Amicus Curiae Brief — Rivera v. Minnich
Supreme Court brief1987
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Supreme Court, U.S.
EILED
No. 86-98
FFB- 9 1987
IN THE : |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES YOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR.
CLERK
October Term 1986
GREGORY L. RIVERA,
Appellant
Ve
JEAN MARIE MINNICH,
Appellee.
On Appeal from the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania
BRIEF FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES
OF CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, ILLINOIS,
KANSAS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MONTANA,
NEVADA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE;
THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE OF THE
CALIFORNIA FAMILY SUPPORT COUNCIL,
AND THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE OF
THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
ASSOCIATION AS AMICI CURIAE
JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General
of the State of California
STEVE WHITE, Chief Assistant
Attorney General
JAY BLOOM,
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
M. HOWARD WAYNE,
Deputy Attorney General
110 West A Street, Suite 700
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone (619) 237-7765
John S Higgins, Jr.
Deputy District Attorney
Appellate Committee of the
California Family Support Council
and
California District Attorneys'
Association
2530 S. Mooney Boulevard
Visalia, California 93277
Joseph I. Lieberman
Attorney General
State of Connecticut
30 Trinity Street
Hartford, Conn 06105
Marlon Seay, Director
Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services
Division of Child Support Enforcement
1317 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahasee, Florida 32399-0700
Jim Jones
Attorney General
State of Idaho
Statehouse Mail
Boise, Idaho 83720
Louisiana Department of Health and
Human Services
Gordon Hood, Director, Child Support
Enforcement Services Program
P.O. Box 94065
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 708044065
Neal F. Hartigan
Attorney General
State of Illinois
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 606021
Kansas Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services
Child Support Enforcement Program
2700 West 6th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66606
Dale Threehouse
Michigan Family Support Counc: l
2162 Village West
Lapeer, Michigan 48446
Frank J. Kelley
Michigan Attorney General
525 W. Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48913
Minnesota County Attorney's Association
Jean Gervel
Executive Director
40 N. Milton, Suite 100
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
Michael R. Henry
Missouri Division of Child Su} port
Enforcement
P.O. Box 1527
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Kelly M. O'Sullivan
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
Helena, Montana
Brian McKay
Attorney General of Nevada
Heroes Memorial Building
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710
Roger A. Tellinghuisen
Attorney General of South Dakota
Capitol Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
W. J. Michael Cody
Attorney General of Tennessee
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5025
INDEX
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED ....e«.« © e « « 4
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .....-. 2
ARGU MENT . * 7 i o . > . > > . . > . 7
THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
IN ACTIONS TO ESTABLISH
PATERNITY DOES NOT IMPAIR THE
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION . 7
A. The Private Interests
eS gb oo 6 @ © e@ 6 ee 10
B. Risk of Erroneous
DODELVOCION « © oe eo eo eo 15
Se The Governmental Interest 23
CONCLUSION . . « «© © © © © © © © @ «@ 26
Te
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Addington v. Texas
441 U.S. 418, 423 (1979) passim,
Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge
(1976) 397 Mich. 54, 243 N.W.2d 248)
22
B. v. D.
(1979) 99 Misc.2d 1085, 418 N.Y.S.2d 271)
22
Bartlett v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
(Sup.Ct. 1986) 705 S.W.2d 470 17
Biley v. Williems
(July 8, i986) S.W.2d
18
Bowling v. Coney
(1983) 91 A.D.2d 1195, 459 NY.2d 183
18
Bradley v. Houston
(1984) 12 Ark. App.351, 676 SW 2d 746
16
Callison v. Callison
(Sup.Ct. 1984) 687 P.2d 106 18
Carlyon v. Weeks
(Ct. App. 1980) [Florida] 387 So.2d 465
16
-~iii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
Cole v. Cole
(1985) 74 N.C.App. 247 328 S.E.2d 446
Commonwealth v. Beausoleil
(1986) 397 Mass. 206, 490 N.E.2d 788
Corley v. Rowe
(1984) 280 S.C. 338, 12 S.
rry
Nh
oF
J
ho
©
Crain v. Crain
(1983) 104 Idaho 666; 662 P.2d 530
Cramer v. .iorrison
(1974) 88 Cal.App.3d 873, 153 Cal.Rptr.
