{ "id": 8525120, "name": "BERTIE-HERTFORD CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, ex rel., BARBARA SCOTT SOUZA v. IRVIN RAY BARNES", "name_abbreviation": "Bertie-Hertford Child Support Enforcement Agency ex rel. Souza v. Barnes", "decision_date": "1986-05-06", "docket_number": "No. 856DC1214", "first_page": "552", "last_page": "554", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "80 N.C. App. 552" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "264 S.E. 2d 816", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549692 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E. 2d 348", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552390 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 S.E. 2d 902", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 733", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572482, 8572464, 8572561, 8572531, 8572511 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0733-02", "/nc/304/0733-01", "/nc/304/0733-05", "/nc/304/0733-04", "/nc/304/0733-03" ] }, { "cite": "282 S.E. 2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 N.C. App. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521484 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/54/0239-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 311, "char_count": 4512, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08, "percentile": 0.3118685683991615 }, "sha256": "e5f47aa18c19c7f755db8bc8d34b7ce067a9dedfa07fe2677099f62648fe9ba3", "simhash": "1:26634835c99636f8", "word_count": 724 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:08.586003+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge MARTIN concur." ], "parties": [ "BERTIE-HERTFORD CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, ex rel., BARBARA SCOTT SOUZA v. IRVIN RAY BARNES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nIn his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the blood-grouping tests carried out to determine the paternity of the children named in plaintiffs complaint. This evidence was presented through the testimony of G. L. Ryals, Director of Paternity Testing at Roche Biomedical Laboratories and an expert in Human Leucocyte Antigen (HLA) Tissue Testing, a test to determine the probability of paternity. Dr. Ryals testified that his test results showed the probability of defendant\u2019s paternity of Irvin Ray Scott to be 98.98 percent and Evelyn Nicole Scott to be 95.10 percent. Defendant now contends that a proper foundation was not laid for Dr. Ryals\u2019 testimony because there was no showing of the chain of custody of the test procedures. The record shows that prior to trial, plaintiff and defendant, through counsel, stipulated that the blood-grouping tests would be conducted and that the results would be admissible in evidence. In addition, the parties stipulated that \u201cthe chain of evidence and possession of said blood samples shall be deemed proper and secure.\u201d Courts in this State look with favor upon stipulations designed to simplify and shorten litigation. Thomas v. Poole, 54 N.C. App. 239, 282 S.E. 2d 515 (1981), disc. rev. denied, 304 N.C. 733, 287 S.E. 2d 902 (1982). Where stipulations have been entered of record and there is no contention that the attorney for either party was not authorized to enter into such stipulations, the parties are bound and cannot take a position inconsistent with their stipulations. Id. We deem defendant\u2019s argument on this issue to be wholly without merit and overrule it.\nIn his second assignment of error, defendant contends that plaintiffs action should be barred by the doctrine of laches and by operation of the statute of limitations. Laches is an affirmative defense which must be specifically pleaded by answer. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 8(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant failed to plead this defense and has therefore waived it. Even if there had been no waiver, defendant, having offered no evidence, has obviously failed to meet his burden at trial of establishing this defense. See Young v. Young, 43 N.C. App. 419, 259 S.E. 2d 348 (1979). There is no statute of limitations as such affecting a father\u2019s duty to support his illegitimate children. Cogdell v. Johnson, 46 N.C. App. 182, 264 S.E. 2d 816 (1980). That duty continues throughout the child\u2019s minority. Id. This assignment is overruled.\nFor the reasons stated, we find no error in defendant\u2019s trial.\nNo error.\nChief Judge HEDRICK and Judge MARTIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Smith and Daly, P.A., by Lloyd C. Smith, Jr. and Rosw\u00e1ld B. Daly, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.", "Perry W. Martin; and Taylor & McLean, by Donnie R. Taylor, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BERTIE-HERTFORD CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, ex rel., BARBARA SCOTT SOUZA v. IRVIN RAY BARNES\nNo. 856DC1214\n(Filed 6 May 1986)\n1. Evidence \u00a7 51; Trial \u00a7 6.1\u2014 blood-grouping tests \u2014chain of custody \u2014 stipulation\nTestimony of the results of blood-grouping tests was not improperly admitted because there was no showing of the chain of custody of the test samples where the parties stipulated that \u201cthe chain of evidence and possession of said blood samples shall be deemed proper and secure.\u201d\n2. Bastards \u00a7 10; Equity \u00a7 2\u2014 paternity and child support \u2014 laches\u2014no statute of limitations\nDefendant waived the defense of laches in a paternity and child support action by failing to plead such defense. Furthermore, no statute of limitations barred the action since the father\u2019s duty to support his illegitimate children continues throughout the minority of the children.\nAppeal by defendant from Williford, Judge. Judgment entered 24 June 1985 in Bertie County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 April 1986.\nPlaintiff, the Child Support Enforcement Agency for Bertie and Hertford Counties, brought this action to determine the paternity of Irvin Ray Scott and Evelyn Nicole Scott, both born 13 January 1973, alleged to be the illegitimate children of defendant, and to require defendant to contribute to the support of said children. Defendant answered, denying plaintiffs allegations of paternity and pleading the statute of limitations as a defense.\nFollowing a trial, judgment was entered finding and concluding that defendant was the father of said children and ordering defendant to contribute to their support. Defendant appeals from that judgment.\nSmith and Daly, P.A., by Lloyd C. Smith, Jr. and Rosw\u00e1ld B. Daly, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.\nPerry W. Martin; and Taylor & McLean, by Donnie R. Taylor, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0552-01", "first_page_order": 580, "last_page_order": 582 }