Most men who search for a way to reopen a Texas paternity case have already been told it is too late. A lawyer, a court clerk, or a friend has pointed at the calendar, counted past the child's fourth birthday, and closed the conversation. The reason is Texas Family Code §160.607(a), the statute of repose that shuts the door on challenges to a presumed father's paternity after four years. It is a hard bar, and most general guides to Texas paternity law stop there.
The bar has two exceptions, and they are written into subsection (b) of the same statute. Neither exception is easy to meet. Courts read them narrowly, appellate opinions in Texas have rejected far more §160.607(b) claims than they have granted, and even a strong DNA result does not by itself open the door. What it does do is create the evidentiary trigger a court will need to see before it will look at whether one of the two exceptions applies.
This article walks through §160.607(b) the way a Texas court reads it. You will see the exact language of both exceptions, who counts as a presumed father, what the state's appellate courts have accepted and rejected as "misrepresentation," how a home DNA exclusion fits into the beginning of the process, what pleading has to be filed, and what typically happens if a court does reopen the case. If your four-year window has closed, this is where you find out whether §160.607(b) is a real option for you or a dead end.
§160.607(a): the general four-year bar
The statute is short and blunt. Section 160.607(a) reads: "Except as otherwise provided by Subsection (b), a proceeding brought by a presumed father, the mother, or another individual to adjudicate the parentage of a child having a presumed father shall be commenced not later than the fourth anniversary of the date of the birth of the child."
Two things about that sentence matter. First, the clock runs from the child's date of birth, not from the date the presumed father learned of any doubt. A man who first suspects he is not the biological father when the child is five is already outside subsection (a). Second, the bar applies to "a proceeding brought by a presumed father, the mother, or another individual." It is broad. It closes challenges from either parent and from third parties, subject only to the exceptions in (b).
Texas courts treat §160.607(a) as a statute of repose rather than a normal limitations period. That distinction matters because a statute of repose is generally not subject to equitable tolling for things like continued fraud or ongoing concealment. If you are outside the four years, the only path back in runs through §160.607(b).
Who counts as a "presumed father"
You cannot use §160.607 at all unless the man whose paternity is at issue is a "presumed father" as Texas defines that term. That definition lives in Tex. Fam. Code §160.204.
The two most common paths to presumed-father status in Texas are marriage and holding-out. A man is a presumed father if he was married to the mother of the child and the child was born during the marriage or within 300 days after the marriage ended. He is also a presumed father if, during the first two years of the child's life, he continuously resided in the household in which the child resided and he represented to others that the child was his own.
Section 160.204 lists other paths as well, including marriage attempts that turn out to be invalid and marriages entered into after the birth. What matters for §160.607 purposes is that presumed-father status is a legal category the mother or the man himself may not have thought about in those terms. Continuous residence for two years plus openly calling the child "my son" or "my daughter" is enough. So is a marriage during pregnancy that ends before the child is old enough to walk.
If there is no presumed father, §160.607 does not apply. Different limitations rules govern acknowledged and adjudicated fathers, and the analysis that follows only fits presumed-father cases.
The two §160.607(b) exceptions
Subsection (b) is the entire reason a closed case can be reopened. It reads that an adjudication proceeding may be commenced after the fourth anniversary of the child's birth if the court determines either of two things.
Exception (b)(1): no cohabitation, no sex, no holding-out
The first exception applies when "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 the presumed father never openly treated the child as his own."
This is a narrow exception aimed at cases where the man became a presumed father almost by accident, usually through the marriage-plus-birth rule, but had no biological or social connection to the child. Every element has to be met. He must not have lived with the mother during the probable conception window. He must not have had sex with her during that window. And he must not have openly treated the child as his own at any point afterward.
The "openly treated the child as his own" element is the one that catches most (b)(1) claims. A man who signed a school form, took the child to a doctor's appointment, or introduced the child as his at a family gathering has usually done enough to fail this element, even if he had doubts privately. Courts read "openly treated" broadly on purpose. If a child has spent years being told this is my dad, Texas law does not want that relationship undone by a technicality.
Exception (b)(2): misrepresentation-based mistaken belief
The second exception is the one most reopening petitions rely on. It applies when "the presumed father was precluded from commencing a proceeding to adjudicate the parentage of the child before the expiration of the time prescribed by Subsection (a) because of the mistaken belief that he was the child's biological father based on misrepresentations that led him to that conclusion."
