Uniform Parentage Act 2017: State Adoption Status — A 50-State Rollup

Every state has its own parentage code, but a large share of them borrow their bones from a single model statute: the Uniform Parentage Act. The UPA is a drafting project of the Uniform Law Commission, first published in 1973, overhauled in 2002, and rewritten again in 2017. The model act is not itself law anywhere. States choose whether to enact it, and they can enact all of it, part of it, or a modified version of it. Which version a state has adopted matters. It shapes how paternity is established, how voluntary acknowledgments work, how genetic testing is used, which challenges are allowed, and — under the 2017 version — how parentage is recognized for assisted reproduction, same-sex couples, and de facto parents.

This rollup walks through the three UPA versions, catalogs which states sit where, and links each state to its own USDC state article for the specifics. The state pages carry the statute citations, the rescission windows, the DNA thresholds, and the quirks that make each state its own animal. Use this rollup to see the shape of the national landscape; use the state pages to work a specific case.

What the Uniform Parentage Act Is (and Isn't)

The Uniform Law Commission, a nonpartisan body of state-appointed commissioners, drafts model statutes intended to bring some consistency to areas of state law where consistency matters. Family law is one of those areas. Children move, parents move, cases cross state lines, and enforcement gets messy when every state defines parentage differently. The UPA is the Commission's attempt to give states a coherent, portable framework for establishing who a child's legal parents are.

Three versions matter today:

• 1973 UPA (original): The first attempt. It focused on ending the legal distinction between children born to married and unmarried parents, and it introduced the basic architecture of paternity presumptions.
• 2002 UPA: A major rewrite. It replaced ad hoc procedural rules with a full-scale statutory framework: voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, a 60-day rescission window, a two-year challenge window, genetic-testing standards tied to a 99% probability and a combined paternity index of at least 100 to 1, and administrative processes for support agencies. Most of the states that people casually call "UPA states" mean 2002 UPA states.
• 2017 UPA: An overhaul aimed at modernizing the act for assisted reproduction, LGBTQ+ families, and de facto parenting. Gender-neutral language runs through the whole act. New chapters address surrogacy and ART parentage. A dedicated de facto parent chapter creates a pathway for someone who has functioned as a parent to be recognized as one. Grounds for challenging parentage are expanded in some respects and tightened in others.

A state's decision to adopt any of these is a legislative act. Nothing is automatic. Some states enacted the 1973 UPA, never updated, and still live with its rules. Some enacted the 2002 UPA and stopped there. A handful have adopted the 2017 UPA. Many states never adopted any UPA version at all and built their own parentage codes from scratch. The map is messier than a clean "UPA vs. non-UPA" dichotomy suggests.

The 2002 UPA — What It Introduced

The 2002 UPA is the workhorse. When a state statute references voluntary acknowledgment of paternity with a 60-day rescission window, a two-year fraud-duress-mistake challenge window, and a genetic-testing standard of 99% probability plus a paternity index of 100 to 1, that state is almost certainly running on 2002 UPA architecture.

Key features:

• Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP): A hospital-form pathway for unmarried fathers to establish legal paternity without a court proceeding. Once filed with vital statistics, the acknowledgment carries the weight of a court judgment.
• 60-day rescission window: Either signatory can rescind the VAP within 60 days of the effective date, or before the first hearing in a related proceeding, whichever comes first.
• Two-year challenge window: After 60 days, the acknowledgment can be challenged only for fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, and only within two years.
• Genetic-testing identification standard: A probability of paternity of at least 99% and a combined paternity index of at least 100 to 1 identifies the tested man as the father. Exclusion by testing is conclusive of non-paternity.
• Statutory presumptions: Birth within marriage, birth within 300 days of marriage termination, marriage or attempted marriage after birth followed by voluntary assertion, and holding the child out during the first two years of life.
• Administrative process: Recognition that state IV-D agencies (child support enforcement) need statutory authority to establish paternity administratively, request genetic testing, and refer contested cases to court.

The 2002 UPA framework is what most family lawyers picture when they hear "UPA." It is the version quoted in continuing-education materials and the version whose section numbers most peer-state codes track.

The 2017 UPA — What Changed

The 2017 UPA keeps the 2002 spine and layers modern parentage law on top of it. The additions are substantial enough that a state's move from 2002 to 2017 is a real policy shift, not a cosmetic update.

Key changes:

• Gender-neutral language throughout. "Father" and "mother" give way to "parent" wherever the biology of the pathway does not require otherwise. This is not just wording. It expands who can establish parentage through pathways that used to be sex-limited.
• Assisted reproduction (ART) parentage. A dedicated chapter addresses parentage of children conceived through ART, including provisions for intended parents and gamete donors.
• Surrogacy. The 2017 UPA offers a full statutory framework for gestational and genetic surrogacy agreements, including pre-birth orders and enforceability standards.
• De facto parent recognition. A dedicated chapter lets a person who has functioned as a parent — assumed parental responsibilities, held the child out as their own, formed a bonded parental relationship — petition to be recognized as a legal parent. The petitioner must generally prove the case by clear and convincing evidence.
• Expanded and modified challenge grounds. The 2017 act preserves the two-year fraud-duress-mistake window for VAP challenges but adjusts how competing claims of parentage are resolved. Courts weigh the best interests of the child when multiple presumptions or claims exist.
• Multi-parent recognition. A handful of adopting states use the 2017 UPA's framework to recognize more than two legal parents where that reflects the actual family.
• LGBTQ+ family recognition. The 2017 act is the first UPA version drafted with the assumption that same-sex couples have the same parentage rights as different-sex couples, whether by biology, ART, or intent.

Adopting the 2017 UPA is not just about updating vocabulary. It rewires the state's approach to who counts as a parent and how contested parentage is resolved.

States That Adopted the Full 2017 UPA

A small group of states have enacted the 2017 UPA in substantially full form. Each has its own effective date and each has its own local modifications, but all sit inside the 2017 framework rather than the 2002 one.

• California — enacted a comprehensive Uniform Parentage Act framework aligned with the 2017 model, including ART and de facto parent provisions.
• Connecticut — enacted the Connecticut Parentage Act, drawing on the 2017 UPA to modernize presumptions, VAP procedures, and de facto parent recognition.
• Maine — the Maine Parentage Act incorporates 2017 UPA features, including de facto parent standing and a pathway for recognizing more than two parents in appropriate cases.
• Rhode Island — the 2021 Rhode Island Uniform Parentage Act tracks the 2017 model, most notably in its de facto parent chapter, which reshaped how non-biological caregivers can establish legal parentage.
• Vermont — the Vermont Parentage Act sets out eight enumerated parentage pathways and a clear-and-convincing de facto parent standard, all consistent with the 2017 model.
• Washington — Washington's Uniform Parentage Act was updated to reflect the 2017 model, including ART, surrogacy, and de facto parent provisions.

Other states are actively considering the 2017 UPA. Vermont-style multi-parent recognition and Maine-style de facto parent chapters have influenced legislation in states not yet on the list.

States on the 2002 UPA Framework

The 2002 UPA is the most common baseline. States in this group have adopted the 2002 act substantially, sometimes with amendments, and their code sections mirror the 2002 model's structure.

• Alabama — enacted the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act along the 2002 lines.
• Delaware — one of the more complete 2002 UPA adopters, with the classic 60-day rescission and two-year challenge cutoff intact.
• Kansas — 2002 UPA framework, with a state-specific 97% DNA presumption.
• Montana — 2002 UPA framework, notable for treating an unrescinded acknowledgment as an irrebuttable presumption once its windows close.
• New Mexico — 2002 UPA adopter, applying the dual 99% probability and 100-to-1 CPI standard by the book.
• North Dakota — 2002 UPA adopter with a distinctive best-interest gate before court-ordered testing.
• Oklahoma — 2002 UPA framework, including cohabitation presumptions and the two-year challenge window.
• Texas — enacted the 2002 UPA as Chapter 160 of the Family Code. Texas is one of the largest and most consequential 2002 UPA states.
• Utah — 2002 UPA framework, adding a two-witness requirement on VAPs and a strong administrative track.
• Wyoming — 2002 UPA framework, with the unusual codified reference-population rule for the paternity index.