865
Cutchember v.
r
(1983) 466 A.2d
Columbia |
Cir. 1923)
Haines v. Shanholtz
(1984) 57 Md.Apo.92, 468 A.2d 1365
Hankerson v. Moody
(1985) 229 Va. 270, 329 S.E.2d 791
)} 476 N.E.2d 127 [Indiana]
18
17
18
16
+
a» #
20
17
19
-iv-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
Hennepin County Welfare Board v. Ayers
(Sup.Ct. 1981) 304 N.W.2d 879
Hepfel v. Bashaw
(1979) 279 N.W. 342)
Imms v. Clarke
(Mo.App. 1983) 654 S.W.2d 281
In re B.C.
(1974) ll Cal.3d 679, 688
In re E.G.M.
(Ct.App. 1983) 647 S.W.2d 74
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970)
J .H. v. M.H.
17
22
18
13
18
(1980) 177 N.J. Super.436, 426 A.2da 1073
Kennedy v. Wood
(1982 Ind. App.) 439 N.E.2d 1367)
18
21
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services
452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981)
Little v. Streater
452 U.S. 1, 13 (1980) 9, 10,
Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976)
Mills v. Habluetzel
456 U.S. 91 (1982)
Moore v. McNamara
(1986) 201 Conn. 16, 513 A.2d 660
9
23
15
16
oe ae ee ems:
-V-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
Owens v. Bell
(1983) 6 Ohio St.3d 46, 451 N.E.2d 241
18
People v. Alzoubi
(1985) 133 I11.App.3d 806, 479 NE.2d 1208
17
Phillips v. Jackson
(Sup.Ct. 1980) 615 §.2d 1228 18
Pizana v. Jones
(1983) 127 Mich.App. 123, 339 N.W.2d 1
17
Plemel and State of Oregon v. Walter
(1986) 80 Or.App. 250, 721 P.2d 474 18
Raines v. White
(1981) 248 Ga. 406; 284 SE.2d 7 16
Reynolds v. Kimmons
(1977) 569 P.2d 799), 154 Cal.Rptr. 524
' 21
Salas v. Cortez
(1979) 24 Cal.3d 22 154 Cal.Rptr 529,
cert den. 444 U.S. 900) 21
Santosky v. Kramer
455 U.S. 745, 754 (1982) 9, 12, 13
Stanley v.Illinois
(1972) 405 U.S. 645, 651. 13
State of Arizona v. Bravo
(1984) 139 Ariz. 393, 678 P.2d 974 16
State of Iowa v. Vinsand
(Sup. Ct. 1982) 318 N.W.2d 208 17
-VL-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
State of Maine v. Thompson
(fup.Ct. 1986) 503 A.2d 689 17
State of New Mexico v. Coleman
(July 29, 1986) 723 P.2d 971 18
State of Washington v. James
(1984) 38 Wash.App. 264, 686 P.2d 1097
19
State Through Department of Health v.
Smith (Ct. App. 1984) 459 S.2d 146
17
State v. Unterseher
(Sup.Ct. 1977) 255 Ii.W.2d 882
18
Ze Ve Be
(1979) 169 N.J. Super. 209, 404 A.2d 653
22
Tice v. Richardson
(1982) 7 Kan.App.2d 509, 644 P.2d 490
17
Turek v. Hardy
(1983) 312 Pa. Supe:. 158, 458 A.2d 562
18
-vii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
MISCELLANEOUS
Alabama -- Ala. Code 26-17-12 19
Colorado -- C.R.S. 13-25-126 19
Delaware -- Del. Code Title 13, § 81ll
19
Hawaii -- H.R.S. § 584-12 19
Joint AMA-ABA Guidelines: Present Status
of Serological Testing, 10 Family L.Q.
