In Re Marriage of Ross
1989 Kan. LEXIS 185, 783 P.2d 331, 245 Kan. 591 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Kansas Parentage Act, a district court must first conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if ordering a paternity test is in the best interests of the child before it may order blood tests to rebut the presumption of paternity for a child born during a marriage.
Facts:
- Sylvia K. Ross and Robert Lewis Ross were married when their child, R.A.R., was born on November 6, 1982.
- At the time of R.A.R.'s conception, Sylvia had engaged in sexual intercourse with both her husband, Robert, and another man, Charles Allan Austin.
- Robert was named as the father on R.A.R.'s birth certificate and, following his divorce from Sylvia, continued to act as R.A.R.'s father, sharing joint custody and providing support.
- When R.A.R. was approximately three and a half years old, Sylvia began to suspect Charles was the biological father due to the child's physical characteristics.
- Sylvia informed both Robert and Charles of her suspicion; Robert continued to care for R.A.R. under the joint custody arrangement.
- Sylvia later asked Charles if he would consent to the adoption of R.A.R. by her new husband if Charles were determined to be the biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- In a divorce proceeding, the trial court's decree identified Robert Ross as R.A.R.'s father, awarded custody, and ordered Robert to pay child support.
- Years later, Sylvia Ross filed a petition in district court under the Kansas Parentage Act, alleging Charles Austin was R.A.R.'s biological father.
- A guardian ad litem was appointed for R.A.R. and filed a separate paternity action.
- The trial court, without holding an evidentiary hearing on R.A.R.'s best interests, ordered the parties to submit to blood testing.
- After the tests precluded Robert's paternity and identified Charles as the biological father, the trial court ordered Charles to pay child support.
- Robert Ross (presumed father) and Charles Austin (biological father) appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that a 'best interests' hearing was not required before determining paternity.
- Robert Ross petitioned the Supreme Court of Kansas for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Kansas Parentage Act require a court to first determine whether a paternity action is in the best interests of the child before ordering blood tests to determine the biological father, when a presumed father-child relationship already exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Lockett, J.
Yes, the Kansas Parentage Act requires a court to first determine whether a paternity action is in the best interests of the child before ordering blood tests to challenge an existing presumed paternity. The purpose of the Act is to protect the well-being of children, not to be used as a tool by adults in their disputes. Public policy disfavors 'bastardizing' a child who has a stable parent-child relationship with a presumed father. The court reasoned that disrupting a child's psychological and emotional bonds with the person they know as their father can cause immense harm, and this potential detriment must be weighed before proceeding to a purely biological determination. Once a stable father-child relationship is ruptured by a blood test, the court cannot simply restore the parties to their prior positions, and the child is the one who suffers the consequences.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant procedural safeguard in paternity law by prioritizing a child's established psychological and familial relationships over a strict biological determination of parentage. By requiring a preliminary 'best interests' hearing, the court places the child's stability and welfare at the forefront of the inquiry, shifting the focus from the parents' rights or biological truth to the potential impact on the child. This creates a higher threshold for challenging the paternity of a child born into a marriage, reinforcing the legal presumption of legitimacy and protecting children from the emotional turmoil of having their family structure upended.