Also sitting on 2002 UPA foundations, with local modifications and their own quirks: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon. Each state page walks through the specific statutory citation and the local variations that matter in practice.

States with Modified UPA or Hybrid Frameworks

Plenty of states borrow heavily from the UPA without formally adopting a specific version. Their codes look UPA-ish — same presumptions, similar rescission windows, comparable genetic-testing standards — but the statute is home-grown and does not track a single UPA edition cleanly. Others adopted the 1973 UPA long ago and never migrated, so they run on an older framework that still bears the UPA imprint.

• Arizona — a home-grown code with UPA-style presumptions and challenge rules.
• Arkansas — hybrid framework; notably has no fixed time limit on establishing fatherhood.
• Florida — Florida's parentage law borrows from UPA concepts without a wholesale adoption.
• Georgia — legitimation-driven framework with UPA-adjacent elements.
• Hawaii — modified framework with a 500-to-1 paternity index requirement, higher than the 100-to-1 UPA baseline.
• Idaho — modified framework, notable for a 98% DNA threshold.
• Indiana — hybrid statutory framework.
• Iowa — an administrative-heavy framework with a 95% threshold and strong Child Support Recovery Unit powers.
• Maryland — Estates and Trusts Code framework, using the Declaration of Paternity in place of a straight VAP.
• Massachusetts — the Massachusetts parentage code has UPA lineage but sits on its own statutory scheme.
• Michigan — Paternity Act plus the separate Revocation of Paternity Act; UPA-adjacent but distinct.
• Minnesota — a Parentage Act with UPA structure and a strict challenge window.
• Mississippi — modified framework with a one-year rescission window and specific disestablishment rights.
• Missouri — UPA-derived structure with a clear-and-convincing standard on challenges.
• Nebraska — home-grown framework with a four-year filing window and a closed-door rule for marital children.
• Nevada — Nevada's parentage code includes a 285-day marital rule and conclusive DNA presumptions.
• New Hampshire — modified framework with a 97% threshold and town-hall filing procedure.
• New Jersey — the New Jersey Parentage Act draws on UPA principles.
• New York — Family Court Act and Domestic Relations Law govern; UPA is not adopted.
• North Carolina — home-grown parentage rules under Chapter 49.
• Ohio — Ohio's Parentage Act sits in Chapter 3111 and reflects UPA influence without wholesale adoption.
• Pennsylvania — largely case-law-driven, with statutory support built around presumptions of paternity.
• South Carolina — modified framework with a state-specific DNA threshold.
• Tennessee — legitimation framework with UPA-adjacent VAP procedures.
• Wisconsin — Chapter 767 parentage rules with a strong marital presumption.

The line between "2002 UPA state" and "modified/hybrid state" is fuzzy at the edges. Some family-law treatises will classify a state one way and a peer treatise will classify it the other. For any specific question, the statutory text controls, and the linked state pages point to the exact code sections.

Non-UPA States

A handful of states have never adopted the UPA in any recognizable form. Their parentage law grew up on its own statutory or common-law foundation.

• South Dakota — a non-UPA state with a 10-month legitimacy rule and a three-year fraud window for challenges.
• West Virginia — non-UPA, with a 98% filing rule and a clear-and-convincing bar on challenges.
• Kentucky — a home-grown parentage code with its own 10-month rule; UPA has never been enacted.
• Louisiana — the only civil-law jurisdiction in the country. Louisiana's parentage rules come from the Civil Code, not the UPA, and use categories (avowal, disavowal, filiation) unique to civilian systems.
• Virginia — Virginia's parentage law is codified in Title 20 and Title 63.2; it draws on common-law presumptions rather than the UPA framework.

Non-UPA does not mean weaker or less protective. It means the state chose a different drafting path. Some non-UPA states are stricter than 2002 UPA states, some are more generous, and all have their own logic. The linked state pages break out the differences.

