A Father’s Unwavering Love: Jason’s Journey to Protect His Son

A Narrative Story of In re the Custody of the Child of Jason Billy Williams v. Korrin Ann Carlson, 701 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)

Jason Billy Williams* had always believed that being a father meant more than just biology—it meant showing up every single day, providing love and stability, and putting your child’s needs first. When his son J.J.W. was born on January 17, 2000, Jason felt his world transform in the most beautiful way possible.

From the moment J.J.W. entered the world, Jason embraced fatherhood with his whole heart. He was there at the hospital, proudly signing the birth certificate and the recognition of parentage alongside Korrin Ann Carlson*, J.J.W.’s mother. Even though Jason and Korrin had never married and weren’t living together, Jason was determined to be the father his son deserved.

For the first two years of J.J.W.’s life, Jason and Korrin worked together as co-parents. Instead of hiring babysitters, they agreed that Jason would care for J.J.W. during the day at his family’s farm in Hewitt, Minnesota, where Jason had lived his entire life. The farm provided a stable, nurturing environment where J.J.W. could run and play safely while Jason worked in the farming operations. Jason’s mother also became deeply involved in caring for her grandson, creating a loving extended family network.

Jason treasured those early years. He prepared meals for J.J.W., gave him baths, provided medical care when needed, and was there for bedtime stories and morning cuddles. The little boy thrived on the farm, developing a special bond with the land and the animals that had been part of Jason’s own childhood.

But as time went on, Jason began to worry about the instability in J.J.W.’s life. While Jason had remained constant—living in the same place, working the same job, providing the same steady presence—Korrin’s life seemed to be in constant flux. She had moved six times in five years, worked for eight different companies in mostly part-time positions, and had been involved in multiple romantic relationships.

Jason’s concerns deepened when he learned about Korrin’s relationship with Jeremiah Rapier, a man with a criminal record and history of domestic violence. The thought of his precious son being exposed to violence made Jason’s heart ache with worry. When he discovered that Rapier had actually assaulted Korrin in front of J.J.W. and his half-sister K.C., Jason felt a mixture of anger and protective instinct that he had never experienced before.

In July 2002, Korrin filed for an order for protection against Jason, though she admitted during the proceedings that Jason was J.J.W.’s father and had never committed any acts of domestic abuse or assault. The order was entered by stipulation, limiting Jason’s contact with Korrin but preserving his relationship with his son. Despite the legal formalities, Jason and Korrin continued to share equally in J.J.W.’s care, with the little boy spending time in both homes.

By September 2002, Jason realized he needed to take formal legal action to protect his son’s best interests. He filed a petition to establish custody and visitation rights, hoping to provide J.J.W. with the stability and security every child deserves. Jason felt confident in his role as a father—he had been there from day one, providing consistent love and care, and he knew J.J.W. was thriving in the stable environment of the family farm.

What Jason didn’t expect was Korrin’s response. While she admitted in her legal answer that Jason was J.J.W.’s father, she also requested genetic testing “to establish paternity.” Jason felt confused and hurt—they had both signed the recognition of parentage when J.J.W. was born, acknowledging under oath that they were his biological parents. Why was paternity suddenly in question?

The court ordered genetic testing, and Jason waited anxiously for the results. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent J.J.W.’s best interests, and after conducting an independent investigation that included personal visits with both families, she recommended that Jason receive sole physical custody with liberal visitation for Korrin.

The custody trial took place on March 2, 2004, but the genetic test results didn’t arrive until May 14, 2004. When Jason learned the results, he felt his world shift beneath his feet—the tests excluded him as J.J.W.’s biological father. For a moment, Jason wondered if everything he had believed about his relationship with his son was about to crumble.

But as Jason reflected on the past four years, he realized that his love for J.J.W. had never been about genetics—it had been about the daily acts of care, the bedtime stories, the scraped knees he had bandaged, the laughter they had shared on the farm. He had been J.J.W.’s father in every way that mattered, and no test result could change that bond.

