Contested Paternity and Evidence in Pennsylvania
One of the most sensitive issues in family law is paternity disputes. This is due to the fact that, in most cases, the identification of the biological father can have serious implications on the financial, parental, and overall well-being of the child. However, the court has the task of balancing the evidence at hand while ensuring fairness to all parties. In this article, the Philadelphia family law attorneys at the Law Office of Lauren H. Kane will discuss a real case involving contested paternity and how it played out.
Background of the case
This case was the result of a situation involving a putative father. The mother and the putative father were involved in a serious dispute regarding the paternity of a young child. The question was: should the putative father be held legally liable for supporting the child?
The father contested his paternity. He attempted to introduce blood and genetic evidence for testing. This would help him establish once and for all whether or not he was the biological father. This is important since genetic testing is often used in determining paternity, since the results are very reliable.
The court, however, declined the putative father’s request to introduce genetic testing evidence and instead, the case moved forward, the court awarded the mother child support, and the father was forced to pay child support on a monthly basis.
The father, however, felt that the court should have allowed him to introduce genetic evidence. He filed an appeal of the decision.
The appeal
On appeal, the putative father contended that the trial court erred in not allowing the admission of genetic evidence that he believed would shed light on the question of whether or not he was the biological father.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court considered the actions of the trial court with regard to the evidence and overall process that occurred in the case. Generally, the appellate court will not review the actions of the trial court to determine if the court abused its discretion. This means that the court has made a decision that is unreasonable or not in accordance with the law.
After reviewing the case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court found that the trial court had not abused its discretion for failing to admit the DNA evidence.
In reaching its decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that the trial court has broad discretion to admit evidence and conduct the case in the manner that the court deems appropriate. The court will not overturn the decision that has been made by the trial court unless the decision is clearly inappropriate.
Talk to a Philadelphia, PA, Paternity Lawyer Today
The Law Office of Lauren H. Kane represents the interests of Philadelphia residents who need to establish or disestablish their paternity. Call our Philadelphia family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin preparing your case right away.