How Adoption Status Affects At-Home Testing

The short answer is: it doesn't. Every state in the country permits at-home DNA testing for private, informational purposes. No state, whether it has adopted the 2017 UPA, the 2002 UPA, a hybrid code, or no UPA at all, restricts an adult's right to order a cheek-swab kit, collect samples at home, mail them to a lab, and receive results. A home paternity test is a personal decision and stays private until the person who ordered it chooses to share it.

Where UPA adoption status matters is on the legal-testing side. If a result needs to hold up in court, in a state child-support proceeding, or in a birth-record correction, the state's UPA framework governs how that legal test is ordered, how the sample is collected, how the identification standard is applied, and how any challenge to a resulting order plays out. A 2017 UPA state may allow a de facto parent to petition for genetic testing in ways that a 2002 UPA state does not. A non-UPA state may set its own DNA threshold above or below the UPA's 99%/100-to-1 baseline. A hybrid state may impose extra procedural gates before testing is ordered at all.

The practical takeaway for families: use at-home testing when the question is personal, and use legal testing (collected under chain of custody at an accredited facility) when the result needs legal weight. The framework the state operates under shapes the second pathway, not the first. You can order a home paternity test kit from US Diagnostics Center for $79 regardless of which UPA version — or none — your state has enacted.

A Summary Table

Classifications reflect the framework each state most closely tracks. Because state legislatures amend parentage codes regularly, and because some codes borrow UPA language without formally adopting a UPA version, treatise authors sometimes disagree on the edges. The linked state pages give the statutory citations, which are the last word.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Uniform Parentage Act federal law?
No. The UPA is a model act drafted by the Uniform Law Commission. It has no legal force until a state legislature enacts it. Some states have enacted the 1973, 2002, or 2017 versions; others have never adopted any UPA version at all.

What is the biggest difference between the 2002 UPA and the 2017 UPA?
The 2017 UPA is written for a broader definition of parentage. Where the 2002 UPA focused on biological fathers, unmarried fathers, and voluntary acknowledgment, the 2017 UPA adds full frameworks for assisted reproduction, surrogacy, de facto parenting, and LGBTQ+ family recognition. It also uses gender-neutral language throughout.

Which states have adopted the full 2017 UPA?
The commonly cited full adopters are California, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Each of those states has its own enactment date and its own local modifications, but all sit within the 2017 UPA framework rather than the 2002 one.

Does UPA adoption status affect my ability to take an at-home paternity test?
No. At-home testing is legal in every state for private, informational use. UPA adoption status affects legal and court-ordered testing pathways, not the at-home consumer product.

Why do so many states use the 60-day rescission window and the two-year challenge window?
Both come from the 2002 UPA. The 2002 act set those windows as the model, and enough states adopted it that the combination has become the de facto national norm even in states with home-grown codes.

Can a state be "on the 2002 UPA" and still have its own quirks?
Yes, and most do. Wyoming, for instance, adopted the 2002 UPA but wrote a reference-population requirement into its paternity-index statute that most other 2002 UPA states leave to lab practice. Montana adopted the 2002 UPA but treats an unrescinded acknowledgment as an irrebuttable presumption once the windows close. Every state page linked above walks through the local wrinkles.

What about states that adopted the 1973 UPA and never updated?
Practically speaking, most of those states have amended their codes enough over the past 30 years that classifying them as pure 1973 UPA states is misleading. They tend to be grouped with the modified/hybrid framework category above, because their current statutes have drifted well past the 1973 model.

Bottom Line

The Uniform Parentage Act comes in three flavors — 1973, 2002, and 2017 — and states pick and choose which version, if any, they want to enact. Six states sit inside the modern 2017 framework. A larger group runs on the 2002 workhorse. Many states use a hybrid or home-grown code that borrows from the UPA without formal adoption. A handful, including Louisiana with its civil-law roots, have never adopted the UPA at all. None of that affects the private, at-home consumer testing market. All of it affects how legal parentage is established, contested, and resolved in court.

For a specific state, follow the link to that state's USDC state article. Each one walks through the code citations, the rescission windows, the DNA thresholds, and the local rules that a family in that state actually has to work with.

This article is part of our Paternity Testing: The Complete Guide guide.