Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T02:24:36.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medical and Legal Developments in Paternity Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Sheila Taub
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently a front-page article in the New York Times reported on a new method of blood-testing for paternity determination which is “revolutionizing the way courts determine the identity of a child's father in paternity cases.” The HLA (Human Leucocyte Antigen) test represents a significant advance over the standard red blood cell antigen tests for paternity. The large number of genetically determined factors in the HLA system makes it possible, by typing the blood of mother, child, and accused father, to either 1) rule out the possibility that the man could be the child's biological father in a large number of cases where the man is falsely accused; or 2) show that the accused man has a high probability of being the child's biological father, where the possibility of paternity has not been ruled out. Red blood cell typing, because of the much smaller number of factors examined, could only exclude a falsely accused male in a relatively small number of cases.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 9 , Issue 6 , October 1981 , pp. 8 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

New Use of Blood Test is Decisive in Paternity Suits, The New York Times, June 2, 1981, at 1A.Google Scholar
Terasaki, P.I., Resolution by HLA Testing of 100 Paternity Cases Not Excluded by ABO Testing, Journal of Family Law 16(3):543–57 (1977–78).Google Scholar
U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Techniques of Effective Management of Program Operations (Tempo #4) (April 15, 1980) introduction.Google Scholar
U.S. Dept. Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Blood Testing to Establish Paternity (July 15, 1977) at 2.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C.A. §602(a)(26)(B)(i) (1976).Google Scholar
Levy v. Louisiana. 391 U.S. 68 (1968).Google Scholar
A review of the cases can be found in State Deportment of Health and Rehabilitative Services, ex rel. Gillespie v. West. 378 So.2d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 1979) [hereinafter Gillespie].Google Scholar
Klein, R., Putative Fathers: Unwed, But No Longer Unprotected, Hofstra Law Review 8(2):425–29 (Winter 1980).Google Scholar
Judge Rules Against Mother: Unwed Dad Keeps Child, National Law Journal, December 8, 1980.Google Scholar
Paternity Testing With The Human Leucocyte Antigen System: A Medicolegal Breakthrough, Santa Clara Law Review 20:511 (1980) at 516, 525.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Ill. Pub. Act 81-1445 (approved September 4, 1980, effective January 1, 1981); Wis. Ch. 352, Sen. Bill 249 (pub. May 21, 1980, eff. July 1, 1981).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. §406.111.Google Scholar
Twardy, S., Blood Groups in Bastardy, Paternity, Heredity and Criminal Cases, Medical Trial Technique Quarterly (1976 Annual) at 317; Joint AMA-ABA Guidelines: Present Status of Serologic Testing in Problems of Disputed Parentage. Family Law Quarterly 10(3):247–85 (Fall 1976); Beautyman, M.J., Paternity Actions – A Matter of Opinion or a Trial of the Blood? Legal Medicine Annual: 1976, ed. Wecht, Cyril H. (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York) at 239; Power, T.H., The Use of Blood Tests to Prove Paternity in California, University of San Francisco Law Review 3(2):297–319 (April 1969). But see Jaffee, R., Comment on the Judicial Use of HLA Paternity Test Results and Other Statistical Evidence: A Response to Terasaki, Journal of Family Law 17(3):457–85 (1978–79).Google Scholar
