Baron v. Dyslin
| Decision Date | 28 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 0007,0007 |
| Citation | 279 S.C. 475,309 S.E.2d 767 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Elizabeth BARON, Appellant, v. Royce Arol DYSLIN and Tamara Erin Dyslin, an Infant under the Age of Fourteen Years, Respondents. |
David R. Gravely of Bellamy, Rutenberg, Copeland, Epps, Gravely & Bowers, Myrtle Beach, for appellant.
John R. Clarke, North Myrtle Beach, and John L. Sherrill of Kelaher & Sherrill, Surfside Beach, for respondents.
The appellant Elizabeth Baron appeals the family court's finding that the respondent Royce Arol Dyslin (Dyslin) is not the father of her minor child, the respondent Tamara Erin Dyslin. She also appeals the lower court's denial of child support. We reverse and remand the case to the family court.
Because this is an equity action tried by the family court judge alone without a reference, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its views of the preponderance of the evidence. South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Johnson, 275 S.C. 7, 266 S.E.2d 878 (1980); Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). In a case such as this, the Court of Appeals may reverse a factual finding if the appellant convinces the court that the finding is against the greater weight of the evidence. White v. Boseman, 275 S.C. 184, 268 S.E.2d 287 (1980). The question of whether the family court finding challenged here should be reversed depends upon whether Dyslin carried his burden of proof in rebutting the mother's prima facie case of his paternity. See Davis v. Holloway, 274 S.C. 500, 265 S.E.2d 264 (1980).
As the lower court found, the mother established a prima facie case. We agree. The mother's evidence, among other things, consisted of her own testimony and the results of blood tests done in duplicate by two different technologists.
The mother testified that she did not have sexual relations with anyone other than Dyslin for about a year before her daughter was born, and she testified that her child, born on October 20, 1979, was conceived on January 27, 1979, when Dyslin visited her in an Illinois apartment near Chicago.
The blood test results failed to exclude Dyslin as the child's father. Testing involving white cell antigens caused Dr. Petrina V. Genco, Director of the HLA Laboratory at the Medical University of South Carolina, to conclude that Dyslin "is likely to be the biologic father of the child in question"; and Dr. Albert Cannon, Director of the Medical University's Immunohematology Division, advised:
A combination of the red cell and white cell antigen testing gives a cumulative probability of exclusion of at least 95 [per cent]. It must be realized that absolute proof of paternity cannot be established by any known blood test available. However, it must be appreciated that the likelihood of paternity is very high indeed if the laboratory performing the test has a test profile yielding a probability of exclusion at the 90 [per cent] level or higher and the results of the tests failed to obtain an exclusion. It is, therefore, my opinion that failure to exclude [Dyslin] at the 95th percentile or greater must be interpreted that the alleged father is very likely to be the biologic father of the child in question.
The family court held, however, that Dyslin rebutted the mother's prima facie case of paternity because (1) the birth certificate bore Dyslin's forged signature; (2) Dyslin lacked access to the mother during the gestation period; (3) Dyslin was not in the Chicago, Illinois, area when the mother conceived her daughter; (4) the mother dismissed without prejudice an earlier paternity action against Dyslin involving her daughter; (5) the mother dropped criminal charges preferred by her against Dyslin; (6) the mother instituted the instant action immediately after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. Blanton
...convinced the finding is against the greater weight of evidence. White v. Boseman, 275 S.C. 184, 268 S.E.2d 287 (1980); Baron v. Dyslin, 309 S.E.2d 767 (S.C.App.1983). Delores Allen Hudson, the mother of Christopher, is now married to the appellant. When Christopher was conceived and born, ......
-
Eleazer v. Hardaway Concrete Co., Inc., 0153
...preponderance of the evidence. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976); Baron v. Dyslin, --- S.C. ---, 309 S.E.2d 767 (S.C.App.1983). If an appellant convinces the court that a finding of fact is against the greater weight of the evidence, the Court......
-
Corley v. Rowe
...that if he had had an illicit relationship that his wife would not have discovered it. Rowe attempts to distinguish Baron v. Dyslin, 309 S.E.2d 767 (S.C.App.1983), in which this court held that the alleged father failed to rebut the mother's prima facie case. In Baron, no witnesses could ac......
-
Abercrombie v. LaBoon, 0138
...was upon him, as the appellant, to convince us that the greater weight of the evidence supported such a finding. See Baron v. Dyslin, 309 S.E.2d 767 (S.C.App.1983). The trial court found as a fact that the sum of $3,528.94 was due in back child support. It is the father's position, however,......