D.W. v. R.W.
52 A.3d 1043, 212 N.J. 232, 2012 WL 4795701 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New Jersey Parentage Act, once a party establishes a reasonable possibility of disputed parentage, a court must order genetic testing unless the party opposing the test shows 'good cause' for denial. The 'good cause' analysis is not governed solely by the 'best interests of the child' but requires a court to weigh a series of equitable factors balancing the interests of the child and the parties.
Facts:
- Richard (R.W.) and Diane (D.W.) were married in 1979, and their youngest child, Mark (M.W.), was born in April 1987.
- In 2006, during the breakdown of their marriage, Richard grew suspicious of Diane's infidelity.
- Diane subsequently admitted to Richard that she had a sexual relationship with her former brother-in-law, Donald (D.B.), around the time Mark was conceived.
- Richard surreptitiously obtained a DNA sample from Mark and a privately commissioned DNA test in January 2007 excluded Richard as the biological father.
- The relationship between Richard and Mark, who was by then an adult, deteriorated to the point of being non-existent.
- Mark had a good relationship with his uncle, Donald, the putative biological father.
- Mark stated that he did not want to undergo court-ordered genetic testing at that time, citing his personal and emotional struggles.
Procedural Posture:
- Diane filed a divorce complaint against Richard in a state trial court (family court).
- Richard filed an answer and a third-party complaint against Donald, seeking to establish Donald's paternity of Mark and seeking reimbursement for child-rearing expenses.
- Richard filed a motion to compel genetic testing of Mark and Diane.
- The family court held a hearing and, applying the 'best interests of the child' standard from M.F. v. N.H., denied Richard's motion for genetic testing.
- The family court then granted Donald's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Richard's paternity action for lack of evidence.
- Richard, as appellant, appealed the family court's orders to the state intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the family court's rulings.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Richard's petition for certification.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under N.J.S.A. 9:17-48(d), is a court required to order genetic testing to challenge a presumption of paternity when a reasonable possibility of non-paternity is established, absent a showing of 'good cause' for denial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Albin
Yes. When a reasonable possibility of non-paternity is established, a court must order genetic testing unless the opposing party demonstrates good cause for denial. The lower courts erred by applying the 'best interests of the child' standard from M.F. v. N.H., which is inconsistent with the plain language and legislative history of the New Jersey Parentage Act, specifically N.J.S.A. 9:17-48(d). The statute shifts the burden to the party opposing the test to show 'good cause' for denial. The 'best interests' standard is too narrow for the wide variety of parentage cases and was developed for a factually distinct scenario of an outsider threatening an intact family. The Court establishes a new 11-factor balancing test to guide the 'good cause' determination, which considers the child's best interests but does not make them solely determinative. Applying this test, Mark's opposition as an adult in an already fractured family did not constitute good cause to deny testing and extinguish Richard's statutory right to pursue a reimbursement claim.
Dissenting - Judge Wefing
No. The lower courts' focus on the child's best interests was correct, and forced genetic testing should not have been ordered. Any determination of 'good cause' to deny testing must be guided by the fundamental principle of the child's best interests. Mark's wishes as an adult, particularly given his personal struggles, are entitled to significant weight, and forcing him to undergo testing to satisfy Richard's desire for 'retribution' infringes upon his personal autonomy and genetic privacy. The trial court was in the best position to conduct the exquisite balancing of interests and correctly determined that testing was not in Mark's best interests. It is fundamentally unfair for the majority to announce an entirely new test and then apply it to reverse, rather than remanding to allow the parties to argue under the new standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and alters the legal standard for compelling genetic testing in New Jersey paternity disputes. It formally replaces the prior, child-centric 'best interests of the child' standard with the statutory 'good cause' standard, which involves a broader, multi-factor balancing test. The ruling empowers presumed parents challenging paternity by lowering the barrier to obtaining crucial genetic evidence, shifting the burden of proof to the party opposing the test. The establishment of the 11-factor test creates a new, comprehensive framework that will guide lower courts in balancing the statutory rights of presumed parents against the welfare of the child, particularly in cases involving adult children and non-traditional family structures.
