## Facts

- A husband and wife married in 1979 and had three children; the youngest child was born in April 1987 during the marriage, making the husband the presumed father under the New Jersey Parentage Act.
- During marital breakdown, the husband suspected the child was conceived through an affair between the wife and the husband’s former brother-in-law.
- The wife later admitted having sexual relations with the alleged biological father during the likely conception period.
- The husband secretly obtained a genetic sample from the child under a false pretext and arranged private DNA testing, which excluded the husband as the biological father.
- In the divorce action, the husband asserted the wife fraudulently concealed the child’s paternity and filed a third-party action against the alleged biological father seeking a declaration of parentage and reimbursement of child-rearing expenses.
- The husband moved to compel court-ordered genetic testing of the wife and the child; by that time, the father-child relationship had substantially deteriorated, and the child maintained a positive relationship with the alleged biological father.

## Issues

1. Under the New Jersey Parentage Act, what standard governs a presumed father’s motion to compel genetic testing to determine parentage: a clear-and-convincing “best interests of the child” standard or the statute’s “reasonable possibility parentage is in doubt” standard with a “good cause” exception?
2. If the moving party shows a reasonable possibility that parentage is in doubt, which party bears the burden to show good cause to deny genetic testing?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and remanded.
- The Court held the lower courts used the wrong standard by requiring the presumed father to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that genetic testing was in the child’s best interests.
- Applying N.J.S.A. 9:17-48(d), the Court held that once there is a reasonable possibility that parentage is in doubt, genetic testing must be ordered unless the party opposing testing shows good cause to deny it.
- The husband’s evidence (the wife’s admission of sexual relations during the conception window and the private DNA exclusion) established a reasonable possibility that parentage was in doubt.
- The record did not show good cause to deny testing; the Family Part was directed to order genetic testing on remand.

## Legal Principles

- A child born during a marriage is presumed the child of the husband under N.J.S.A. 9:17-43(a)(1).
- The presumption of paternity may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence under N.J.S.A. 9:17-43(b), but that burden governs the merits determination of parentage, not the threshold decision to order testing.
- Under N.J.S.A. 9:17-48(d), when there is a reasonable possibility that parentage is in doubt, genetic testing should be undertaken unless good cause is shown not to test.
- Once the “reasonable possibility” threshold is met, the burden shifts to the party opposing genetic testing to establish good cause to deny it.
- Pre-amendment case law applying a heightened best-interests analysis to deny testing cannot override the Parentage Act’s statutory framework for ordering genetic testing.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Parentage Act requires genetic testing when a presumed father shows a reasonable possibility that parentage is in doubt, and testing may be denied only if the opposing party proves good cause; the lower courts’ reliance on a clear-and-convincing best-interests standard was error.


D.W. v. R.W., 52 A.3d 1043 (N.J. 2012)