Lawsuit of the Day: Identical Twins in Paternity Fight
Readers of ATL disagree vehemently over the existence of God. But if God does exist, he has a delightfully sick sense of humor. From ABC News:
Twin brothers Raymon and Richard Miller are the father and uncle to a 3-year-old little girl. The problem is, they don't know which is which. Or who is who. The identical Missouri twins say they were unknowingly having sex with the same woman. And according to the woman's testimony, she had sex with each man on the same day. Within hours of each other.When the woman in question, Holly Marie Adams, got pregnant, she named Raymon the father, but he contested and demanded a paternity test, bringing his own brother Richard to court.
But a paternity test in this case could not help. The test showed that both brothers have over a 99.9 percent probability of being the daddy— and neither one wants to pay the child support. The result of the test has not only brought to light the limits of DNA evidence, it has also led to a three-year legal battle, a Miller family feud and a little girl who may never know who her real father is.
Très trashy -- but there's an actual legal issue here. How was it decided?
Find out, after the jump.
Here's what the trial court decided:
Judge Fred Copeland ruled that even in light of the identical DNA tests and overlapping relationships, Raymon would remain the legal father of the child. Raymon hopes to continue appealing the decision....[Copeland] notes that as the judge in the case, he does not have to depend solely on DNA evidence and can rule based on the testimony of Adams as well -- who believes she can nail down the date of conception to a night spent with Raymon.
Fair enough. But we like the rough justice of this approach:
[Forensic scientist Dr. Bob Gaensslen] has his own suggestion as to who should be paying [the child support]. "Split it down the middle," he told ABC News. "They both played, so they should both pay."
Who's Your Daddy? Paternity Battle Between Brothers [ABC News]
(20) Comments
Go Ron Go!
GeeneParmesan is my daddy.
I wonder if Holly Marie Adams is hot. I bet she is!
How could the judge not have pulled a wisdom of Solomon on this one. It should totally be 50% child support each skanky brother for the next 15 years. As for the mom, she really does sound like the trashiest of trash
give her a break -- she probably couldn't tell the difference between them and thought she was sleeping with one person!
'"'Did you sleep with him [Richard Miller] while in Sikeston for the rodeo?'," Cameron Parker, Richard's lawyer, said she asked Holly Marie Adams in 2003 court testimony, to which she answered "'Yes ma'am.'" "She then said she went to appellant's [Raymon Miller's]home where they had sex later that night or early the next morning," Parker said.'... Nice.
I also admire Pappa Raymon's proposed solution that the state eat the child support payment b/c they can't prove with certainty that he's the daddy. Not to mention my admiration for his name's lack of a 'd'.
Outrageous. Why should someone who cannot be proven the father be forced to pay for the child's upbringing?
The dumb ----- should have to pay herself like any other woman who DOESN'T KNOW WHO THE FATHER IS, rather than living off child support like so many other moms these days.
What do you wanna bet that Raymon makes more money, making him the target of her estimated date of conception?
Apply a Summers v. Tice analysis (the court could not prove with certainty whose shot had wounded the plaintiff, so held both liable) and rule both men are the father. Let them sort out financial responsibility between themselves.
2:52 - I love the Summers v. Tice analogy. Certainly, neither of these two guys were shooting blanks!
Joint and several, FTW!
My limited understanding of family law is that in most states, a child can only have one legal father. There are probably statutory obstacles to splitting child support between the two.
They must have had paternity suits before the days of DNA testing. I'm sure the judge just did what was done then: look at the available evidence and make a decision.
99.9%/2 < 50%
No Tice?
Seems like a no brainer to me. More likely that not, someone who is not the father will be forced to pay to raise someone else's kid if either man is stuck with child support. Therefore, no meal ticket for the mom.
2:45, even the outraged guy in me had to laugh at that one...
Whoops, that was 2:52... Though 5:39 and 5:58 are right - seems like unless her analysis can tip the odds given by the DNA, she can't make a preponderance case, and I have a hard time imagining her being able to do that given both her suspect motives and the fact that she cannot retroactively determine her date(s) of ovulation with any reasonable degree of certainty...
The judge made things simple. He just decided the mother got to decide which of the two she hated more and stuck him with the bill. Seems fair to me.
The lesson here? Wear a rubber.
I'm guessing that which one she liked better/hated more/was better in bed/anything-other-than-relative-income had nothing to do with her decision about whom to claim the father was... just like all the married and otherwise coupled women, a scary-large proportion, that have children by the UPS man and don't tell the support provider. You know who you are.
Men, get a paternity test, each and every time - some of you will be unpleasantly surprised.
Apparently, the family court applied the “first in time” rule, rather than the “last out” rule.