Atkinson was dating Hall. Hall went to prison. Atkinson
started dating Marshall while continuing to visit Hall in prison.
At some point, Atkinson got pregnant.
Atkinson married Marshall, but told Hall that the baby was
his.
The birth certificate listed Marshall as the father.
Marshall and Atkinson got divorced. Atkinson was supposed
to get child support, but Marshall turned out to be a deadbeat.
Atkinson eventually gave up on getting any money out of Marshall and sued Hall for child support.
At trial, there was a debate about what presumptions
should be given in the jury instructions.
Atkinson had a blood test that showed that Hall was the
father. Under Maine law (19 M.R.S.A. §280), a blood test created
a presumption of paternity that can only be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence.
Hall would be responsible for presenting evidence to
rebut the presumption.
Hall argued that under a different Statute in Maine law (M.R.Evid. 302), when child is born within wedlock there is a presumption
that the husband is the father, and this presumption can only be
rebutted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Atkinson would be responsible for presenting evidence to
rebut the presumption.
The Trial Judge recognized that there was a conflict of
laws. Therefore he decided to disregard both presumptions and
instruct the jury that Atkinson had the burden of proving her case by a
preponderance of evidence (the standard in civil litigation).
The Trial Court found for Hall. Atkinson appealed.
The Appellate Court affirmed.
The Appellate Court looked to M.R.Evid. 301(c)
(similar to FRE 301), and found that if two presumptions
conflict, the court should apply the presumption which is founded on the
weightier considerations of policy and logic.
The Court found that logic (and science) would presume
Hall was the father.
The Court found that policy should presume that the
husband is always the father.
Since there was a split between logic and policy one side
was not founded on weightier grounds than the other, it made sense to go
with the preponderance of the evidence standard, and was within the Trial
Judge's discretion.
