Court Opinion

ID: 9938586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:03:32.837808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:12.027906
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result reached by the majority only because a thorough review of *Page 714 
the record shows that appellants, in this particular case, failed to offer clear and convincing evidence tending to show that it was naturally, physically or scientifically impossible for Leroy Wilcox to be their natural father. I agree with the majority that the testimony by Darcus Wilcox that she had not seen Leroy Wilcox since 1947 was insufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy. Furthermore, the remainder of the evidence proffered by the appellants, including that excluded by the trial court, was not pertinent to the issue here because such evidence related only to the question of Carl Leonard's paternity of the appellants and did not overcome the presumption of Leroy Wilcox's paternity of appellants.
BEATTY, J., concurs.