247 (1976). 21
Montana -- M.C.A. § 40-6-113; 19
Nevada -~- N.R.S. 126.131 19
New Hampshire -- RSA § 522:4 19
Pennsylvania Civil Procedure Support Law
Act No. 1978-46, P.L. 106. 11
Rhode Island -- Gen.L. § 15-8-11l 19
Senate Rept. No. 93-1356
(1974) at p. 52. 24
Social Service Amendments of 1974
(Pub.L. 93-647) 23
Uniform Parentage Act, § 14 12
Uniform Parentage Act, § 15(e) 7
Uniform Parentage Act, § 19 22
Vermont ~-- Vt. Stats. Title 15 § 304
19
-viii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
West Virginia -- W.Va. Code 48A-6-3
Wisconsin -- W.S.A. §§ 767.47 (1) (d)
767.48; 885.23
Wyoming -- Wyo. Stats. § 14-2-110
19
19
19
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1986
No. 86-98
GREGORY L. RIVERA,
Appellant
Ve
JEAN MARIE MINNICH,
Appellee.
On Appeal from the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania
BRIEF FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, ILLINOIS,
KANSAS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA,
MONTANA, NEVADA, SO. DAKOTA,
TENNESSEE, THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE
OF TEE CALIFORNIA FAMILY SUPPORT
COUNCIL AND THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE
OF THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION AS AMICI
CURIAE
QUESTION PRESENTED
Does the law of the State of
Pennsylvania which, consistent with the
law of at least 40 states permitting
paternity to be established by the
~
preponderance of the evidence, violate
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States
Constitution?
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
This case presents a significant
issue regarding the standard of proof to
be applied in actions to establish
paternity. The vast majority of states,
whether by statutory or case law, rely on
a standard of preponderance of the
evidence. Appellant seeks to require a
standard of clear and convincing
evidence, which is relatively uncommon in
Civil cases.
The issue of establishment of
paternity is a matter of great public
concern. The rate of out-of-wedlock
births has increased dramatically in the
United States. In 1960 only 5 percent of
wie
births were out of wedlock; by 1981 the
number had increased to 19 percent.
(Click, "American Household Structure in
Transition,” Family Planning Perspectives
(Sept/Oct 1984) p. 206.) Nonmarital
births have serious repercussions for the
children born out of wedlock, for their
mothers and for the taxpayers.
Harry D. Krause, a professor of law
at the University of Illinois, wrote in
Child Support in America, The Legal
Perspective (1981):
"All abandoned children are
in the same straits regarding their
need for support and to locate
an absent parent. The child of
unmarried parents, however,
struggles against the further
obstacle of uncertain paternity
and a long (though fortunately
nearly lost) tradition of legal
discrimination. Within the
context of the child support
enforcement problem, special
emphasis thus must be placed
upon those children who, in
addition to locating their
father and making him pay,
must first identify him legally.”
(Id., at p. 103.)
willie
A child whose paternity is
established is in a position to receive
numerous benefits including access to
entitlement programs (e.g., Social
Security, veteran's benefits) and receipt
of child support.
Out-of-wedlock births seriously
impact on the mothers of the children.
Teenagers account for more than half of
all nonmarital births in the United
States. (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, National Center for
Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of
the United States, published in
Statistical Abstract of the United States
(1981), p. 65.) Many of these mothers do
not complete high school and lack
marketable skills. Typically, they enter
a pattern of unemployment, poverty,
welfare dependency and repeated
pregnancies. (U.S. Department of
'
wi
j
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Marital
Status and Living Arrangements. )
Finally, there is the impact on
taxpayers. It is estimated that 60
percent of the children born out of
wedlock who are not adopted receive
welfare. (U. S. Report of the Census,
Child Support and Alimony; Current
Population Reports, Rept. 112; U.S.
Bureau of the Census.) The realization
that the public is carrying a weighty
financial burden which ought to be
assumed by parents resulted in enactment
of strong child support enforcement
legislation at the federal level and
enhanced child support enforcement
activities by the states.
