Sec. 160.621. ADMISSIBILITY OF RESULTS OF GENETIC TESTING; EXPENSES. (a) Except as otherwise provided by Subsection (c), a report of a genetic testing expert is admissible as evidence of the truth of the facts asserted in the report. The admissibility of the report is not affected by whether the testing was performed:
(1) voluntarily or under an order of the court or a support enforcement agency; or
(2) before or after the date of commencement of the proceeding.
(b) A party objecting to the results of genetic testing may call one or more genetic testing experts to testify in person or by telephone, videoconference, deposition, or another method approved by the court. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the party offering the testimony bears the expense for the expert testifying.
(c) If a child has a presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated father, the results of genetic testing are inadmissible to adjudicate parentage unless performed:
(1) with the consent of both the mother and the presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated father; or
(2) under an order of the court under Section 160.502.
(d) Copies of bills for genetic testing and for prenatal and postnatal health care for the mother and child that are furnished to the adverse party on or before the 10th day before the date of a hearing are admissible to establish:
(1) the amount of the charges billed; and
(2) that the charges were reasonable, necessary, and customary.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1.01, eff. June 14, 2001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case:
Miles v. Peacock, 229 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. App. 2007).
Miles v. Peacock, 229 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. App. 2007).
“” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.621(c) (Vernon 2002) (emphasis added).”
Lorena Quiroz v. Rummie Lee Gray, II, 441 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App. 2014).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.621(a)(2). 3.) The Court concludes that the paternity of a child having a presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated father may be disproved by admissible results of genetic testing.”
in the Interest of A.M.S., a Child (Tex. App. 2021).
“3d at 752 ; see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.621(c). D. Summary In sum, we conclude that Solbakken was barred as a matter of law from challenging the AOP based on its validity under § 160.”
in the Interest of E. H., a Minor Child (Tex. App. 2021).
“That is, unlike the petitioner in Amanda, Chimbewa was entitled to bring suit to adjudicate parentage—without the requirement to make a 3 See generally TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.621 (defining the admissibility of results of genetic testing).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 160.621(a)(2) — 1 case
Lorena Quiroz v. Rummie Lee Gray, II, 441 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App. 2014).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.621(a)(2). 3.) The Court concludes that the paternity of a child having a presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated father may be disproved by admissible results of genetic testing.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 160.621(c) — 3 cases
Miles v. Peacock, 229 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. App. 2007).
“” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 160.621(c) (Vernon 2002) (emphasis added).”
in the Interest of A.M.S., a Child (Tex. App. 2021).
“3d at 752 ; see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.621(c). D. Summary In sum, we conclude that Solbakken was barred as a matter of law from challenging the AOP based on its validity under § 160.”
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.