ILNews

Divided high court affirms DNA unnecessary to establish paternity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court justices split 3-2 in affirming that DNA evidence is not required to establish paternity.

Justices issued a published order Thursday in In RE the Paternity of I.B.: K.H. v. I.B., b/n/f L.B., 34A02-1305-JP-401, denying transfer of a Howard Circuit ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The order ends the appeal.

The Supreme Court held oral argument on whether to accept the appeal of K.H., who argued that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to prove that he is the biological father. The court also ordered K.H. to pay child support after issuing findings that “provided by a preponderance of evidence, if not clearly and convincingly that … K.H. is the biological father of I.B.”

The child was born after mother L.B.’s marriage to C.B. dissolved, and both stipulated that C.B. was not I.B.’s father. K.H. appealed, arguing the trial court erred in concluding that L.B. had rebutted the statutory presumption that C.B. is I.B’s father in the absence of DNA evidence.

Justices Steven David, Mark Massa and Robert Rucker formed the majority that ordered to deny transfer of K.H.’s appeal without opinion, but Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote a dissent joined by Justice Loretta Rush.

“I respectfully dissent from the denial of transfer and would prefer for this Court to address whether DNA evidence should be required whenever a child may face the risk of losing the presumption of being the biological child of the birth mother’s husband,” Dickson wrote.

“I believe that in any proceeding in which the presumption of biological paternity is potentially impinged, DNA testing, if available, should be mandatory as the exclusive way of providing conclusive, direct, clear, and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption,” he wrote. “Without supporting DNA genetic evidence, courts should not make any judicial determination that a child’s biological father is someone other than the biological mother’s husband when the child was born. Nothing less should suffice.

“I would grant transfer so that this Court can consider adopting this new evidentiary requirement,” Dickson wrote.

 

 

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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "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! :/

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

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

ADVERTISEMENT