S____ v. S

4 Citing cases

  1. B. S. H. v. J. J. H

    613 S.W.2d 453 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 15 times
    In B.S.H., reports of blood tests of a wife, a husband and two children were received in evidence, apparently by agreement.

    The burden is upon the party asserting illegitimacy to establish the fact by clear and convincing evidence which leaves no room for doubt. J. M. L. v. C. L., 536 S.W.2d 944 (Mo.App. 1976). This onerous burden requires a quantum of evidence such that no conclusion other than that of illegitimacy can be reached. S____ v. S____, 520 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Mo.App. 1975). When the party against whom the presumption operates presents substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, the issue is then decided on all the evidence in the case as if there had been no presumption In re L____, 499 S.W.2d 490 (Mo.banc 1973).

  2. Aversman v. Danner

    616 S.W.2d 117 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    Such expressions have been used as the quantum of evidence needed to rebut the presumption must not only be clear and convincing, Stripe v. Meffert, 287 Mo. 366, 229 S.W. 762 (1921), but must be such that no conclusion other than illegitimacy can be reached. Brown v. Brown, 609 S.W.2d 223 (Mo.App. 1980); citing F____ v. F____, 333 S.W.2d 320 (Mo.App. 1960). That language from F____ v. F____, supra, was repeated in E. S. v. G. M. S., 520 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Mo.App. 1975), and paraphrased and restated in B. S. H. v. J. J. H., 613 S.W.2d 453 (Mo.App. 1981), which also cites E. S. v. G. M. S., supra. It has also been said that the quantum of proof required to overcome the presumption must be "strong and persuasive" and "leave no room for reasonable doubt." J. M. L. v. C. L., 536 S.W.2d 944, 947 (Mo.App. 1976), citing Jackson v. Phalen, 237 Mo. 142, 140 S.W. 879 (1911); J. D. v. M. D., 453 S.W.2d 661 (Mo.App. 1970).

  3. Barcelo v. Barcelo

    603 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980)   Cited 1 times

    While we have found no Texas cases that have treated with the issue of whether evidence of a successful vasectomy is sufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy, there are a number of cases in other jurisdictions that have considered the question. Among those that have ruled that the presumption is rebutted are Hughes v. Hughes, 125 Cal.App.2d 781, 271 P.2d 172 (1954); S v. S , 520 S.W.2d 652 (Mo.App. 1975); In re Stroope's Adoption, 232 Cal.App.2d 581, 43 Cal.Rptr. 40 (1954); and In re Kessler's Estate, 76 S.D. 158, 74 N.W.2d 599 (1956). Of these only S v. S involved a divorce case in which the wife was alleging legitimacy.

  4. J. M. L. v. C. L

    536 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    Although the very question here is whether the legal father is in fact the natural father, this does not mean he is to be accorded no rights, such as right to notice, until he proves himself to be the natural father. The burden of proving illegitimacy is on the party asserting it. S____ v. S____, 520 S.W.2d 652, 654[1] (Mo.App. 1975); F____ v. F____, 333 S.W.2d 320, 327[10] (Mo.App. 1960). The burden is an onerous one, for proof must be "clear and convincing.