The People of the states filing this
brief have a significant responsibility
in protecting the interest of children
born out of wedlock, the rights of their
-6-
mothers in obtaining equitable support
from their fathers, and the concerns of
the taxpayers in the preservation of
public treasuries from making payments
which should be made by persons
responsible for the support of their own
children.
Appellant's position, should it
prevail, would make it more difficult for
the states to carry out their
responsibility in the establishment of
paternity by imposing a higher, and less
Clear, burden of proof. The interest of
alleged fathers should not be permitted
to outweigh the vital interest of
children, mothers and the public. This
would be the result if a standard greater
than a preponderance of the evidence were
required.
éFe
ARGU MENT
THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE IN ACTIONS TO
ESTABLISH PATERNITY DOES
NOT IMPAIR THE RIGHT TO
DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
Pennsylvania, as well as the vast
majority of states, provides that the
establishment of paternity is a civil
proceeding. This is in conformity with
the Uniform Parentage Act, which
provides, in pertinent part, that an
action brought under its purview "is a
Civil action governed by the rules of
civil procedure." (Uniform Parentage Act,
§ 14.) The standard of proof in most
Civil actions is the preponderance of
evidence test.
A preponderance of the evidence test
for actions to establish paternity
comports with the Due Process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. In Addington
-8-
v. Texas 441 U.S. 418, 423 (1979), this
Court noted that the purpose of a
standard of proof, as embodied in the Due
Process Clause, is to "‘instruct the
factfinder concerning the degree of
confidence our society thinks he should
have in the correctness of factual
conclusions for a particular type of
action.'”" (Quoting In re Winship 397 U.S.
358 (1970),concurring opinion of Harlan,
J., at 370.) In Mathews v. Eldridge 424
U.S. 319 (1976), this Court, in analyzing
whether due process requirements mandated
pre-termination hearings in regards to
Social Security disability payments,
considered: 1) the private interest that
would be affected by the official action;
2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation
of such interests through the procedures
used, and the probable value, if any, of
additional or substitute procedural
-*
safeguards; and 3) the governmental
interest, including the function
involved and the fiscal and
administrative burden that the additional
or substitute requirements would entail.
This Court has utilized these factors in
considering the due process requirements
for the burden of proof in involuntary
commitment proceedings (Addington v.
Texas, supra, 441 U.S. 418); the right to
appointed counsel in actions for the
termination of parental rights (Lassiter
v. Department of Socja]l Services 452 U.S.
18, 27 (1981); the burden of proof
required for the termination of parental
rights (Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745,
754 (1982); and allocation of blood test
costs in paternity actions (Little v.
Streater 452 U.S. 1, 13 (1980). A
Similar analysis is applicable to the
issue raised herein.
-10-
A. The Private Interests Affected
The private interests at stake are
substantial; but they are substantial not
only for alleged fathers, but also for
the children and their mothers.
In Little v. Streater, supra, 452
U.S. at page 13, this Court held that
the putative father had a pecuniary
interest in avoiding substantial support
obligations, a liberty interest which
could be threztened by possible sanctions
for noncompliance, and an interest in the
creation of the parent-child
relationship. However, these interests
were defined in the context of whether an
indigent defendant in a paternity action
should be required to forgo blood tests
due to his inability to pay for such
tests.
A substantial interest of a putative
father in a paternity action is to avoid
atte
the financial obligations which result
from a determination he is the father of
the child. This is not different from
most other civil actions, where the
defendant has a strong desire not to
become liable to the plaintiff for a
large sum of money. Due process req.vires
no more than a preponderance test in
those actions. (Addington
v. Texas, supra, 441 U.S. at 423.)
The threat of loss of liberty is
more problematical. Effective June 27,
1978, the Pennsylvania Civil Procedure
Support Law abolished the right to a
Criminal proceeding on the issue of
paternity. (Act No. 1978-46, P.L. 106.)
A determination of paternity does
not place a defendant's liberty at peril.
That would require a subsequent
intervening act; the willful refusal to
pay a support order by a person with the
atte
financial ability to pay. A father with
a limited ability to pay support can have
his obligation adjusted to fit his
ability (Uniform Parentage Act § 15(e)),
and even in the absence of ability to
pay, the child may gain access to
entitlement payments.
