Court Opinion

ID: 9540951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:21:08.077177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:49.879212
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. Res judicata does not bar appellant from seeking a paternity determination. The October 1979 *381action did not raise the issue of paternity, and was not required to do so.
Compelling is the fact that, in recent years, scientific advances have allowed greater accuracy in paternity testing. See Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. 1, 101 S. Ct. 2202, 68 L. Ed. (2d) 627 (1981); Matter of M.D.H., 437 N.E. (2d) 119 (Ind. App. 1982). Considering the due. process implications of a paternity finding, see Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. at 13, 101 S. Ct. at 2209, I would not make such a finding without utilizing the most reliable and objective evidence available.
This child was born prior to the marriage, and there is evidence that respondent admitted appellant was not the father. Utilization of the doctrine of res judicata in this situation would undermine the public policy favoring reconciliation, and could allow respondent to commit a fraud upon the court.1
Therefore, I would reverse and remand, directing the lower court to order paternity testing.
Harwell, J., concurs.

 See Arnold v. Arnold, 328 S. E. (2d) 924 (S. C. App. 1985).