State, Department of Social Services, Office of Family Support v. Gibson
Docket: No. 33932-CA
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; September 27, 2000; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Ira L. Gibson appeals a trial court decision that established him as the biological father of minor child J.J.A. The relationship between Gibson and Rosalyn Atkins began in 1987, during which they had intermittent sexual intercourse until early 1992. Atkins became pregnant in February 1992, and J.J.A. was born on November 3, 1992, without Gibson being informed of the birth. Atkins did not notify Gibson of his potential paternity until J.J.A. was five to six months old.
On February 27, 1996, the State of Louisiana filed a suit against Gibson for paternity and child support, to which he denied paternity. Initial blood tests were flawed, leading to a second round, which revealed a probability of paternity of 99.99997 percent and a combined paternity index of 3,510,000. Testimony at trial included expert analysis from Dr. Amanda Sozer on DNA testing, along with statements from Atkins and a friend confirming Gibson as the only sexual partner during the relevant period.
Gibson acknowledged a sexual encounter with Atkins at the end of February 1992, while asserting he could not be the father because he was not in Shreveport during the earlier part of the month. Ultimately, the trial court ruled Gibson as the natural and biological father on July 22, 1999, and on August 6, 1999, ordered him to pay $503.10 monthly in child support, retroactive to the petition's filing, accumulating an arrearage of $22,714.96. Gibson's appeal is limited to the paternity determination.
The appeal addresses the interpretation of La. R.S. 9:397.3 concerning the admissibility of blood test results in paternity cases. The statute mandates that a certified written report of the initial test results, accompanied by a sworn affidavit from the supervising expert, must be filed. The affidavit must include details about the expert's qualifications, identification of tested individuals, sample collection methods, chain of custody, test results, and the probabilities regarding paternity. Parties must be notified of the report's filing and can challenge the testing procedure within thirty days.
If a procedural error is found, the court may order retesting. If no timely challenge is made or if the testing procedure is upheld, the report is admitted as prima facie evidence, allowing cross-examination of the report's author. A report indicating at least a 99.9% probability of paternity creates a rebuttable presumption of paternity. The court can order additional tests, which must be supported by expert testimony. If all experts conclude the alleged father is not the biological father, paternity is resolved accordingly; if opinions differ, all evidence is considered.
Mr. Gibson contends that the paternity test results are inadmissible under La. R.S. 9:397.3(A) due to insufficient certification and a lack of verified documentation regarding sample collection. He argues that the trial court should not have accepted the test results as a certified report creating a rebuttable presumption of paternity. The court disagrees, stating that the certification challenge lacks merit, and prior case law supports the admissibility of test results without expert testimony.
An expert may testify without having performed the blood draw, tests, or data compilation, as they can rely on data from other technicians, as established in various legal precedents. Dr. Sozer, who analyzed the biological specimens and certified the report under her supervision, testified at trial regarding the paternity genetics tests. She confirmed proper collection, packaging, and mailing procedures of the specimens, with no evidence of tampering. Her testimony included her oversight of the laboratory's operations and monitoring of tests. The chain of custody for the samples was deemed intact, supported by affidavits from the phlebotomists who collected and sealed the samples, despite minor discrepancies in terminology. The legal standard for proving paternity, when the alleged parent is alive, is a preponderance of the evidence as per Louisiana law. The burden of proof lies on demonstrating that the defendant's paternity is more probable than not, and a trial court's factual determination should only be overturned for manifest error.
In the legal case involving Mr. Gibson and Ms. Atkins, the court examined the results of a paternity test showing a 99.99997% probability that Mr. Gibson is the biological father of J.J.A., supported by a combined paternity index of 3,510,000. Dr. Sozer, who conducted the analysis, testified that while Mr. Gibson did not exhibit one genetic fragment, this did not exclude him as the father and was accounted for in the probability calculations. Mr. Gibson contended that he had presented enough evidence to rebut the presumption of paternity; however, the court found strong indicators of his paternity, including his admission of sexual intercourse with Ms. Atkins during the conception month and corroborating testimonies asserting that she had no other sexual partners at that time. The court concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient for the trial court to determine paternity by a preponderance of the evidence, rejecting Mr. Gibson’s claims of error in the trial court's findings.
The trial court's judgment affirming Ira L. Gibson as the natural and biological father of the minor child, J.J.A., is upheld, with costs assigned to Gibson. Legislative changes in 1995 and amendments in 1999 regarding the establishment of paternity are noted. An "Identification Document" is created for each participant in paternity testing, containing personal information and signatures from both the phlebotomist and the specimen donor. Dr. Sozer's testimony emphasizes that a tested male cannot be excluded as a biological father unless he fails to show at least two necessary genetic characteristics. In this case, since only one genetic characteristic was not exhibited, the male cannot be excluded under the standards of the American Association of Blood Banks. The report includes a mutation frequency analysis, indicating the potential reasons for the genetic discrepancy: either the alleged father is not the biological father or he is, but a mutation occurred during sperm development, with such mutations occurring at a frequency of 0.01 to 0.7 percent.
