ILNews

Court rules on genetic testing on deceased

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals ruled today that the interests and parties involved in a deceased person's estate must be represented when an order for genetic testing is given.

In the case, In the Matter of the Paternity of C.M.R., a child born out of wedlock, http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08070701tac.pdf Kari Schenkel brings an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order for the genetic testing of her and her two children to determine if Joseph Miller, who is deceased, fathered C.M.R., the child of Jennifer Lee Randall. The Court of Appeals vacates the trial court's order and remands with instructions.

In December 1999, Jennifer Lee Randall gave birth to C.M.R., at which time Miller was involved in a relationship with Kari Schenkel. As a result of their relationship, Schenkel and Miller had two children, whose paternity was established in April 2002. In July of that year, Miller died. In April 2005, Randall filed a petition with the trial court to establish that Miller is the father of C.M.R., and in June 2005, Title IV-D prosecuting attorney Richard Brown filed a motion for paternity testing using genetic samples from Miller's autopsy on behalf of C.M.R. The trial court granted the motion that same day. In July 2006, the state filed another motion that stated Miller's remains were insufficient for testing and that Schenkel and her two children need to be tested to determine by way of comparison if Miller was C.M.R.'s father. Schenkel and her children were not named as parties to the paternity action.

The trial court entered an order for genetic testing Sept. 26, 2006, which states results of the test can be admitted as evidence to prove if Miller was the father of C.M.R.

On appeal, Schenkel argues the paternity action is untimely pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-14-5-5, stating a paternity action needs to be filed during the alleged father's lifetime or not later than five months after his death. Although the state argues that Schenkel waived this argument because she raised it for the first time on appeal, the Court of Appeals found it's not necessary to address the assertions because a cursory review of the records reveals necessary parties have not been joined in the paternity action. Randall, Schenkel, and her two children are not named as parties to the action, and Indiana Code 31-14-6-1 states only parties to a paternity action may be ordered to undergo genetic testing.

Also, the court found the order for genetic testing on Miller to be void because the state did not petition to open Miller's estate so that its interests could be represented. Therefore, the court vacated the order and remanded with instructions to determine which of the participants in the paternity action should be joined as parties and to allow those parties an opportunity to appear, answer, and defend their interests as appropriate.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT