Opinion ID: 896124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Genetic Testing

Text: [¶ 6] Paul argues he asked the trial court for genetic testing. He asserts the trial court's decision was erroneous for not ordering genetic testing to determine his paternity of Mitchell. [¶ 7] Paternity is governed by the Uniform Parentage Act at N.D.C.C. ch. 14-17. The natural father may be established under this chapter. N.D.C.C. § 14-17-03. A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if: ... [a]fter the child's birth, that man and the child's natural mother have married ... and ... [w]ith the man's consent, that man is named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate.... N.D.C.C. § 14-17-04(1)(c). Thus, Paul is presumed to be Mitchell's natural father. However, under N.D.C.C. § 14-17-04(2), that presumption can be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence. [¶ 8] Evidence that will rebut the presumption of paternity includes genetic testing. The court may, and upon request of a party shall, require the child, mother, or alleged father to submit to genetic tests, including tests of blood or other tissues. The tests must be: a. Of a type generally acknowledged as reliable by accreditation bodies designated by the secretary of the United States department of health and human services; b. Performed by a laboratory approved by such an accreditation body; and c. Performed by an expert qualified as an examiner of genetic data or specimens, appointed by the court. N.D.C.C. § 14-17-10(1). Paul claims the trial court's failure to order genetic testing at his request improperly denied [him] the remedy afforded by the statute to rebut the presumption of his paternity. [¶ 9] In his brief, Paul insists his request for a genetic paternity test was both sufficient and timely. There was eighteen questions and responses directed towards the issue of paternity at the August 6, 1997 hearing. We have carefully reviewed the entire trial transcript, including the specific testimony Paul references. While there was testimony about the subject of Mitchell's paternity, we find nothing to support Paul's position he requested the court to order genetic testing. [¶ 10] An application to the court for an order shall be by motion.... N.D.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1). Paul did not move for genetic testing until his post-decree Motion for Order for Genetic Paternity Test on November 17, 1997. In his supporting brief then, Paul said he stated during the proceedings that he was unsure whether he was the child's father because of the frequent misrepresentations made to him by [Candice], and also because he believes the minor child does not look like him. However, nowhere in that brief did Paul explain how he had moved during the trial to compel paternity testing. Because Paul's motion for genetic testing was made after the trial court had entered the divorce decree, and is still pending in the trial court, we conclude the subject of genetic testing is not here for review on this appeal.