Review of the Ohio case State ex rel. Doe v. Capper, wherein the issues pertained to adoption, posterior paternity claim and genetic testing.
The Court of Common Pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the child to undergo genetic testing, in the alleged father’s action to establish paternity, where adoptive parents’ adoption of the child was finalized before the parentage action was filed.
Laura Morgan is a Family Law Consultant. Laura is available for consultation, brief writing and research on family law issues throughout the country. She can be reached through her Web site.
There are many statutes that say that any party in a proceeding can establish paternity by requesting scientific testing. As mentioned above, that standing is limited to men in divorce cases (as opposed to paternity cases). DNA tests are almost exclusively used, and are admissible as evidence if the probability is between 0 and 95%. If the probability is 95% or greater, then there is a reasonable presumption that the husband is the biological father, putting the ball in his court to prove otherwise.
According to the American Bar Organization (ABA), the state of California saw its first case back on November 18, 2015, in Findley v. Lee. In the post, the ABA states that “Judge Anne-Christine Massullo of the San Francisco Superior Court ruled that a woman could not use frozen embryos after she divorced her ex-husband.” The judge agrees that the consent and agreement form that the intended parents signed remained an enforceable contract under the California laws. The article continues to advocate that Judge Massullo’s ruling remains consistent and in line with other “post-divorce embryo custody cases” in New York, New Jersey, and Tennessee.
Allegations of child abuse in custody litigation have occurred with increased frequency in recent decades. The prevalence of false allegations of child abuse has similarly increased, destroying otherwise healthy and loving parent-child relationships, leaving long-lasting emotional scars on child victims, threatening the freedoms of those wrongfully accused, impacting the ability of vilified parents to financially support their children, and creating judicial waste grounded in the witting manipulation of various experts and the judiciary by a vengeful parent.
Diana Shepherd is the Editorial Director of Family Lawyer Magazine and Divorce Magazine. An award-winning editor, published author, and a nationally-recognized expert on divorce, remarriage, finance, and stepfamily issues, she is a frequent lecturer on the topics of divorce, finance, and marketing – both to local groups and national organizations. She has also been a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst® since 2006.
