Court rules on genetic testing on deceased

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
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, 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.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.