Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the Stark County Social Service Board appealed a trial court decision that dismissed a paternity action against a man identified by a pseudonym, Richard. The paternity action arose when a child born in 1973, whose mother later sought AFDC benefits, prompted the Board to pursue child support and medical coverage based on genetic tests showing a high probability of Richard's paternity. The trial court did not apply the statutory presumption of paternity, as outlined in NDCC 14-17-04(1)(f), due to concerns over the retroactive application of an amendment to the law enacted in 1989. The Board argued that this was a reversible error, as the presumption should have been applied given the genetic evidence. The appellate court found that the Uniform Parentage Act was intended to apply retroactively, as indicated by legislative language, to cases involving children born before its enactment. Additionally, the failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of paternity was deemed prejudicial, affecting the burden of proof. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the legislature's intent for retroactive application of the statutory presumption of paternity.
Legal Issues Addressed
Burden of Proof and Jury Instructionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of paternity was prejudicial and significantly affected the burden of proof, necessitating a new trial.
Reasoning: Since the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on this presumption was prejudicial and affected substantial rights, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Presumption of Paternity under NDCC 14-17-04(1)(f)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The legal presumption of paternity applies if genetic tests show a 95% or higher probability of parentage, as evidenced by the genetic testing results in this case.
Reasoning: The trial court failed to apply a statutory presumption of paternity established by NDCC 14-17-04(1)(f), which indicates that if genetic tests show a 95% or higher probability of parentage, a man is presumed to be the father.
Retroactive Application of Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the Uniform Parentage Act should be applied retroactively, impacting the applicability of the presumption of paternity to actions concerning children born before the enactment date.
Reasoning: The court determined that the Legislature intended for the Uniform Parentage Act to apply retroactively, based on the language in Section 14-17-06, which states that actions to determine paternity must be initiated within three years after the child's birth or three years after July 1, 1975, whichever is later.