Moreover, any number of orders
arising in civil cases, such as
injunctive orders, may be
established by a preponderance of
evidence even though violation may result
in the loss of liberty. Furthermore, in
analyzing the private interests affected,
the interest of the child and the mother
must be considered. In Santosky v.
Kramer, supra, 455 U.S. at p. 745, it was
held:
7 -in any given
proceeding, the minimum standard of
proof tolerated by due process
requirements reflect not only
the weight of the private and
public interests affected but
vite
also a societal judgment about
how the risk of error should
be distributed between the
litigants.”
In a paternity proceeding, unlike tle
parental rights termination considered in
Santosky, the private interest of tle
child (and of the mother) is not parallel
but in fact, adverse to, the intere:t of
the defendant in the factual
determination of paternity. The interest
in maintaining a parent-child
relationship has been deemed "a
compelling one, ranked among the most
basic of civil rights. (In se B.C,
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 688; 114 Cal.Fptr.
444, 456; see Stanley v. Illinois (1]972)
405 U.S. 645, 651.)
The preponderance of evidence
standard indicates society's conclusion
that litigants should share the risk of
error in roughly equal fashion.
(Addington v. Texas, supra, 441 U.S. at
» hha
p. 423.) Where the interest of the child
and of the mothe. are at least as great
as the interest of the putative father,
the risk of error should be shared in
roughly equal fashion. This is not a
situation, such as in Addington, where
the risk of error to the defendant is
significantly greater than any possible
harm to the adverse party.
Moreover, it must be noted that the
state is not involved in all paternity
actions. The effect of increasing the
burden of proof to clear and convincing
evidence would impact on plaintiffs
including mothers and children not
represented by public entities whose
interest in justice should not be
diminished in favor of an alleged
father's interest. A test of
preponderence of the evidence provides
for an equal sharing of the risk.
5 =
B. Risk of Erroneous Deprivation
The risk of erroneous deprivation as
the result of a burden of proof of the
preponderance of the evidence has been
substantially minimized by both
scientific and procedural advances.
Moreover, such erroneous determinations
as do occur would not be prevented by the
imposition of a standard of clear and
convincing evidence.
In a concurring opinion in Mills v.
Habluetzei 456 U.S. 91 (1982), Justice
O'Connor noted that “recent scientific
developments in blood testing
dramatically reduce the possibility that
a defendant will be falsely accused of
being the illegitimate child's father.”
(Id., at 104, fn. 2.) Indeed, in the
overwhelming majority of cases,
scientific evidence is available which
drastically reduces the risk of error in
-16-
any paternity proceeding. The evidence
is available to be used as probative
evidence of paternity in an overwhelming
majority of states including
Pennsylvania. That blood tests as
evidence of probability of paternity has
achieved almost universal acceptance is
illustrated by the fact that courts in 34
states and the District of Columbia have
upheld the affirmative use of paternity
tests: §tate of Arizona v. Brayo (1984)
139 Ariz. 393, 678 P.2d 974; Bradley v.
Houston (1984) 12 Ark.App.35l, 676 SW 2d
746; Cramer v. Morrison (1974) 88
Cal.App.3d 873, 153 Cal.Rptr. 865; Moore
v. McNamara (1986) 201 Conn. 16, 513 A.2d
660; Cutchember v. Payne (1983) 466 A.2d
1240, [District of Columbia]; Carlyon v.
Weeks (Ct. App. 1980) [Florida]; 387
So.2d 465; Raines v. White (1981) 248 Ga.
ol Pe
406; 284 SE.2d 7; Crain v. Crain (1983)
104 Idaho 666; 662 P.2d 530;
People v. Alzoubi (1985) 133 I11.App.3d
806, 479 NE.2d 1208; Davis v. State (Ct.
