In re Michael J. (Tennessee 2018)
A copy of a genetic testing report is not eligible for judicial notice. This case involves a paternity action that was first heard in front of a magistrate, who ordered genetic testing. The results showed a 99.9% probability of paternity, and the magistrate entered an order. The father requested a rehearing before the juvenile court.…
Read MoreErin W. v. Charissa W. (Nebraska 2017)
A court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for genetic testing in a divorce proceeding where the child was born during the marriage and the father had held out and supported the child as his own. Prior to their marriage, the mother told the father he might not be the child’s biological…
Read MoreFisher v. Davis (Kansas 2017)
A final paternity judgment can be set aside if it is based on an error of law and no reasonable person would take the trial court’s view. In this case, the father signed a paternity acknowledgement based on the results of a home paternity test. The father filed a paternity action and a journal order…
Read MoreState on behalf of AE v. Buckhalter (Nebraska 2007)
A father, who receives proper notice of an action and fails to answer or appear at an initial hearing for paternity, is not entitled to further notice of hearings; the State’s decision not to present evidence of an unverified genetic test did not violate the NCP’s due process and was not sufficient to set aside…
Read MoreLP v. LF (Wyoming 2014)
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14–2–504(a)(v) provides that a man is presumed to be the father of a child if: For the first two (2) years of the child’s life, he resided in the same household with the child and openly held out the child as his own. However, the statute only creates a presumption, which…
Read MoreLittle v. Streater (Federal, US Supreme Court, 1981)
There is a due process right of an indigent, alleged father to obtain genetic testing at a state’s expense.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Ross (Kansas 1989)
Prior to ordering a blood test to determine whether the presumed parent is the biological parent, the district court must consider the best interests of the child, including physical, mental, and emotional needs.
Read MoreIn re Paternity of JRW and KB (Wyoming 1991)
While genetic testing may be necessary in a paternity action, the presumption of paternity can be effectively rebutted by the agreement of the parties.
Read MoreFlorida Dept. of HRS v. Breeden (Kansas 1995)
Where a paternity proceeding is initiated through an interstate support enforcement mechanism and the child resides in another state, the trial court should await a determination from the court of the initiating state that a blood test establishing paternity is in the best interests of the child before making its determination of paternity.
Read MoreFerguson v. Winston (Kansas 2000)
Prior to ordering a blood test to determine whether the presumed parent is the biological parent, the trial court must consider the best interests of the child, including physical, mental, and emotional needs (Ross Hearing).
Read MoreRK v. State ex rel. Natrona County Child Support Dept. (Wyoming 2008)
Even if the district court errs in applying the current version of the Wyoming Parentage Act, the error is harmless if the father’s proffered evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.
Read MoreState ex rel. SRS v. Kimbrel (Kansas 2010)
In an action brought by the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services on behalf of a mother and her biological child for an order of child support, a district court may determine that clear and convincing evidence proves a man who has executed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity is not the biological father of the…
Read MoreGreer v. Greer (Kansas 2014)
A hearing to determine the best interests of the child, including physical, mental, and emotional needs (Ross Hearing), is required when (1) there is not a genetic test resulting in a presumption of paternity performed prior to the filing of the paternity action, or (2) a genetic test was completed prior to the filing of…
Read More