Villery v. Solomon, 16 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
Intestate died with Marital Child, Non-Marital Son, and Non-Marital
Daughter. The court determined that there was clear and convincing
evidence as required under Probate Code § 42(b) to establish that both
non-marital children were Intestate’s biological children. Marital Child
appealed the court’s finding with regard to Non-Marital Daughter.
The appellate court affirmed. There was ample clear and convincing
evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Non-Marital Daughter
was Intestate’s child. For example, the mother of Non-Marital Daughter
testified that Intestate was the father and that he acknowledged her as
his child. In addition, he paid child support, visited her, and wanted
to change her last name to match his. Non-Marital Son also agreed that
Non-Marital Daughter was her sister. Non-Marital Daughter testified that
she always considered Intestate as her father and that he helped pay her
rent and support her child, Intestate’s grandson. The court also agreed
that the trial court was within its right to give little weight to an
ambiguous DNA report, especially because there was no expert testimony
to interpret the report and the Intestate was not tested.
Moral: If a DNA report is going to be used in a paternity determination,
the report should be clearly explained by an expert who tests the
mother, alleged father, and child.