Read that carefully. It is not enough that the presumed father was mistaken. The mistake has to have been caused by misrepresentations, and those misrepresentations have to be the reason he did not file within four years. Three elements sit inside that one sentence: a mistaken belief, misrepresentations that produced the belief, and a causal link between the belief and his failure to file in time.
Every one of those elements has been the subject of Texas appellate opinions. Courts have rejected (b)(2) claims where the man's own knowledge should have put him on notice, where the "misrepresentation" was a failure to volunteer information rather than an affirmative statement, and where the man knew the truth well before the four-year mark and simply waited.
How Texas appellate courts have applied (b)(2)
The evidentiary threshold for (b)(2) is high. In In re J.S.C. and cases in the same line, Texas courts of appeals have made a few points repeatedly.
The mother's silence, standing alone, is generally not a "misrepresentation." Something more is usually required, such as a direct statement that the presumed father was the biological father, a denial that any other man could be, or active concealment of the mother's relationship with another man during the conception window. Courts want to see a specific statement or a specific act of concealment, not a general sense that the mother could have said more.
The presumed father's own awareness matters. If he was aware during the four-year window that there was reason to doubt his paternity (arguments about faithfulness during the pregnancy, a family member's comment, the child's appearance, or the mother's admission of another relationship), courts will often find that his belief was not really "based on" the alleged misrepresentation. The mistaken-belief element fails.
Delay after the truth surfaces is a separate problem. Even when a court accepts that a misrepresentation occurred, waiting to file after the misrepresentation has been exposed weakens the causal element and, in some cases, triggers a laches defense from the mother or the child's ad litem. A man who learns the DNA truth and files within months is in a very different position from a man who sits on the information for another two years.
None of this means (b)(2) is impossible. It means courts have set the bar high enough that a reopening petition needs to be built on documented facts, not general impressions. Text messages, recorded conversations, sworn declarations from third parties who heard the mother make specific representations, and a clean timeline from discovery to filing all help.
How newly discovered DNA becomes the trigger
Nothing in §160.607(b) requires DNA evidence. In practice, DNA is almost always the trigger. A home paternity test that excludes the presumed father is what turns a private suspicion into a fact he can act on. It is also what a lawyer will want to see before drafting a petition.
The USDC home paternity test kit at $79 tests up to 28 markers and returns a result in 7 to 10 business days from when the lab receives the samples, or 5 to 7 business days with the expedited add-on available during checkout. Lab processing itself runs 2 to 3 business days once the samples arrive. Home tests are for personal knowledge only. They are not court-admissible in Texas, and they will not be admitted in a §160.607 proceeding as proof of non-paternity.
What the home test does is give you an answer before you spend anything on a lawyer or a court filing. An exclusion result from a home test tells you whether it is worth going further. If the test does not exclude you, the §160.607(b) path is closed regardless of what else you believe. If the test does exclude you, the next step is a legal DNA test done with strict chain-of-custody procedures, because that is what the court will require under Tex. Fam. Code §160.502 once the case is opened.
USDC's legal paternity test kit is Coming Soon. Until it is available, ask the attorney handling your case which court-approved collection facility they use, or contact the Texas Office of the Attorney General Child Support Division for a list of approved providers in your area.
What you actually file, where, and when
The pleading in a §160.607(b) reopening is a petition to adjudicate parentage under Tex. Fam. Code §160.611. It looks like an ordinary parentage petition, but it must include a specific plea explaining why the four-year bar does not apply. That is the §160.607(b) explanation, and it should state which exception is being invoked, allege the facts that support each element of that exception, and identify when the presumed father first learned facts sufficient to raise the doubt.
Venue is the district court, or a statutory court exercising family-law jurisdiction, in the county where the child resides. If the child has moved out of state, the analysis gets more complicated and you should ask a Texas family lawyer whether the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act affects your filing. Notice must be served on the mother, on the child through an attorney ad litem if one is appointed, and on any other man who might have an interest, including a possible biological father if one is known.
There is no separate statute of limitations built into §160.607(b) itself, but a reopening petition should be filed as soon as reasonably possible after the presumed father learns the facts. The longer the delay between discovery and filing, the more room the other side has to argue that the belief was not really "based on" the alleged misrepresentation or that laches bars the claim. Filing within a few months of a clear exclusion result is safer than filing a year later.
