TN 27 (12-00)

GN 00306.026 State Laws on Applicability of Lord Mansfield Rule

Policy

In using this chart, follow the rules on which State law to apply that are set out in GN 00306.001.

STATE

APPLICABILITY OF RULE

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 RCC 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 RCC 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.


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200306026
GN 00306.026 - State Laws on Applicability of Lord Mansfield Rule - 03/09/2006
Batch run: 01/27/2009
Rev:03/09/2006