Court Opinion

ID: 9718489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:25:27.694563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:59.620068
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result. However, I do not agree that Charles, or any party to a dissolution, must meet a statute of limitations requirement to invoke Ind. Trial Rule 85(A) for blood group testing to assist in establishing paternity. Further, I do not agree that a party's request for such testing is a matter of discretion for the trial court based upon a showing of good cause. T.R. 35(A), read in conjunction with In re the Paternity of S.R.I. (1992), Ind., 602 N.E.2d 1014, establishes clear public policy in favor of such testing when the question of paternity arises. The court in S.R.I. stated:
"We agree with the Court of Appeals majority that stability and finality are significant objectives to be served when deciding the status of children of divorce. (On the other hand, there is a substantial public policy in correctly identifying parents and their offspring. Proper identification of parents and child should prove to be in the best interests of the child for medical or psychological reasons. It also plays a role in the just determination of child support; we have already declared that public policy disfavors a support order against a man who is not the child's father. Fairrow v. Fairrow (1990), Ind., 559 N.E.2d 597."
Td. at 1016.
Accordingly, when the issue of paternity is first raised in a dissolution proceeding, where silence will presumptively establish paternity, the party contesting paternity should be entitled to blood group testing. Consideration for the child and family relationships requires that such matters be decided with finality at the earliest possible opportunity.