In this child-support action brought by the state, a principal issue is whether estoppel may be a defense for a father who signed an affidavit terminating his parental rights that he assumed was filed but never was. Sued over as much as $80.000 in unpaid child support, Scholer defended himself by contending he signed the affidavit his ex-wife's attorney prepared in answer Scholer's offer to terminate his rights in a dispute over his access to the child. The affidavit noted his child-support obligation would cease, that he did not want to appear in court or by counsel and that he knew he "may not be further informed about the termination suit" or any other proceedings affecting his son. In a hearing over the past-due support, Scholer testified he assumed his parental rights ended. His ex-wife testified she decided not to follow through with the termination, did not believe she had a duty to tell him and was unaware Scholer signed the affidavit. The trial court ordered Scholer to pay past-due support. The appeals court reversed, holding that estoppel was an available defense in the attorney general's enforcement action.