Committee defers bill to shorten presumption-of-paternity period after mixed testimony; study resolution advanced
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers debated a bill to reduce the 300-day presumption of paternity to 150 days (from an original 90 days), heard family-law experts and affected constituents, and voluntarily deferred the measure; a companion study resolution (HCR 19) directing the Law Institute to examine presumption rules was reported favorably.
Representative Chasson introduced House Bill 318 on March 30, a bill proposing to shorten the statutory presumption that a child born within a set period after marriage is the husband’s child. The author initially proposed 90 days but said, following consultations, she would amend the bill to set the presumptive window at 150 days.
The committee heard multiple witnesses, including long-practicing family-law attorney Vincent Safiodi, who urged caution. Safiodi told lawmakers the 300-day period has historical roots tied to gestation and said shortening it would shift burdens onto women to file timely challenges in court. “When you shift that to a lower time period, what you're doing is then shifting to the woman the obligation to go to court to prove that her husband is the father,” he said.
Professor Andy Carroll, a family-law professor at LSU who testified as a law-institute representative, explained disavowal timelines and outlined alternative reforms other states use, including two-party acknowledgements and allowing the mother’s unilateral declaration in some contexts. Carroll said the 300-day rule operates as a proxy for conception and is deeply embedded in family-law doctrine; he recommended further study of alternatives rather than an immediate reduction.
Representative Chasson and several members acknowledged the underlying problem — cases in which a nonfather remains on a child’s birth record and financial/support consequences follow — but committee members and judicial/legal witnesses raised concerns about unintended consequences for mothers and children, practicalities of disavowal, and existing statutory mechanisms such as the three‑party acknowledgment.
Given the mix of policy options and technical legal concerns, the committee adopted an amendment changing the bill to a 150‑day presumption and then voluntarily deferred HB 318 to give stakeholders and the Law Institute time to craft workable fixes. Simultaneously, the committee reported HCR 19 favorably, directing the Louisiana State Law Institute to study the presumption of parentage and possible reforms.
Next steps: HB 318 is voluntarily deferred for further drafting and stakeholder work; HCR 19 proceeds to a formal study by the Law Institute.
