| | |
excludes a man as the father of a child, the court may not dismiss | | the proceeding. In that event, the results of genetic testing, and | | other evidence, are admissible to adjudicate the issue of | | parentage. |
|
| | | 4.__Excluded man adjudicated as not father.__Unless the | | results of genetic testing are admitted to rebut other results of | | genetic testing, a man excluded as the father of a child by | | genetic testing must be adjudicated not to be the parent of the | | child. |
|
| | | (This is section 631 of the UPA.) |
|
| | | This section establishes the controlling supremacy of | | admissible genetic test results in the adjudication of paternity. | | Other matters such as statute of limitations, equitable estoppel | | and res judicata may preclude the matter from reaching trial or | | the court denying genetic testing. However, if test results are | | admissible, those results control unless other test results | | create a conflict rebutting the admitted results. |
|
| | | Paragraph (3) is included to ensure that the fact a genetic | | test does not reach the 99% level decreed in § 505 will not be | | perceived as an indicator of an exclusion of paternity. Although | | test results that do not reach that level do not create a | | presumption of paternity, the testing should be evaluated as an | | indicator of paternity along with the other evidence of paternity | | presented in the proceeding. Presumably expert testimony will be | | required to provide information about the measure of the weight | | of a test that does not achieve "at least a 99 percent | | probability of paternity, using a prior probability of 0.50, as | | calculated by using the combined paternity index obtained in the | | testing, and a combined paternity index of at least 100 to 1." |
|
| | | The inclusion of the first clause in paragraph (4) indicates | | that although a genetic testing exclusion of paternity can be | | absolute, errors (and sometimes fraud) may occur in testing. Some | | courts have imposed a rule that a party must first show the test | | is in error before ordering another test. This imposes an | | impossible burden because the only accurate method to show that a | | test is in error is to repeat the testing. Without this clause, | | some litigants might argue that once an exclusion is obtained it | | is absolute and no other test can be ordered, even when the first | | test is shown to be wrong. |
|
|