What courts do not accept as "misrepresentation"
A few common scenarios come up over and over and are usually not enough on their own.
Silence and failure to disclose are usually not enough. A mother who never volunteered that she had been with another man during the conception window has not necessarily made a misrepresentation. Texas courts have generally required an affirmative false statement or active concealment. A blanket "he is your son" or a direct denial of another relationship can qualify. A shrug and a change of subject usually does not.
Uncertainty that the presumed father dismissed is usually not enough either. If he suspected during the marriage that he might not be the biological father and chose not to test, courts read that as an acceptance of the risk rather than a misrepresentation-driven mistake. The element that requires the belief to be caused by misrepresentation fails.
Delay after learning the truth undermines the claim. A man who receives a home DNA exclusion, tells family members, and then waits a year or more before filing gives the court and the opposing party a strong argument that his conduct after discovery is inconsistent with the exception. Some Texas courts have described this in laches terms, others in causal terms, but the practical result is the same. Prompt filing after discovery matters.
Statements made by third parties, without proof they were repeated to the presumed father or that he relied on them, are usually not enough. The misrepresentation has to have been made to him or received by him in a way that shaped his belief.
What happens if the court grants the reopening
If the court finds that one of the §160.607(b) exceptions applies, the case is not automatically decided. What the court has done is agreed to hear the parentage question on the merits. From there, the usual §160.611 procedure controls.
The court will typically order genetic testing under Tex. Fam. Code §160.502. That order specifies the lab, the collection procedure, and the chain-of-custody requirements. Home test results the presumed father brought with him do not substitute for this. The court-ordered test is what generates the evidence the court will actually rely on.
If the court-ordered test excludes the presumed father, the court will typically enter a finding that he is not the parent under §160.631 and vacate the presumption. That finding usually vacates any existing child-support order going forward. It does not, in most cases, refund past support already paid. Texas courts have consistently declined to unwind past support payments because the child received them in reliance on the earlier presumption. Ongoing obligations end at the date of the new finding, but arrears and past-paid amounts generally stand.
The child's relationship with the man who has been present as their father is a separate question the court will consider carefully. In some cases, courts have preserved parental rights and duties despite a biological exclusion under the equitable-parent and best-interest analyses. The reopening does not guarantee a clean break, and for many families it should not.
FAQ
Can I file under §160.607(b) if my child is already an adult?
The statute does not have an upper age limit on the reopening itself. Practical problems multiply as the child ages, including standing issues, whether any support order is still active, and whether a court will find the case worth reopening at all when there is no ongoing obligation to adjust. Talk to a Texas family lawyer about whether filing serves a real purpose in your situation.
Does a home DNA test result get me into court?
A home test result gets you enough information to decide whether to file. It is not admissible as proof of non-paternity in a Texas parentage proceeding, because it lacks the chain of custody the courts require. Once the case is open, the court will order a legal DNA test under §160.502, and that is the evidence the court will rely on.
What if the mother now agrees I am not the father?
Agreement helps, but §160.607(b) is a court-controlled provision. The parties cannot stipulate around it. Even with the mother's agreement, the court still has to find that one of the two exceptions applies and typically will still order a formal genetic test. Agreement makes the case move faster and cheaper, not automatic.
Will I get back the child support I paid?
Almost never. Texas courts have generally refused to refund past child support even after a successful §160.607(b) reopening. The reasoning is that the child received support in reliance on the presumption at the time. Going-forward support obligations end at the date of the new finding, but past payments stay paid.
How long does a reopening case take?
From filing to final order, expect several months at a minimum. Contested cases with attorneys ad litem, disputed misrepresentation facts, and appeals can run more than a year. The genetic-testing step itself is not the bottleneck. Discovery, hearings on the §160.607(b) threshold question, and the final adjudication under §160.611 are. For general procedural background, the Texas Judicial Branch self-help page is a useful starting point, though it does not address §160.607 specifically.
Do I need a lawyer?
A §160.607(b) petition is not a form-filing case. The pleading has to allege exception-specific elements, the evidence has to be built carefully, and one appellate misstep can end the case. If you are considering filing, spend the money on a Texas family lawyer with parentage experience before you spend it on anything else.
0 comments