She further stated that the Arkansas statute in effect in 1981 was constitutional because it provided for taxing the cost of the test to the case. However, she admitted that the file did not indicate that Littles was ever sent a copy of the paternity judgment entered against him. The trial court found that Littles was precluded in 1981 from the testing due to his age and his inability to pay the cost of the test, and that the statute which required that the State advance the cost of testing was not followed. She set aside the judgment pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. We review chancery cases de novo, and reverse only if the chancellor's findings are clearly erroneous.
Chancellors have broad powers to fashion any remedy that is reasonable and justified by the proof.
If the paternity referee in 1981 had followed the statute which mandated that the cost of blood testing be taxed in the case, no judgment of paternity would have ever been entered against Littles. It is the paternity referee, not Littles, who failed to comply with the paternity testing statute in 1981. This failure constituted an abuse of discretion, and resulted in a denial of Littles's right to due process in a very important and quasi-criminal proceeding. I would affirm. Brown, J., joins this dissent.