App. 1985) 476 N.E.2d 127 [Indiana];
State of Iowa v. Vinsand (Sup. Ct. 1982)
318 N.W.2d 208; Tice v. Richardson
(1982) 7 Kan.App.2d 509, 644 P.2d 490;
Bartlett v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
(Sup.Ct. 1986) 705 S.W.2d 470; State
Through Department of Health v. Smith
(Ct. App. 1984) 459 S.2d 146 [Louisiana];
State of Maine v. Thompson (Sup.Ct. 1986)
503 A.2d 689; Haines v. Shanholtz (1984)
57 Md.App.92, 468 A.2d 1365; Commonwealth
v. Beausoleil (1986) 397 Mass. 206, 490
N.E.2d 788; Pizana v. Jones (1983)
127 Mich.App. 123, 339 N.W.2d 1; Hennepin
County Welfare Board v. Ayers (Sup.Ct.
1981) 304 N.W.2d 879 [Minnesota] ;
oie
Imms v. Clarke (Mo.App. 1983) 654 S.W.2d
281; J.H. v. M.-H. (1980) 177 N.J.
Super.436, 426 A.2d 1073; State of New
Mexico v. Coleman (July 29, 1986) 723
P.2d 971; Bowling v. Coney (1983) 91
A.D.2d 1195, 459 NY.2d 183 [New York];
Cole v. Cole (1985) 74 N.C.App. 247 328
S.E.2d 446; State v. Unterseher (Sup.Ct.
1977) 255 N.W.2d 882 [North Dakota];
Owens v. Bell (1983) 6 Ohio St.3d 46, 451
N.E.2d 241; Callison v. Callison (Sup.Ct.
1984) 687 P.2d 106; Plemel and State of
Oregon v. Walter (1986) 80 Or.App. 250,
721 P.2d 474; Turek v. Hardy (1983) 312
Pa. Super. 158, 458 A.2d 562; Corley v.
Rowe (1984) 280 S.C. 338, 12 S.E.2d 720;
Biley v. Williams (July 8, 1986)
S.W.2d [Tennessee]; In re E.G.M.
(Ct.App. 1983) 647 S.W.2d 74; Phillips v.
Jackson (Sup.Ct. 1980) 615 P.2d 1228
[Utah];
-19-
Hankerson v. Moody (1985) 229 Va. 270,
329 S.E.2d 791; Stat W ington v.
James (1984) 38 Wash.App. 264, 686 P.2d
1097.
In addition, 12 other states have
statutes providing for the admissibility
of blood test evidence:
Alabama -- Ala. Code 26-17-12;
Colorado -- C.R.S. 13-25-126;
Delaware -- Del. Code Title 13, § 811;
Hawaii -- H.R.S. § 584-12;
Montana -- M.C.A. § 40-6-113;
Nevada -- N.R.S. 126.131;
New Hampshire -- RSA § 522:4;
Rhode Island -- Gen.L. § 15-8-1ll;
Vermont -- Vt. Stats. Title 15 § 304;
West Virginia -- W.Va. Code 48A-6-3
Wisconsin -- W.S.A. §§ 767.47 (1) (d)
767.48; 885.23;
Wyoming -- Wyo. Stats. § 14-2-110.
-20-
State courts across the country have
held, following Frye v. United States,
293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) that
inclusionary blood test results, and the
statistical probabilities drawn
therefrom, are admissible in paternity
litigation. Indeed, the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts, while noting that
"[t]he admission of evidence of
statistical probability is disfavored in
this Commonwealth," Commonwealth v.
Beausoliel, 397 Mass. 206, 490 N.E.2d
788, 795 n. 15, also commented in holding
HLA results to be admissible, "those
courts in other jurisdictions that have
determined the admissibility of
inculpatory HLA test results by reference
to Frye have concluded unanjmously that
Such evidence jis generally accepted as
reliable in the scientific community,”
=21-
490 N.E.2d at 794 (footnote omitted;
emphasis added).
Thus, in modern paternity
litigation, with the scientific
procedures available, the risk of an
erroneous determination is extremely
small despite the nature of the
nonmedical evidence. (See Joint AMA-ABA
Guidelines: Present Status of Serological
Testing, 10 Family L.Q. 247 (1976).)
