Court Opinion

ID: 9615605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:38:59.839021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:30.490302
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Vice Chief Justice,
dissenting:
I join Justice Opala in his observation that the statute of limitations in this case was tolled by the act of payment for support for the child and it is therefore unnecessary to reach the issue of constitutionality of Oklahoma’s three year statute. I further accede to his view that the blood test under consideration is inadmissible over objection absent the necessary eviden-tiary predicate being established as to the scientific reliability thereof.
Additionally, I believe the majority, having voided the three year limitation provisions in paternity actions, should have made the further determination as to whether or not Oklahoma has any other statute of limitations which would bar a belated action of this nature. Lawyers, litigants, and judges are provided no guidance in this direction other than that the three year statute is unconstitutional.
It is my belief that 12 O.S.1981, § 95(sixth) now applies and bars a paternity action five years after birth unless conduct by the putative father has affirmatively tolled the five year period. This provision of Sec. 95 reads: “An action for relief, not hereinbefore provided for, can only be brought within five (5) years after the cause of action shall have accrued.”
I am authorized to state that Justice OPALA joins me in the views expressed herein.