## Facts

- Wade Samuel “Sam” Waldschmidt, Jr. married Deloris Hibbs in 1970.
- Heather Shea Waldschmidt (later Heather S. Reese) was born during the marriage in 1971; her birth certificate listed Sam as her father, and Sam held her out as his child.
- Sam and Deloris divorced; the divorce decree treated Heather as the child of the marriage, awarded custody to Deloris, ordered Sam to pay child support, and granted Sam visitation.
- After the divorce, Sam had little contact with Heather.
- Sam later married Sandra Waldschmidt.
- Sam died by suicide, leaving no will.
- In the probate proceeding for Sam’s intestate estate, the court appointed William Muret as administrator.
- Heather asserted she was Sam’s child and therefore an intestate heir.
- Sandra disputed Heather’s status and moved in the probate case for genetic testing to determine whether Heather was Sam’s daughter; the district court denied the motion.
- Heather filed a separate paternity action under the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) against the estate administrator, alleging Sam was her presumptive father.
- Sandra intervened in the KPA action and again sought genetic testing; the district court denied testing, relying on *In re Marriage of Ross* and finding testing was not in Heather’s best interests.
- Sandra appealed the denials of genetic testing in both the probate and KPA actions; the Kansas Supreme Court consolidated the appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the Kansas Probate Code authorizes a probate court to order genetic testing, at the request of a surviving spouse, to contest an adult claimant’s asserted status as a child and heir of an intestate decedent.
2. Whether, in a KPA paternity action brought by an adult child in connection with inheritance, the court must apply *In re Marriage of Ross* and consider the “best interests of the child” before ordering genetic testing.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying Sandra’s motions for genetic testing in the probate and KPA proceedings.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of genetic testing in the probate proceeding because the Kansas Probate Code provided no statutory basis for ordering genetic testing on Sandra’s motion.
- The Court affirmed the denial of genetic testing in the KPA action, holding that *In re Marriage of Ross* remains applicable and requires a best-interests analysis before genetic testing is ordered, even when the person whose parentage is at issue is an adult and the dispute relates to inheritance.
- The Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Sandra’s requests for genetic testing in either case.

## Legal Principles

- Courts apply statutes as written; a court may not order relief in probate absent statutory authorization.
- A probate proceeding determines heirs based on legally recognized parent-child status; the probate code does not independently supply a procedure for compelled genetic testing to litigate biological parentage.
- The Kansas Parentage Act governs adjudication of paternity, including when paternity is raised in connection with intestate succession.
- Under the KPA, a child born during a marriage and identified on the birth certificate as the husband’s child creates a statutory presumption of paternity.
- Under *In re Marriage of Ross*, genetic testing is not automatic; the court must consider the best interests of the child before ordering testing, and that requirement is not limited to cases involving minor children or custody disputes.

## Conclusion

In *Reese v. Muret*, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a widow could not obtain genetic testing through the probate case because the probate code provided no authority for such an order, and it also held that in a KPA paternity action connected to inheritance, *Ross* requires the court to weigh the best interests of the child before ordering genetic testing even when the child is an adult; accordingly, the denials of genetic testing in both proceedings were affirmed.


Reese v. Muret, 150 P.3d 309 (2007)