Additionally, there is an increasing
tendency to require the appointment of
counsel for indigent defendants in
paternity actions where the state appears
as a party or on behalf of the mother or
child: Alaska (Reynolds v. Kimmons
(1977) 569 P.2d 799), 154 Cal.Rptr. 524;
California (Salas v. Cortez (1979) 24
Cal.3d 22 154 Cal.Rptr 529, cert den. 444
U.S. 900); Indiana (Kennedy v. Wood
(1982 Ind. App.) 439 N.E.2d 1367);
ee en
pee eens
-29-
Michigan (Agtjbee v. Cheboygan Circuit
Judge (1976) 397 Mich. 54, 243 N.W.2d
248); Minnesota (Hepfel v. Bashaw (1979)
279 N.W. 342); New Jersey (T. v. S,
(1979) 169 N.J. Super. 209, 404 A.2d 653;
New York (B. v. D. (1979) 99 Misc.2d
1085, 418 N.Y.S.2d 271); and the Uniform
Parentage Act, section 19.
The combination of procedural and
scientific advances to an accused father
substantially minimize the risk of an
erroneous determination. As this Court
observed in Addjngton v. Texas, supra,
441 U.S. at pages 417-418:
"Candor suggests that, to
a degree, efforts to analyze
what lay jurors understand
concerning the differences
among these three tests
[preponderance, clear and
convincing and beyond a
reasonable doubt] ... may
well be largely an academic
exercise; there are no directiy
relevant empirical studies.
We probably can assume no more than
that the difference between a
preponderance of the evidence
23.
and proof beyond a reasonable
doubt probably is better
understood than either of
them in relation to the
intermediate standard of
clear and convincing evidence."
(Fn. omitted. )
Thus, the probable gain from
appellant's proposed change in the burden
of proof wculd be an increase in
confusion rather than a decrease in
erroneous determinations of paternity.
C. The Governmental Interest
The states have a valid interest in
the welfare of a child born out of
wedlock and who is receiving public
assistance, as well as in securing
support for the child from those legally
responsible. Additionally, it shares the
interest of the child in an accurate and
just determination of paternity. (Little
v. Streater, supra, 452 U.S. at p. 14.)
In enacting the Social Service Amendments
of 1974 (Pub.L. 93-647), the Senate
-24-
Committee on Finance noted "a child born
out-of-wedlock has the right to have its
paternity ascertained in a fair and
efficient manner [and] .. . the interest
primarily at stake in the paternity
action. ..#is.. . that of the child.”
(Senate Rept. No. 93-1356 (1974) at p.
52.) Clearly, the governmental interest
in promoting the best interest of the
child is at stake.
The states also have a considerable
interest in seeing that the rights of the
mother to receive child support are
vindicated. The receipt of child support
is often the difference between an
independent life and welfare dependency.
In Addjngton v. Texas, supra, this
Court found that the preponderance of
evidence test was insufficient to uphold
the due process rights of individuals
faced with civil commitment. The Court
24.
held the individual should not be asked
to share equally with society the risk of
error when the possible injury to the
individual is significantly greater than
any possible harm to the state. (Id., at
p. 427.) The instant situation is very
different. There is the interest of the
child in ascertaining its parent and
obtaining the support to which it is
entitled; there is the interest of the
mother in receiving child support and
avoiding welfare dependency; there is the
interest of the states in protecting the
rights of its citizens and defending the
public coffers. The potential injury to
the alleged father is certainly no
greater than the potential injury to the
child, the mother, and the states.
Accordingly, a preponderance test is
justified and does not violate the due
» 26.
process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
CONCLUSION
What is at stake is not the
defendant's loss of liberty, nor the
uprooting of his family relationship, nor
the loss of any vested right. The
primary issue is one of civil
relationship of a father to his child, to
the child's mother, and to the
governmental entity which may be
Supporting both. A preponderance test is
not only justified, but any other test
may be improper:
"Since the establishment
of the child's civil relation-
ship with its father is
involved, serious doubts must
be expressed as to the
constitutionality of ...
those civil paternity statutes
that raise the requirement of
proof to a level higher than
that required for other civil
actions." (Krause, supra,
Child Support in America,
at pp. 190-191, emphasis in
Text, fn. omitted.)
The decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court below properly allocates the burden
of proof by requiring appellant's civil
obligation be established by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, the judgment of that court
should be affirmed.
Dated: February 2, 1987
JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General of
the State of California
STEVE WHITE, Chief Assistant
Attorney General
JAY BLOOM,
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
M. HOWARD WAYNE,
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Amici Curiae
a Cees
M. Howard Wayne
Deputy Attorney General
ZO9LT etueatTAsuuseg ‘1a4seoueyT
39973S a79Nd YIION OS
esnoujinos Aqjunod 124se9ue7
Asuroz3qy 3OTIAWSTG e432 JO BOTIIO
AsutojqW 3OTI34STGC 4JueASTSsSyY
uojqieg aestnoyT Ale
ZO9OLT Wd ‘29}3Se90URT
39013S Buty 4seg 9ZT
leqieg ZO9OLT Wd ‘1JeQSeOURT
8 1Iadooy ‘iapdAus ‘Aatieg STE °939S “*°3S B9Nd YIION €S
guarinosgd ‘SwWvwaw *u Sawwer quInosa ‘“TIAddWWD LLIWM WWITTIIM
:MOTOqQ polleu sassoIppe Yyoed OF paTTeW 319M JaTtIq seTIND TotTwe
Jo setdoo ¢ “,g6T ‘6 AtTeniqagq uo yey AJTAISD OSTe I
"ase paeT3tquse-sAoge 3sy3 UT jJeaT1jq
eetino totwe jo satdoo oy BbBututequos ‘ptedeid aebeqsod sse[o-jsitjz
‘$99e3S peqtupn euq jo 31Nn0D swairdns ayy JO YISTD 34 OF pesseippe
edoTeaus ue “TOTZ6 “‘etTurostTTe) ‘obsetq ues ‘339013S YW Sem
OTT 3& xoqTTew ay uT paytsodep I ‘/gé6éT ‘6 Areniqeg uo
*s93e3S peztun
2u3 JO 3INOD sWeIdnS 3syQ Jo Aeg 39uR JO Asaquow e we YT
:sAes pue sasodep ‘uzoas Atnp Bbutaq ‘ANAWM GUYWMOH °W
FIIAMAS AO
aLWOId4ILaaZD GNW ONITIVK dO LIAVGId4dV
‘239 TTaddy
‘HOINNIW S3INWW Nvae
"A
‘ue TTeddy
‘WaRUAIWN °T AYODTYD
986T Wie, 1970390
SALWLS GaLINO 4HL dO LHOOD ANAaAdOS
d4HL NI
86-98 *O!!
qm RU
© 0451 ‘Oz ‘Sry sauce woyssyunuc> Ay % =
S 0310 NYS 4O AINNOD Lg 2
= vVINYOSIIVD ~ DINd ABVION Ser 3
ottTqnd A1e ON = NaTIv ‘W YGIA us =
SPrunenvvv neggernuenarvov uean Oo ene 44 OU NNO1aUETOUU SOE UADNAE OLA TPT LUO GEAAT LET
JWG WE
*3I peqnoexe
ay ey pebpeTMouyoe pue ‘quounizyzsut styz 03 peqtiosqns Sst
sueu asoum uosied ay eq OF oll OF uamouy ATTeuosied ‘otTqnd A1e {ON
‘uaTIv epTA au ar0zeq ‘186T Areniqed Jo Kep 436 stu} uo
( obetaq ues Jo Ajunog)
sss (
( efuzroztTe) JO 33835
KUWLON AG NOILVLSALLYV
ANAWM CUWMOH ‘W
aie,
Yay Weainoyy ‘id
*peAles useq aAey peAi9S
aq 03 peitnbel setjzied [Te 3e43 Ajytq199 1r9syqINn§g I
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.