The court seemed to understand this too. Despite the genetic test results, the judge awarded Jason sole physical custody of J.J.W., with joint legal custody shared between both parents and liberal visitation for Korrin. The court recognized that Jason had provided the stability and consistency that J.J.W. needed to thrive.

In making this decision, the court noted that Jason had lived his entire life on the family farm, providing J.J.W. with a stable home environment, while Korrin had moved frequently and had multiple romantic relationships, including one that exposed J.J.W. to domestic violence. The court also observed that J.J.W. appeared to be better adjusted when living with Jason and became upset when custody was transferred from Jason to Korrin.

When Korrin filed a motion for a new trial based on the genetic test results, Jason felt a familiar anxiety return. Would the court change its mind? Would he lose the son he had raised and loved for four years?

But the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision in August 2005. The appellate court recognized that Jason and Korrin had signed a recognition of parentage that had the force and effect of a legal judgment establishing the parent-child relationship. Since Korrin had never properly moved to vacate that recognition within the required timeframes, it remained valid regardless of the genetic test results.

More importantly, the court acknowledged that Jason had “received the child into his home and openly held out the child as his biological child,” creating a legal presumption of paternity that was conclusive since no other man was claiming to be J.J.W.’s father.

Jason felt an overwhelming sense of relief and validation when the appellate court’s decision was announced. The legal system had recognized what he had always known in his heart—that being a father is about love, commitment, and daily presence, not just biology. J.J.W. would continue to have the stability and security of growing up on the family farm, surrounded by the love of Jason and his extended family.

The court’s decision gave Jason peace of mind, knowing that his relationship with J.J.W. was legally protected and that he could continue providing the consistent, nurturing environment his son needed to flourish. Jason had fought not for victory over Korrin, but for the right to continue being the father J.J.W. had always known him to be.

Through this challenging journey, Jason learned that true fatherhood transcends genetics—it’s built through daily acts of love, sacrifice, and unwavering commitment to a child’s well-being. The court’s recognition of this truth empowered Jason to continue providing J.J.W. with the stable, loving home every child deserves.

*This story is based on the true facts of the appellate court’s decision, but the personal experiences and emotions described are a fictional representation to bring the case to life.

Question: Why are paternity cases kept private and confidential?

Answer: Paternity cases are kept private to protect families from public embarrassment and to encourage people to be honest during the proceedings. Only the people involved and certain officials can see the files.

The Minnesota Parentage Act directs that proceedings to determine a parent–child relationship are conducted privately. Under Minnesota Statutes section 257.70, hearings in parentage actions are closed to the public and the records are sealed. Only the parties, their counsel, authorized court personnel, and certain public officials may access the files, and the court may issue orders to protect the privacy of the child and the parents. Final judgments or orders establishing or denying paternity are public records, but the pleadings, genetic-testing results, and transcripts remain confidential. This statutory protection is intended to shield families from public scrutiny and to encourage candid participation in the proceedings.

Question: What happens if there’s a paternity question about who the father is during a divorce?

Answer: When paternity is questioned during a divorce, the court must follow special paternity laws instead of just assuming the husband is the father. The court may order genetic testing and often handles the paternity issue separately from the divorce.

When the parentage of a child born during a marriage is disputed in a dissolution proceeding, the trial court must apply the Parentage Act rather than presume the husband is the father. Minnesota Statutes section 257.55, subdivision 1(a) establishes a presumption that a man is the father if he and the child’s mother were married at the time of the child’s birth or conception. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, such as genetic-testing results. The court may order the parties and the child to submit to genetic testing under section 257.62, and the results may create a competing presumption of paternity. Under section 257.57, an action to establish or declare non-existence of the father–child relationship may be brought by the presumed father, the child, the child’s mother, or the state. If paternity is contested during a divorce, the district court often bifurcates the parentage issue from the dissolution, suspends child-related determinations until parentage is resolved, and applies the procedural requirements of the Parentage Act. Once the biological father is determined, the court can enter custody, parenting-time, and support orders in the divorce. See In re Custody of Child of Williams v. Carlson, 701 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (discussing consolidation of dissolution and parentage proceedings).