§ 5104. Blood tests to determine paternity.
(a) Short title of section.--This section shall be known and may be cited as the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to
Determine Paternity.
(b) Scope of section.--
(1) Civil matters.--This section shall apply to all civil matters.
(2) Criminal proceedings.--This section shall apply to all criminal proceedings subject to the following limitations
and provisions:
(i) An order for the tests shall be made only upon application of a party or on the initiative
of the court.
(ii) The compensation of the experts shall be paid by the party requesting the blood test
or by the county, as the court shall direct.
(iii) The court may direct a verdict of acquittal upon the conclusions of all the experts
under subsection (f). Otherwise, the case shall be submitted for determination upon
all the evidence.
(iv) The refusal of a defendant to submit to the tests may not be used in evidence against
the defendant.
(c) Authority for test.--In any matter subject to this section in which paternity, parentage or identity of
a child is a relevant fact, the court, upon its own initiative or upon suggestion
made by or on behalf of any person whose blood is involved, may or, upon motion of
any party to the action made at a time so as not to delay the proceedings unduly,
shall order the mother, child and alleged father to submit to blood tests. If any
party refuses to submit to the tests, the court may resolve the question of paternity,
parentage or identity of a child against the party or enforce its order if the rights
of others and the interests of justice so require.
(d) Selection of experts.--The tests shall be made by experts qualified as examiners of blood types, who shall
be appointed by the court. The experts shall be called by the court as witnesses to
testify to their findings and shall be subject to cross-examination by the parties.
Any party or person at whose suggestion the tests have been ordered may demand that
other experts qualified as examiners of blood types perform independent tests under
order of court, the results of which may be offered in evidence. The number and qualifications
of experts shall be determined by the court.
(e) Compensation of experts.--The compensation of each expert witness appointed by the court shall be fixed at a
reasonable amount. It shall be paid as the court shall order. Subject to general rules,
the court may order that it be paid by the parties in such proportions and at such
times as it shall prescribe or that the proportion of any party be paid by the county
and that, after payment by the parties or the county, or both, all or part or none
of it be taxed as costs in the action. Subject to general rules, the fee of an expert
witness called by a party but not appointed by the court shall be paid by the party
calling him, but shall not be taxed as costs in the action.
(f) Effect of test results.--If the court finds that the conclusions of all the experts as disclosed by the evidence
based upon the tests are that the alleged father is not the father of the child, the
question of paternity, parentage or identity of a child shall be resolved accordingly.
If the experts disagree in their findings or conclusions, the question shall be submitted
upon all the evidence.
(g) Effect on presumption of legitimacy.--The presumption of legitimacy of a child born during wedlock is overcome if the court
finds that the conclusions of all the experts as disclosed by the evidence based upon
the tests show that the husband is not the father of the child.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case:
Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176 (Pa. 1997).
Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176 (Pa. 1997).
· cites it 14× “23 Pa.C.S. § 5104. The Legislature adopted the Act because reliable scientific evidence excluding a man as the father of a child is imperative in any suit where paternity is an issue, particularly where the child was born during wedlock.”
Donnelly v. Lindenmuth, 597 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 8× “206, § 6, effective in 90 days, now codified at 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104), in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in John M.”
Freedman v. McCandless, 654 A.2d 529 (Pa. 1995).
· cites it 3× “9 Although 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104 10 provides that if a litigant refuses to submit to blood tests, the court may resolve the question of paternity against him, in order to make the finding that a party refused to take the tests, the trial court must *595 determine through a hearing…”
Strauser v. Stahr, 726 A.2d 1052 (Pa. 1999).
· cites it 4× “[2] In her dissenting opinion, Madame Justice Newman discerns a conflict between this holding and the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity, now codified at 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104, which she views as codifying the public policy that blood testing may always be employed to…”
E.W. v. T.S., 916 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 3× “The Strauser opinion recognizes in a footnote that: In her dissenting opinion, Madame Justice Newman discerns a conflict between this holding and the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity, now codified at 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104, which she views as codifying the public…”
In Re Adoption of S.A.J., 838 A.2d 616 (Pa. 2003).
· cites it 2× “He never requested the court to order blood tests pursuant to the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104. [6] He never requested *624 the court or the Domestic Relations Section to obtain a genetic test to establish paternity.”
Mastromatteo v. Harkins, 615 A.2d 390 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 6× “In that case, we interpreted 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104 and whether it permitted the drawing of duplicate blood tests.”
McCue v. McCue, 604 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 4× “The sole question presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in refusing to compel appellee to submit to HLA blood tests under the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104. The Uniform Act on Blood Tests states: Authority for test.”
RUTH F. v. Robert B., 690 A.2d 1171 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 5× “206, § 2, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104. [11] This language remains exactly the same in the amended version of the law.”
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Olivo, J., 127 A.3d 769 (Pa. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Amicus PCAR adds the following statutes addressing evidentiary issues: 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104 (Blood test to determine paternity); 35 Pa.”
Gebler v. Gatti, 895 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 2× “¶ 14 Finally, as enacted in Pennsylvania, the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity gives courts authority to order blood tests only where paternity, parentage or identity of a child is a relevant fact.”
Ferguson v. McKiernan, 940 A.2d 1236 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104. I cannot join the majority opinion, as I believe that the Legislature has established the relevant public policy through the provisions quoted above "in every case" involving children born out of wedlock.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5104(c) — 25 cases
Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176 (Pa. 1997).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5104. The Legislature adopted the Act because reliable scientific evidence excluding a man as the father of a child is imperative in any suit where paternity is an issue, particularly where the child was born during wedlock.”
Donnelly v. Lindenmuth, 597 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
“206, § 6, effective in 90 days, now codified at 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104), in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in John M.”
Freedman v. McCandless, 654 A.2d 529 (Pa. 1995).
“9 Although 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104 10 provides that if a litigant refuses to submit to blood tests, the court may resolve the question of paternity against him, in order to make the finding that a party refused to take the tests, the trial court must *595 determine through a hearing…”
E.W. v. T.S., 916 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
“The Strauser opinion recognizes in a footnote that: In her dissenting opinion, Madame Justice Newman discerns a conflict between this holding and the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity, now codified at 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104, which she views as codifying the public…”
Gebler v. Gatti, 895 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).
“¶ 14 Finally, as enacted in Pennsylvania, the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity gives courts authority to order blood tests only where paternity, parentage or identity of a child is a relevant fact.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5104(d) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5104(f) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5104(g) — 4 cases
Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176 (Pa. 1997).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5104. The Legislature adopted the Act because reliable scientific evidence excluding a man as the father of a child is imperative in any suit where paternity is an issue, particularly where the child was born during wedlock.”
RUTH F. v. Robert B., 690 A.2d 1171 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).
“206, § 2, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104. [11] This language remains exactly the same in the amended version of the law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.