Opinion ID: 1088603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert and Documentary Evidence

Text: On October 23, 1978, appellant and appellee contacted a lawyer, went to his office, and obtained his assistance in preparing proper papers acknowledging appellant to be the father of the child and obtained an alteration of the birth certificate to so indicate. On that date, appellant and appellee each swore to and signed an acknowledgment of paternity setting out that Thomas E. Grimsley is the father of Charlie. Also, on October 23, 1978, appellant and appellee entered into a sworn agreement to the effect that the child's name would be changed to Charles Thomas Grimsley, that Thomas E. Grimsley, father of the child, pay $100.00 per month for child support until the child reaches the age of 18 years, that Thomas E. Grimsley should have reasonable visitation rights to see said minor child; that appellee would have permanent custody of said child; and that appellant would not take any action to change custody until the child attained the age of 18 years. [ See Appendix]. Dr. Leslie Ray Bryant, Jr., was agreed upon by the parties as an expert to conduct paternity study and blood tests of the parties and the child and was appointed by the court to make the examination and study. He conducted the tests at the Southern Baptist Hospital blood bank and found no exclusion of paternity for appellant, based upon the red blood cell testing. The most advanced system of testing for paternity (the HLA testing) was used, and, based on that testing, Dr. Bryant found that appellant could not be excluded as the father of the child. The result of his study as reflected in the abstract follows: My procedure, if there is no exclusion based on the red blood cell testing procedures, is to develop a mathematical calculations based on the HLA testing to produce a plausibility of paternity. However, this plausibility of paternity is not based on HAL testing alone, but is based on the red blood cell testing and the white blood cell testing. All the testing resulted in a paternity index of 236 to 1. The recognized authority in this area, Paternity Testing by the American Association of Blood Banks, considers 20 to 1 as strong evidence of paternity. Converting the 236 to 1 index into a percentage equates to a 99.6% plausibility of paternity, which is labeled as paternity being extremely likely. The plausibility of paternity figure of 99.6% can be described as being either strong evidence or extremely likely. The plausibility of paternity is based upon a ratio of combined probabilities; that is, the combined probabilities equate to a plausibility. In converting from medical to layman's language, it's extremely likely that he is the father is about as close as you can come. CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. LESLIE BRYANT, JR. With respect to the terms probabilities and possibilities and the question of whether or not Thomas E. Grimsley is the father of Charles Stines (Grimsley), I can say that Thomas Grimsley is more probable than not the father. It is because of the closeness to which Thomas Grimsley's antigenic profile matches the biological father's profile that I would say that Thomas E. Grimsley is more probably than not the father. The plausibility percentage of 99.6 leaves room for only 4/10ths of a percent for error. It is not often that there is a higher probability than 99.6%, but it does occur.