Despite DNA, Dad's Paternity Denied

This from Time Magazine:

For nearly two years, James Rhoades, a university librarian in Tallahassee, has been fighting to establish in law what science and fact already have shown beyond any doubt: He is the biological father of the boy dubbed J.A.R. He's got DNA tests to prove it, and videos and loads of pictures of him with the boy. In the photos too are the boy's mother, J.N.R., whom Rhoades met while taking an online graduate course. She was — and still is — married to another man, who was stationed at a Pensacola Air Force base during their affair in 2005. And that's the problem.

Last week, in a decision that underscores the tense relationship between science and law, a divided Kentucky Supreme Court told Rhoades that he could not press his paternity claim, no matter what evidence of fatherhood he might have, because J.N.R. was, and remains, a married woman. When it comes to defining fatherhood in the Bluegrass State, where Ricketts and her husband now live, the marital "I do" mean a lot more than DNA.

The 4-3 decision splintered the court, which issued five separate opinions. The majority was itself divided evenly among two camps, one that said Rhoades might have prevailed had he been able to show the J.N.R.'s "marital relationship had ceased at least 10 months" prior to the boy's birth, and another that said no "stranger to the marriage" can ever attack the legitimacy of a child's birth. "As long as marriage is on the books, it must mean something," wrote Justice Bill Cunningham in one of two concurring opinions.

"... We are in need of a bold declaration that the marriage circle, even one with an errant partner, will be invaded at one's own legal risk." He added: "While the legal status of marriage in this early 21st century appears to be on life support, it is not dead." ...

Thanks to Bill Ross.

Webcast to air Kentucky Supreme Court's oral arguments

The Kentucky Supreme Court is going live and online.

The high court started showing oral arguments yesterday through a Web site, joining at least 16 other states in employing the technology. The court estimated it had about 1,700 online viewers for its first Webcast, said Susan Clary, a spokeswoman for the court.

It's gone great. No hitches," Clary said.

Kentucky joins states from Alaska to Florida in Webcasting oral arguments.

"Broadcasting Supreme Court oral arguments live gives every citizen access to our proceedings and an opportunity to see their highest court doing its work," Chief Justice Joseph Lambert said.
To see a Webcast, viewers go to the Supreme Court Web site, www.courts.ky.gov, and click on "Supreme Court LIVE."

Kentucky's high court finally had the technology in place to start Webcasting after studying the idea for several years, Clary said. The court is also looking into having attorneys file court records online, which is similar to what many federal courts require, Clary said.

The University of Kentucky law school is host for the site....

This from the Courier-Journal.

The Kentucky Law Review blog reports:

Arguments will be archived and available at the University of Kentucky School of Law's web site for later review and research.

Click HERE for October's calendar.

Click HERE for all the calendars.

This is a huge, historical, and monumental step forward in which the justices, the court, and AOC should all be proud and appropriately commended.

State high court hears U of L donation case

The Kentucky Supreme Court heard arguments this morning on whether the University of Louisville Foundation can keep secrete the names of more than 45,000 individual donors to the school.

Jon Fleischaker, lawyer for The Courier-Journal, which is seeking the names, told the high court the public has a right to know whois donating and what if anything they are receiving in return.“Many times these aren’t gifts. These are deals… efforts to influence,” Fleischaker said.

But Mike Risley, an attorney for the foundation, said a donor’s right to privacy outweighs the public’s interest. And Risley said making the names public could have a chilling effect on future donations to the university.“Nondisclosure is in the best interest of the public,” he said.

The high court did not make a ruling today.

The newspaper sued the foundation in 2001 after it was denied records related to donations to U of L's McConnell Center for Political Leadership.

See the story from the Courier-Journal.