North Carolina Divorce Adultery Interrogatories Lawyers Attorneys

North Carolina Divorce Adultery Interrogatories Lawyers Attorneys

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

JAHALA S. WRIGHT v. A. J. WRIGHT

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

FACTS:

The wife filed a divorce action and sought child custody and support, alimony, possession of the family home, subsistence, and attorney’s fees pendente lite. The district court ordered the wife and child to submit to blood-grouping tests and required the wife to answer the interrogatories propounded by the husband. The wife sought review. The court of appeals reversed the order for the blood-grouping tests. The husband sought review.

ISSUES:

The issues here are (1) whether the wife is required to answer interrogatories relating to the allegation of adultery and (2) whether and child are required to submit to a blood- grouping test.

DISCUSSION:

N.C. Gen. Stat. 8-50.1 provides:

Competency

of evidence of blood tests. In the trial of any criminal action or proceedings in any court in which the question of paternity arises, regardless of any presumptions with respect to paternity, the court before whom the matter may be brought, upon motion of the defendant, shall direct and order that the defendant, the mother and the child shall submit to a blood grouping test; provided, that the court, in its discretion, may require the person requesting the blood grouping test to pay the cost thereof. The results of such blood grouping tests shall be admitted in evidence when offered by a duly licensed practicing physician or other qualified person. Such evidence shall be competent to rebut any presumptions of paternity. In the trial of any civil action, the court before whom the matter may be brought, upon motion of either party, shall direct and order that the defendant, the plaintiff, the mother and the child shall submit to a blood grouping test; provided, that the court, in its discretion, may require the person requesting the blood grouping test to pay the cost thereof. The results of such blood grouping tests shall be admitted in evidence when offered by a duly licensed practicing physician or other duly qualified person. When, as in the present case, issues of paternity and of adultery are raised, it would be unrealistic to hold that the evidence of the results of the blood-grouping tests is competent on the issue of paternity but not on the issue of adultery. Moreover, it would be virtually impossible for the District Court Judge, when passing upon the application for alimony and child support pendente lite, to consider the results of the blood-grouping tests as related to child support pendente lite but not as to alimony pendente lite. For the reasons stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals, which reversed Judge Webb’s order for the blood-grouping tests, is reversed.

The General Assembly, in enacting the Rules of Civil Procedure, did not contemplate that Rules 33 and 26(b) would enable the husband and the wife in actions between them to require the other to answer interrogatories relating to acts of adultery or conduct from which adultery might be implied during the subsistence of their marriage. We are quite sure the General Assembly did not intend in such manner to remove the cloak of privacy surrounding the confidential relationships of husband and wife. For the reasons stated above, the order requiring plaintiff “to answer each and every interrogatory,” to the extent it requires plaintiff to answer Interrogatories Nos. 20 through 33 and Nos. 36 through 51, should be reversed.

JUDGMENT:

The court reversed the court of appeals’ decision that reversed the district court’s order that the wife and child submit to blood-grouping tests in the wife’s

divorce action

. The court also reversed the district court’s order for answers to the husband’s interrogatories. The case was remanded with directions to reverse the order that required answers to the interrogatories and to affirm the order that required the blood-grouping tests.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,

North Carolina

& California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com