|
Alabama
|
Follows the rule except that the mother can testify to circumstances from which nonaccess
and impossibility of parenthood may be inferred.
|
|
Alaska
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
American Samoa
|
Does not follow the rule. Rather, where the paternity of a child is in dispute, if
the mother is married, both she and her husband are considered competent to testify
concerning non-access of either married party to the other at the time of conception.
Additionally, the mother and an alleged father (not the husband) are considered competent
to testify concerning paternity
|
|
Arizona
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Arkansas
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 7/2/89.
|
|
California
|
Does not follow the rule. Effective 1/1/76, the presumed legitimacy of a child born
in wedlock may be challenged by any interested person who has relevant evidence to
present. Prior to 1/1/76, the presumption could be disputed only by the mother, her
husband, or the descendant of one or both of them; in which case, evidence of any
person is admissible.
|
|
Colorado
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Connecticut
|
Follows the rule in that the mother may not testify as to the nonaccess of her husband;
however, the mother may testify as to any other independent facts affecting the question
of legitimacy of the child even though some of the facts may result in establishing
the child's illegitimacy.
|
|
Delaware
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 1953.
|
|
District of Columbia
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Florida
|
Does not follow the rule; this is a change of position, effective 1/8/81.
|
|
Georgia
|
Does not follow the rule; prior to 11/1/82, neither husband nor wife could give evidence
that a child born during their marriage was illegitimate, i.e., they could not give
direct evidence of the mother's adulterous conduct but could give other evidence from
which a child's adulterous conception may be inferred.
|
|
Guam
|
Does not follow the rule but the presumed legitimacy of a child born in wedlock may
be disputed only by the mother, her husband, or the descendant of one or both of them;
in which case, evidence of any person is admissible.
|
|
Hawaii
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 1/1/76.
|
|
Idaho
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 7/22/70; this is a change of position effective
11/20/84.
|
|
Illinois
|
Does not follow the rule. This is a change of position effective 1/10/83. However,
although the husband of a married mother may testify as to nonaccess, the husband's
testimony alone is not sufficient to prove illegitimacy. The husband's testimony as
to nonaccess must be corroborated by other evidence or testimony. Similarly, the testimony
of the married mother is not sufficient evidence, standing alone, to overcome the
presumption of legitimacy where she continued to live with her legal husband.
|
|
Indiana
|
Does not follow the rule; this is a change of position, effective 9/26/80.
|
|
Iowa
|
Does not follow the rule; this is a change of position, effective 9/27/83.
|
|
Kansas
|
Follows the rule.
|
|
Kentucky
|
Does not follow the rule; however, a declaration by the mother or husband is admissible
only if evidence from other sources shows nonaccess.
|
|
Louisiana
|
Does not follow the rule; however, a child is presumed the legitimate child of his/her
mother's husband at the time of the child's birth unless legitimacy is disputed by
the husband or his heirs in a statutory action. (See GN 00306.021.)
|
|
Maine
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Maryland
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Massachusetts
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 2/21/90.
|
|
Michigan
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 10/24/77.
|
|
Minnesota
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Mississippi
|
Does not follow the rule to the extent that husband or wife may testify to the fact(s)
disclosing that the parties were so separated that husband could not have had access
during the time child was conceived.
|
|
Missouri
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Montana
|
Does not follow the rule; however, the presumed legitimacy of a child born in wedlock
may be disputed only by the mother, her husband, or the descendant of one or both
of them; in which case evidence of any person is admissible.
|
|
Nebraska
|
Follows the rule.
|
|
Nevada
|
Does not follow the rule; however, if presumed father died before 7/1/71, submit to
the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) under GN 01010.815 ff.
|
|
New Hampshire
|
Follows the rule.
|
|
New Jersey
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
New Mexico
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
New York
|
Follows the rule.
|
|
North Carolina
|
Does not follow the rule; this is a change of position, effective 7/7/81.
|
|
North Dakota
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Ohio
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Oklahoma
|
Follows the rule until 5/1/73. As of this date, the presumption of legitimacy can
be disputed only by the husband or wife or the descendants of one or both of them.
If a child is born during wedlock and is reared by the husband and wife as a member
of their family without disputing the child's legitimacy for a period of 2 years,
the presumption cannot be disputed by anyone.
|
|
Oregon
|
Follows the rule.
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 9/22/75.
|
|
Puerto Rico
|
Does not follow the rule; however, a child is presumed the legitimate child of the
mother's husband at the time of the child's birth unless the child's legitimacy is
successfully disputed by the husband or his heirs or by the child in a statutory action.
|
|
Rhode Island
|
Follows the rule.
|
|
South Carolina
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 3/22/84.
|
|
South Dakota
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Tennessee
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 3/15/55.
|
|
Texas
|
Does not follow the rule, effective 4/9/75.
|
|
Utah
|
Follows the rule.
|
|
Vermont
|
Follows the rule.
|
|
Virgin Islands
|
Submit to OGC under GN 01010.815 ff.
|
|
Virginia
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Washington
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
West Virginia
|
Follows the rule.
|
|
Wisconsin
|
Does not follow the rule.
|
|
Wyoming
|
Does not follow the rule.
|