So, it seems that under Minnesota law, the OP could file suit to revoke recognition. What happens then?
That's the tough question for an attorney to answer. I suspect the choice of law would be where the child was born and not where he lives now. (Or, where the parents live.) This is more a civil procedure question and not a presumption question.
Even in Wisconsin, the presumption seems to be able to be challenged:
891.405 Presumption of paternity based on acknowledgment. A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he and the mother have acknowledged paternity under s. 69.15 (3) (b) 1. or 3. and no other man is presumed to be the father under s. 891.41 (1).
(b)
1. Except as provided under par. (c), if the state registrar receives a statement acknowledging paternity on a form prescribed by the state registrar and signed by both of the birth parents of a child determined to be a marital child under s. 767.803, a certified copy of the parents' marriage certificate, and the fee required under s. 69.22 (5) (b) 1., the state registrar shall insert the name of the husband from the marriage certificate as the father if the name of the father was omitted on the original birth certificate. The state registrar shall include on the form for the acknowledgment the items in s. 767.813 (5g).
2. Except as provided under par. (c), if the parent of a child determined to be a marital child under s. 767.803 dies after his or her marriage and before the statement acknowledging paternity has been signed, the state registrar shall insert the name of the father under subd. 1. upon receipt of a court order determining that the husband was the father of the child.
3. Except as provided under par. (c), if the state registrar receives a statement acknowledging paternity on a form prescribed by the state registrar and signed by both parents, and by a parent or legal guardian of any parent who is under the age of 18 years, along with the fee under s. 69.22, the state registrar shall insert the name of the father under subd. 1. The state registrar shall mark the certificate to show that the form is on file. The form shall be available to the department of children and families or a county child support agency under s. 59.53 (5) pursuant to the program responsibilities under s. 49.22 or to any other person with a direct and tangible interest in the record. The state registrar shall include on the form for the acknowledgment the information in s. 767.805 and the items in s. 767.813 (5g).
4. If a registrant has not reached the age of 18 years and if any of the following indicate, in a statement acknowledging paternity under subd. 1. or 3., that the given name or surname, or both, of the registrant should be changed on the birth certificate, the state registrar shall enter the name indicated on the birth certificate without a court order:
a. The mother of the registrant, except as provided under subd. 4. b. and c.
b. The father of the registrant if the father has legal custody of the registrant.
c. The parents of the registrant if they have married each other after the birth of the registrant.
It seems parentage by acknowledgment requires a specific approved form. Even if the facts of http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/891/891.41 would find the presumption, there seems a process to overcome the presumption with the limitation of:
A genetic test showing another man to be the natural father rebuts the presumption under s. 767.48 (1m) [now s. 767.84 (1m)] and sub. (1) that the spouse of the child's mother is the father, but equitable estoppel may be employed to preclude rebutting the presumption. The issue is whether the actions and inactions of the parties advocating the rebuttal of the marital presumption were so unfair as to preclude them from overcoming the public's interest in the marital presumption based on the results of genetic tests. Randy A. J. v. Norma I. J. 2004 WI 41, 270 Wis. 2d 384, 677 N.W.2d 630, 02-0469.
With the end result being, I think the OP can challenge paternity even at this date. If MN law is followed, it seems the limitation is 6 months from the date of the test results. If WI law, the key will be fairness. (aka equitable estoppel) While I think the very concept to be quite horrible to consider on the part of the OP on a child he has treated as his own for 8 years, he may have a legal leg to stand on. Especially since I think it is MN law that would guide. (Although have not done a civ pro search on the matter.)