Ellman, I.M. Kay, D., Probabilities and Proof: Can HLA and Blood Group Testing Prove Paternity? New York University Law Review 54(4):1131 (1979).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar
Ford, D.S., Blood Groups and Parentage, Medical Journal of Australia (January 13, 1979) at 29; Joint AMA-ABA Guidelines, supra note 13; Rose, E.F., Medicolegal Aspects of Paternity Testing, American Journal of Medical Technology 45:152 (1979).Google Scholar
J.B. v. A.F., 285 N.W.2d 880 (Wis. App. 1979); Cardenas v. Chavez, 103 Mich. App. 646 (1980).Google Scholar
Cramer v. Morrison, 153 Cal. Rptr. 865 (Cal App. 1979).Google Scholar
Tuinstra v. Chorley, 7 Family Law Reporter 2069 (Cir. Ct., Kent Cty., Mich. November 11, 1980); Camden County Board of Social Services v. Kellner, 6 Family Law Reporter 2412 (Juv. Dom. Rel. Ct., N.J. 1980). This court cited, in addition to the two reasons previously mentioned, “the best interests of the child;” Miller v. Smith, 6 Family Law Reporter 2660 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., 1980). This court stated that for the legislature to exclude from the courts that which proves the truth of the case would amount to an unconstitutional legislative intrusion upon the judicial function. J.H. v. M.H., 177 N.J. Super. 436 (1981). The court stated that a statute passed in 1939 could not have been intended to preclude the use of new scientific evidence discovered later; Carlyon v. Weeks, 6 Family Law Reporter 2850 (Fla. App. 1980).Google Scholar
Phillips v. Jackson (Supreme Court of Utah, July 22, 1980) (unreported).Google Scholar
Cardenas v. Chavez, supra note 17.Google Scholar
Little v. Streater, 49 U.S.L.W. 4581 (June 2, 1981).Google Scholar
Lurry v. Mills. 377 A.2d 804 (N.J. 1977); Franklin v. District Court of the 10th Judicial District in and for the County of Pueblo, 571 P.2d 1072 (Colo. 1977); In re Moore v. Astor, 102 Misc. 2d 472 (Family Court, Westchester Cty, N.Y., 1980); Michael B. v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County, 150 Cal. Rptr. 586 (Cal. App. 1978); Walker v. Stokes, 344 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio App. 1975); Lascaris v. Lardeo, 100 Misc. 2d 220 (Family Ct., Onondaga County, N. Y., 1979); M. v. S., 169 N.J. Super. 209 (1979).Google Scholar
Cardenas v. Chavez, supra note 17.Google Scholar
Washington v. Meacham, 6 Family Law Reporter 2623 (Wash. 1980).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Thompson v. Thompson, 390 A.2d 1139 (Md. App. 1978).Google Scholar
Id. at 1144.Google Scholar
Gillespie, , supra note 7.Google Scholar
Cogdell v. Johnson (North Carolina Court of Appeals, April 15, 1979) (unreported).Google Scholar
Commonwealth ex rel. Atkins v. Singleton, 422 A.2d 1347 (Pa. Super. 1980).Google Scholar
Marticorena v. Miller (Supreme Court of Utah, July 11, 1979) (unreported).Google Scholar
DeWeese v. Unick, 162 Cal. Rptr. 259 (Cal. App. 1980); Hayward v. Hansen, (Wash. App. May 21, 1981) (unreported); Commonwealth v. Blazo, 6 Family Law Reporter 2815 (Mass App. 1980); Hrouda v. Winne, 432 N.Y.S.2d 643 (App. Div. 1980) (dictum; the court stated it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the judgment).Google Scholar
Wessels v. Swanson, 6 Family Law Reporter 2146 (Minn. 1979).Google Scholar
Hanson v. Hanson. 3 Family Law Reporter 2196 (Minn. 1976); People v. Askew, 393 N.E.2d 1124 (Ill. App. 1979); In re Self, 6 Family Law Reporter 2312 (N.Y. Fam. Ct., Rensselaer County, 1980).Google Scholar
Marsters, W., A Summary of the Current Status of State Laws Regarding Paternity Testing: January-February, 1981 Update (unpublished). See Ill. Pub. Act 81-1445, supra note 11; Iowa H.F. 2516, eff. Jan. 1, 1981; N.C. Gen. Stat. §8-50.1; Wis. Ch. 352, supra note 11.Google Scholar
Joint AMA-ABA Guidelines, supra note 13, at 283.Google Scholar