dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority’s decision that the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501-591 (1988) has to be reconsidered by the trial court if they intend to find that a presumed but not adjudicated father can be ordered to pay child support, but I respectfully dissent as I find that issue is moot. In my opinion, the trial court acted properly in denying appellant’s motion to order respondent to pay child support, and a determination either way regarding the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Relief Act would not affect my analysis.
The trial court denied appellant’s motion to order respondent to pay child support because respondent has never been legally adjudicated the father of the child. I agree with the trial court.
The trial court held the declaration of parentage signed by respondént and appellant Wilson created only a presumption of parentage. See Minn.Stat. § 257.34, subd. 1(c) (1990) (declaration creates a presumption that the signatory is the biological father of the child for the purposes of sections 257.51 to 257.74). The trial court concluded the declaration exceeded the statutory scope of the Parentage Act because the declaration included the phrase that “this declaration has the same effect as Adjudication of Paternity.” I agree with the trial court that this is nothing more than a made-up phrase, and that a lay person calling a signed agreement the equivalent of a court-ordered judgment does not make it so.
I equate the declaration of paternity with a stipulation in a dissolution action which has been agreed upon and signed by both parties. It is certainly a legal agreement which can be looked at to help establish the parties’ rights and obligations. But, a stipulation for property settlement, maintenance, child support, et cetera, never becomes binding in a dissolution action unless *856and until the trial judge accepts it and incorporates it into a judgment and decree which is signed by the judge. The parties can suggest what is fair in a settlement, but only the trial court has the legal authority to declare it to be so. Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501, 507 (Minn.1989); Swanson v. Swanson, 372 N.W.2d 420, 423 (Minn.App.1985).
Here, two consenting adults signed a written document in which they recited, basically, that to their honest belief they were the parents of a minor, and they jointly agreed to take care of the child. There is nothing in the record to indicate they were incorrect in their beliefs, but that document was never taken to court and made part of a legal adjudication of paternity. Again, I find that lay persons certainly can “suggest” who might be the father, but it takes legal adjudication for the important ramifications of parent/child relationship to be put into place. The importance of family law calls for the rule of law.
The majority concedes as much and appears concerned that their opinion might be construed as a shortcut to the normal way the judicial process requires paternity actions to be commenced and child support to be collected. I agree. The trial court properly found this was a shortcut. There is no prejudice to the county or the mother to do this the right way. Appellants conceded at oral argument they can obtain a legal adjudication of parentage. That would simply involve making sure that respondent’s rights, if any, under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 are taken into account. Appellant Olmsted County argues that made it burdensome to formally adjudicate respondent the father, and thus legal adjudication was never completed. That is no excuse. Any legal rights afforded respondent by the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 belong to him and cannot be taken away. If appellants have to do more paper work and consume time to do a court-ordered adjudication properly, so be it.
I agree that when appellants get around to completing the legal adjudication of respondent as father, they should win. Respondent has never fought paternity. This case would not be before this court except that Olmsted County and respondent have a disagreement over how much child support respondent should pay. When appellant county pushed for the limit, respondent got his back up and, in effect, said, “since I am not legally obligated to pay any, I’m not going to voluntarily agree to the high figure you want which I feel I cannot afford.” I find the law favors respondent’s position. What statutory authority we have supports a conclusion that a presumptive but unadjudicated father does not have a legal obligation to pay support. For instance, where blood tests have been ordered and the results indicate the probability of paternity of the alleged father is 92 percent or greater, “upon motion the court shall order the alleged father to pay temporary child support determined according to chapter 518.” Minn.Stat. § 257.62, subd. 5(a) (1990) (emphasis added). The support ordered is paid in escrow to the court (if it was true child support, it would immediately go to the custodian for the child’s use with no restrictions) pending the results of the paternity proceedings. Id.
Also, the Parentage Act provides that the judgment or order determining the existence or nonexistence of a parent and child relationship shall contain a provision regarding the duty of support. Minn.Stat. § 257.66, subd. 3 (1990); see also Morey v. Peppin, 375 N.W.2d 19, 22 (Minn.1985). Treatises seem to indicate that the adjudicated father in a paternity proceeding must provide support to his minor child. See 1 Minnesota Family Law Practice Manual, § 20.11(A) (Cathy E. Gorlin, ed., 2d ed. 1993); 14 Martin L. Swaden & Linda A. Olup, Minnesota Practice § 19.21 at 498 (1992).
Appellant county argues this judicial shortcut is in the best interests of the child. I suggest the county’s real interest, although legal, is mundane rather than noble. Olmsted County has paid out AFDC benefits to the child’s mother and wants reimbursement. If the child’s best interests are truly the test, I suggest complet*857ing the legal adjudication of respondent as the father has to be the best available option. Olmsted County has the means and the facts to complete legal adjudication of parentage. The passage of the three years will further simplify their task. The record gives no indication it will end up as anybody else but respondent.
The far reaching ramifications of a legal parent/child relationship, including but not limited to social security benefits, military benefits, child support, possible inclusion in group medical coverage, inheritance rights, et cetera, are better served by completing legal adjudication rather than resting on this shortcut which Olmsted County argues has been local practice for some timé. I can only note that the importance which Olmsted County places on respondent’s written acknowledgement of parentage cannot safely be assumed for the rest of the child’s life to have that same importance in all 50 states in this country, in the federal system, and in other countries. A simple example is holographic wills.1 Many jurisdictions recognize their validity and consider them true testamentary documents capable of passing on property. Minnesota does not. Minnesota chooses to state that despite the fact holographies can be authenticated as a true desire of a deceased’s intentions, and despite the fact other states recognize them, we do not want to. What would prevent other jurisdictions from viewing Minnesota’s paternity presumption, based on a signed declaration but unaccompanied by further court action, in the same light?
To preserve the importance of a rule of law and to permanently put to rest the legal issue of respondent’s relationship to the child, Olmsted County should complete the process of legal adjudication of paternity. I would affirm the trial court.
. Holographic wills are handwritten by the testator and are not witnessed. The Uniform Probate Code recognizes holographic wills. Uniform Prob.Code § 2-503. Approximately half of the states recognize holographic wills. William M. McGovern, Jr., et ah, Wills, Trusts & Estates § 4.5 at 173 (1988). Minnesota does not recognize holographic wills. See Minn.Stat. § 524.2-502 (1992).