Doe v. Doe

Dissenting Opinion of

ACOBA, J.,

with whom RAMIL, J., joins.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s position, inasmuch as- (1) the question of the *16paternity of Plaintiff John Doe Ill(Son) was never actually litigated in the prior divorce proceeding so as to give res judicata or binding effect, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, to the divorce decree’s statement that Son was the child of Respondent/ Defendant Appellee John Doe II (Presumed Father) in all subsequent proceedings and (2) the advent and, in this case, availability of DNA testing1 to determine…