Opinion ID: 1771987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rebuttable Presumption of Paternity

Text: Pursuant to La.R.S. 9:397.3, when the non-custodial parent receives statutory notice that blood test results have been filed, he has thirty days from the date of receipt of notice in which to challenge the results. A failure to timely challenge renders the report of the blood tests admitted into evidence as prima facie proof of its contents as long as there has been no procedural error and the non-custodial parent has an opportunity to cross-examine whoever made the report. [8] In the matter sub judice, the report was filed in juvenile court May 28, 1996. According to defendant's signature on the certificate of mailing, defendant received statutory notification on June 3, 1996. Defendant filed an objection on July 10, 1996. Defendant's objection was filed more than thirty days after receipt of notice. Therefore, it was not timely filed. La.R.S. 9:397.3(B). Defendant did not assert procedural error in his attempt to prevent the admission of the test results as prima facie proof of their contents. However, defendant challenged the admission on grounds that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated his due process rights to cross-examine state's witnesses. Defendant asserts that his inability to subpoena and cross-examine the out-of-state witness Fairfax prejudices his rights. Therefore, according to the defendant, La. R.S. 9:397.3(B)(2)(a), which provides that the party against whom the report is sought to be used may summon and examine those making the original of the report as witnesses under cross-examination, is unconstitutional as applied to him. La.R.S. 9:397.3 is an evidentiary procedural device that makes scientific evidence related to blood testing available. Patterson v. Johnson, 509 So.2d 35 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987). Under La.R.S. 9:397.3, admission of the report on the results is not conditioned on a requirement that any witness be called. Instead, the statute provides that any defendant who wishes to cross-examine the expert who prepared the report may do so. La.R.S. 9:397.3(B)(2)(a). But the statute gives no guidance as to how a defendant may cross-examine a witness who is out of state. The provisions of Louisiana's version of the UIFSA, codified in La.Ch.Code art. 1301.1 et seq., which specifically relate to support cases where non-custodial fathers and their minor children do not reside in the same state, accomplish that. Therefore, La.Ch.Code art. 1301.1 et seq. renders meaning to, and must be read in conjunction with, La.R.S. 9:397.3. The UIFSA makes specific provision for obtaining testimony from out-of-state witnesses. In support cases instituted in Louisiana, testimony from witnesses outside of Louisiana may be obtained by several alternative methods: a tribunal of this state may permit a party or witness residing in another state to be deposed or to testify by telephone, audiovisual means, or other electronic means at a designated tribunal or other location in that state. La.Ch.Code art. 1303.16(F). Other states have adopted the UIFSA in cooperation with their sister states to facilitate the taking of testimony for each other. Virginia, where Fairfax is located, statutorily requires cooperation in child support cases. [9] Defendant complains that the telephone testimony made available by the state does not withstand constitutional scrutiny because it does not preserve demeanor evidence. However, La.Ch.Code art. 1303.16(F) permits several alternative methods of taking testimony besides testimony by telephone. Included is testimony taken by audiovisual or other electronic means. We note that testimony recorded audiovisually has been accepted as providing demeanor evidence, In re Application of CBS, Inc., 828 F.2d 958, 960 (2d Cir.1987), and that televised testimony, which would be permissible under La.Ch.Code art. 1303.16(F)'s electronic means provision, has been held constitutional. See, e.g., U.S. v. Gigante, 971 F.Supp. 755 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (criminal case). It has been recognized that the drafters of the UIFSA aimed at providing the best evidentiary safeguards permitted by the circumstances of interstate support litigation. Davis v. Child Support Enforcement Unit, 326 Ark. 677, 933 S.W.2d 798, 800 (where state's version of the UISFA had the precise wording as La.Ch.Code art. 1303.16(F)). Defendant does not assert that he attempted to make use of any statutorily permissible means of preserving demeanor evidence, but was prevented from doing so. Nor does defendant assert that he requested the state to provide testimony by any of the alternative methods permissible under the statute. Moreover, defendant did not ask for and was not denied a continuance to pursue those alternate means of testimony that would have preserved the demeanor evidence. Thus, although defendant had several methods authorized under La.Ch.Code art. 1303.16(F) by which to effectuate the permissive cross-examination clause of La.R.S. 9:397.3(B)(2)(a), the record reveals that the defendant did not make use of any opportunity provided by law to cross-examine the witnesses. Under the circumstances, where defendant made no attempt to take advantage of the opportunities provided by law, we cannot say that defendant was deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine the witness; therefore, contrary to defendant's assertion, the statute is not unconstitutional as applied. [10] No meritorious issues block the introduction of the report on the results of the blood tests. Therefore, the report is accepted as prima facie proof of its contents. La.R.S. 9:397.3(B)(2)(a). Results of scientific testing, such as those supplied by the report, provide persuasive and objective evidence of paternity. LeBlanc v. Le-Blanc, 497 So.2d 1361 (La.1986). Pursuant to La.R.S. 9:397.3(B)(2)(b), a reported probability of 99.9% establishes a presumption of paternity. [11] In the matter sub judice, the blood test report reveals a 99.98% probability that defendant is the father of the minor T.L.R. In her sworn affidavit, T.R. attests that defendant has admitted that he is the father of T.L.R. and that defendant had offered to pay for an abortion or medical expenses. Defendant did not contradict her testimony. Defendant did not deny having a sexual relationship with T.R., and introduced no evidence rebutting the presumption of paternity. Therefore, the record establishes proof of defendant's paternity.