Summary 2008 WY 1

Summary of Decision issued January 8, 2008

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: RK v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 1

Docket Number: S-07-0072

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Larry R. Clapp and Scott J. Olheiser, Clapp & Associates, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Ellen Rutledge, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: RK challenged the district court’s order establishing his parentage of MJ. In 1993, paternity Test 1 was performed. The results excluded RK as the father. In 1994, the court received a letter from the testing firm explaining an error had occurred and that the results of Test 2 could not exclude RK as the father. In 1999, RK submitted to Test 3 which results also showed him to be the father.
In this appeal, RK contested that the genetic testing statute in effect in 1992 required the district court to dismiss the suit on receipt of the Test 1 results. Next RK asserted that the evidence was irrelevant from Test 2 and 3 and that the district court applied the current statute concerning genetic testing rather than the one in effect in 1992 when the testing was commenced.
Dismissal After Test I: The Court reviewed the language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-111(f) de novo. The Court stated that the cases RK relied upon, E.g., Le Page v. State of Wyo., Dep’t of Health and Maryland v. State did not establish that the plain language mandated dismissal, nor did it require the district court to dismiss paternity cases on its own initiative. Because the case was never dismissed the Court stated there was no reopening of the case and they declined to further discuss that claim.
Failure to Rebut Test 1: Whether evidence is relevant is a decision within the trial court’s decision. The Court reviewed the evidence and stated that it all fit the definition of relevant evidence that had a tendency to make the evidence of RK’s paternity more probable than it would be without the evidence.
Incorrect Statute Applied: The Court evaluates a district court’s admission of evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. To meet the standard of W.R.A.P. 9.04, RK must have shown that the outcome of his trial would have been more favorable had the error not occurred. The Court noted the differences between the current statute for refuting genetic tests and the one in effect in 1992. The Court stated the error was harmless because the proffered evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. The lab made clear that the error with Test 1 was not the test itself but that they had accidentally switched the samples with another trio of subjects. Test 1 was irrelevant to whether RK was MJ’s genetic father. Once Test 1 was removed from consideration, Test 2 and 3 remained which supported the conclusion that RK was MJ’s genetic father. The district court’s error in applying the current paternity statute was harmless.

Holding: The plain language of the statute did not mandate dismissal nor did it require the district court to dismiss the paternity suit. The evidence fit the definition of relevant evidence. The application by the district court of the incorrect statute was harmless error because the proffered evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2zp8qk .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2007 WY 54

Summary of Decision issued April 3, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: DNW v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services

Citation: 2007 WY 54

Docket Number: C-06-9

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, Honorable H. Hunter Patrick, Judge

Representing Appellant DNW (Respondent): George L. Simonton of Cody, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services (Petitioner): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Dan Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Ellen Rutledge, Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee NJM (Respondent): No Appearance.

Guardian Ad Litem: Chris Edwards of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC the Cody, Wyoming Division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.

Date of Decision: April 3, 2007

Issue: Whether the district court erred when it entered a Judgment and Order of Paternity in which it named the biological father of a child to be his legal father when the mother's ex-husband had executed and filed an affidavit with Wyoming Vital records Services acknowledging paternity. [Whether a divorce can disestablish an acknowledged paternity.]

Holdings: Wyo. Stat. 14-2-102 (2001) (c), (d) and (e) conclusively dictate the result in this case. There was a signed and filed an affidavit acknowledging paternity pursuant to subsection (c). That affidavit was not timely withdrawn, and there was never an attempt to prove that the affidavit was obtained as a result of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact. This acknowledged paternity is therefore final and conclusive. When the State and the district court learned of the existence of the affidavits, the paternity action against the biological father should have been dismissed. The provision of the parties' earlier divorce decree purporting to disestablish paternity was beyond the court's statutory authority and was, therefore, void.

The Order and Judgment of Paternity is reversed and this matter is remanded to the district court for entry of an order of dismissal.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Justice Hill dissents: Perpetuating a falsity does not outweigh the enormous preference that the law affords to ferreting out the truth. Undisputed DNA evidence that establishes that the father-by affidavit is not the child's biological father. The child is now over ten-years-old. His Father-By-Affidavit is no longer in the picture and has not been for over four years now. Child's birth certificate had been amended to show that he had no father at the time of trial. Father-By-Affidavit was relieved of the burden of his affidavit by the district court in a divorce decree and the Child's birth certificate was adjusted accordingly. That judgment was not appealed. The truth is the best result that can be reached in this case and the truth is not inconsistent with the best interests of the child. The district court's order should be affirmed in all respects.