Court Opinion

ID: 9667189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:37:46.115253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:35.827354
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, Justice.
This is a paternity action filed in Jefferson District Court pursuant to KRS Ch. 406, the Paternity Act. The appellant was adjudicated the father of a child, Miri Callo-way, (seven years old, born May 24, 1975), and ordered the appellant to pay thirty dollars ($30.00) per week for her support.
The judgment in District Court was appealed to and reversed by the Jefferson Circuit Court. On further appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court was reversed. We affirm the Court of Appeals and the original District Court judgment establishing paternity and directing payment of child support.
The issue is whether the evidence offered in the paternity action in Jefferson District Court was sufficient to sustain the judgment of paternity. The Commonwealth relied primarily on evidence of the test results of a relatively new system of paternity testing utilizing human leukocyte antigens (HLA). This is a white blood cell, tissue typing test, called HLA testing. This testing yields positive results proving paternity, whereas older testing only disproved it. The test results in this case yielded a “paternity index,” or “probability” factor, of “99.937c,” and a statement that: “Paternity is practically proved.” The expert’s report was admitted at trial as provided by KRS 406.091(5).
The trial record includes the uncontra-dicted affidavit of Dr. Lynn Ogden, a doctor of medicine specially trained in clinical pathology, establishing the reliability and accuracy of this test. Attached to Dr. Ogden’s affidavit as an Exhibit is an explanatory article by Dr. Paul I. Terasaki, an internationally recognized authority on the subject. This article is reported in Vol. 16, No. 3, University of Louisville School of Law Journal of Family Law, (1977-78).
This was not the only evidence offered in District Court to prove the appellant’s paternity. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the record in this case is not noted for clarity, and we doubt that we can do better with the record than the Court of Appeals’ summary, as follows:
“It does appear that Richard Russell Cal-loway (who is not a party to this action) married ... Gloria, on August 9, 1970. ... According to Gloria, she and Richard separated in 1972 and she denied ever having lived with Richard from that time or ever having sexual relations with him from that period. On the other hand, Richard thought that he and Gloria had separated in 1974 and that even after separation he and Gloria had sexual intercourse. He said they were divorced in 1978 or 1979. Gloria maintains that she and George [Bartlett] lived together as if they were husband and wife (off and on) for approximately five years. George, on the other hand, barely acknowledges knowing Gloria but does admit to having had relations with her and having made, at least on one occasion, some monetary provisions for Gloria and the child.”
To this we would add that Bartlett admitted at least one common physical genetic characteristic with the child, “six fingers.”
*472The fact that HLA blood testing may be ordered by the court in a paternity action, its reliability and its admissibility as evidence, are all recognized by this court in our opinion in Perry v. Com., Ex. Rel. Kessinger, Ky., 652 S.W.2d 655 (1983). We state:
“In a proper case KRS 406.111 in the discretion of the court permits such results also to be admitted to show the possibility of the alleged father’s paternity. The HLA blood test has demonstrated this capability and hence is of value also to the plaintiff. The broad nature of this statute implies that blood-test evidence presented by qualified experts will be considered for admission even though representing a recently discovered technology-” Id. at 661.
The problem in this case is that this child was conceived while Gloria Calloway was married to Richard Calloway. For centuries, because it was so difficult to determine paternity, the court has always opted for the husband as the father of the child where that possibility existed. This “presumption of paternity” is codified in KRS 406.011, which states in pertinent part:
“A child born during lawful wedlock, or within ten (10) months thereafter, is presumed to be the child of the husband and wife.”
But this presumption is not conclusive. KRS 406.011 continues:
“However, a child born out of wedlock includes a child born to a married woman by a man other than her husband where evidence shows that the marital relationship between the husband and wife ceased ten (10) months prior to the birth of the child.”
Tackett v. Tackett, Ky., 508 S.W.2d 790 (1974) reminds us that, as in the case of most legal presumptions, the presumption of legitimacy is rebuttable:
“Though the presumption of paternity and legitimacy is one of the strongest known to law, it is not conclusive but is rebuttable and may be overcome by factual evidence.” Id. at 792.
In Simmons v. Simmons, Ky, 479 S.W.2d 585 (1972), we add this caveat:
“Though rebuttable, it [the presumption of legitimacy] can be overcome only by evidence so clear, distinct and convincing as to remove the question from the realm of reasonable doubt.” Id. at 587.
Simmons was a divorce case where the husband was adjudicated not to be the father of a child born during wedlock, and we stated that the trial court’s judgment of nonpaternity “cannot be classified as clearly erroneous.” As in the present case, the principal evidence relied on in the trial court was the results of blood tests. In Simmons, testing was utilized to disprove paternity rather than to prove it as was done in the present case. But the scientific advances in testing capabilities obviate the difference.
From this brief review of the cases we conclude that the question before us is whether the trial court could reasonably view the evidence as sufficient “to remove the question from the realm of reasonable doubt.” The evidence relied on to do so was principally, but not exclusively, the HLA testing. Since it confirms the appellant’s paternity within a 99.93% degree of accuracy, we cannot classify the trial court’s judgment as “clearly erroneous.” Simmons, supra at 587.
The mother’s testimony, if believed, was sufficient to establish “that the marital relationship between the husband and wife ceased ten (10) months prior to the birth of the child.” KRS 406.011, supra. We need not decide whether the HLA testing standing alone would be sufficient to overcome the presumption of legitimacy and establish the appellant’s paternity. Certainly, the HLA testing when corroborated by the evidence of access, the contribution toward support, and a similar genetic characteristic, is so overwhelming as to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
By this opinion we acknowledge the importance of HLA blood testing in supplying evidence as necessary to overcome the presumption of legitimacy and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. *473Truth and justice are irrevocably bound. They are Siamese twins sharing a single heart beat. Neither can survive very long without the other. When the advances of science serve to assist in the discovery of the truth, the law must accommodate them. The law cannot pick and choose when truth will prevail.
The appellant has argued that this is “a back door attempt to terminate the parental rights of Richard (Calloway),” the husband, who has never denied that he is the parent of this child and who is not a party to this action. This case does not adjudicate the parental rights or duties of a nonparty.
The appellant has argued that the effect of this decision is to “bastardize” the child. This is not the legal issue in this ease.
The effect of this decision is to decide the appellant’s paternity and his obligation of support. It is confined to the parameters of Ch. 406, the Uniform Act on Paternity. This case does not adjudicate the rights, duties or obligations of Richard Calloway, who is not a party to this action.
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551, (1972), held that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a man claiming to be an unwed father was entitled to notice and a hearing in a proceeding to determine guardianship. This is inapposite. The decision in Stanley v. Illinois, supra, does not bear on our decision in the present ease because we make no decision adjudicating the rights and duties of Richard Calloway.
The judgment of the.Court of Appeals is affirmed.
STEPHENS, C.J., and AKER, GANT, LEIBSON and VANCE, JJ., concur.
WINTERSHEIMER, J., dissents by separate opinion in which STEPHENSON, J., joins.