Case Name: Alana SUDWISCHER v. ESTATE OF Paul HOFFPAUIR, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1991-10-31
Citations: 589 So. 2d 474
Docket Number: No. 91-CC-0515
Parties: Alana SUDWISCHER v. ESTATE OF Paul HOFFPAUIR, et al.
Judges: LEMMON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 589
Pages: 474–479

Head Matter:
Alana SUDWISCHER v. ESTATE OF Paul HOFFPAUIR, et al.
No. 91-CC-0515.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct. 31, 1991.
John F. Craton, Crowley, for applicant.
Stephen A. Stefanski, Crowley, for respondents.

Opinion:
ON REHEARING
WATSON, Justice.
This case concerns the constitutional balance between plaintiff's interest in proving filiation and an heir's right to refuse a blood sample.
Plaintiff, Alana Benoit Sudwischer, sued to establish filiation to Paul C. Hoffpauir, alleged to be her deceased natural father. LSA-C.C. art. 209(B). Hoffpauir died intestate, survived by his widow; an adopted son, Paul C. Hoffpauir, Jr.; and a legitimate daughter, Rosemary Hoffpauir Schuh. Alana seeks a compelled blood test of Rosemary to aid in proving her filiation. The trial court denied the motion to compel because LSA-R.S. 9:396 does not authorize blood tests of siblings. The court of appeal, third circuit, denied a writ, stating that the judgment of the trial court was correct. This court ordered Rosemary's blood tested but granted a rehearing for further consideration of the issues.
LSA-R.S. 9:396 postulates the existence of an alleged living father and does not statutorily authorize the testing sought in this case. In context, the statute is directed at establishing paternity for purposes of child support. There is no indication that the statutory language expresses a deliberate policy of limitation.
At the time of Alana's birth, her mother was married to Davis Benoit, but Benoit never lived with them in a family unit. Benoit was in prison, both when Alana was born (1951) and during the preceding year (1950). Although Benoit's name is on Alana's birth certificate, they have never had any association. Alana's legal status as Benoit's child does not preclude her from proving filiation to Hoffpauir. Griffin v. Succession of Branch, 479 So.2d 324 (La.1985).
Alana's statutory burden of proof is "clear and convincing evidence." This standard of proof is more stringent than the preponderance standard which generally applies in civil cases. See Fykes v. Clark, 635 S.W.2d 316 (Ky.1982) and Chester for Chester v. Secretary of Health, 808 F.2d 473 (6th Cir.1987) (applying a clear and convincing standard). Compare Morales on behalf of Morales v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 481 (3d Cir.1987) (applying a preponderance standard). Although there is deposition testimony that Hoffpauir recognized Alana as his daughter, scientific testing could corroborate this evidence. "The accuracy and infallibility of the DNA test are . remarkable." Alexander v. Alexander, 42 Ohio Misc.2d 30, 537 N.E.2d 1310, 1314 (1988).
In deposition, Dr. J. Craig Cohen, an expert in DNA testing, testified that it is possible to identify any relationship between Alana and Hoffpauir. See Thompson and Ford, DNA Typing: Acceptance and Weight of the New Genetic Identification Test, 75 Va.L.Rev. 45 (1989). DNA testing of Alana, the other children born to Alana's deceased mother and Rosemary would establish the probability of relationship between Alana and Rosemary. Dr. Cohen can determine that they are probably related or probably not related. The probability index could be as low as one in five or as high as one in a hundred thousand. Each test requires a teaspoon of blood. According to Dr. Cohen, blood testing of necrotic tissue from Hoffpauir is not feasible. Compare In re Estate of Greenwood, 402 Pa.Super. 536, 587 A.2d 749 (1991) (testing was possible because the coroner had blood and tissue samples from the decedent). It is alleged that Alana's known siblings do not object to being tested. See Aroonsakul v. Flanagan, 124 Ill.App.3d 626, 464 N.E.2d 1091, 80 Ill.Dec. 108 (1984) (illustrating the probative value of sibling blood tests).
In People v. Lipscomb, 215 Ill.App.3d 413, 158 Ill.Dec. 952, 574 N.E.2d 1345 (1991), complicated testing of blood and semen allowed an expert to describe defendant's profile as one in seven billion. This DNA testing would not achieve that accuracy. However, Rosemary's testing would produce relevant evidence, which could be considered by the trier of fact with other evidence in evaluating Alana's claim. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1422 provides:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,...
Rosemary Hoffpauir Schuh was not originally a party to this lawsuit, but she has been served with a rule to show cause why her blood should not be tested. She is a forced heir to her father's estate, which remains under administration, and she accepted her father's succession unconditionally after this suit was filed. Compare William M. v. Superior Court (Dana F.), 225 Cal.App.3d 447, 275 Cal.Rptr. 103 (1990) (no estate existed). The attorney for the estate has filed briefs on her behalf, stating that Rosemary strongly opposes a blood test. There is no allegation that Rosemary's representation by the estate's executors and attorney is inadequate. The requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard have been met.
The state's interest in the orderly disposition of estates may bar assertion of paternity claims after distribution of an estate. Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 99 S.Ct. 518, 58 L.Ed.2d 503 (1978). However, Hoffpauir's estate is under administration and Alana's claim is timely. Reed v. Campbell, 476 U.S. 852, 106 S.Ct. 2234, 90 L.Ed.2d 858 (1986). The inheritance rights of legitimate and illegitimate children are entitled to equal protection of the law. Succession of Brown, 388 So.2d 1151 (La.1980). Alana has a constitutional right to prove filiation to a deceased father. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 52 L.Ed.2d 31 (1977). That right must be weighed against the invasion of Rosemary's privacy presented by a compelled blood test. LSA-Const. art. I, § 3. See Aleinikoff, Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing, 96 Yale L.J. 943 (1987). To compel a blood test of Rosemary, Alana's interest in identifying her father must outweigh Rosemary's expectation of privacy.
Although she bears the Benoit name, Alana has never enjoyed a father/daughter relationship with Benoit. She has an overriding emotional and financial interest in knowing her father's identity. Rosemary has a financial interest in opposing Alana's claim but has asserted no physical or religious obstacles to a blood test. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). The invasion of Rosemary's privacy is minimal. Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 77 S.Ct. 408, 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957). Rosemary has the alternative of conceding a relationship to Alana. Under these circumstances, the trial court erred in denying Alana's motion to compel the DNA testing of Rosemary's blood.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the motion is granted. The matter is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED; MOTION GRANTED; REMANDED.
LEMMON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
DENNIS, J., dissents with reasons.
CALOGERO, C.J., dissents for reasons assigned by DENNIS, J.
COLE, J., dissents for reasons assigned.
. Article 209(B) provides "A child not entitled to legitimate filiation nor filiated by the initiative of the parent by legitimation or by acknowledgment under Article 203 must prove filiation as to an alleged deceased parent by clear and convincing evidence in a civil proceeding instituted by the child or on his behalf within the time limit provided in this Article."