209 Cal. App. 4th 376
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mason appeals a paternity judgment based on his refusal to submit to a DNA test at LabCorp, a county-contracted lab, after dispute over testing venue.
- The County, acting on behalf of a public assistance recipient, sought paternity to offset public expenses and assigned the right to child support to the County.
- Mason requested testing by Genetic Profiles Corporation (private lab) instead of LabCorp, asserting a privacy right to choose the testing laboratory.
- The court denied Mason’s privacy-based objections and ordered testing at LabCorp; Mason’s writ petitions were denied, and judgment followed from his refusal.
- Mason contended his privacy rights under the U.S. and California constitutions and related statutes allowed him to select a private lab, which the court rejected.
- The court held that Mason’s privacy interests are protected by statute, while the County has a compelling interest in accurate paternity determination and selecting its contracted laboratory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a father can block a government-contracted lab and force a private lab | Mason asserts privacy rights to select a private lab | The County may use its contracted lab to ensure proper custody and accurate results | No; the Court affirms, upholding use of LabCorp with proper privacy protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (DNA analysis privacy concerns separate from sample collection)
- People v. Thomas, 200 Cal.App.4th 338 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (DNA privacy interest relevant but limited when DNA abandoned or consented to testing)
- U.S. v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011) (DNA privacy extends beyond identifying information; limited use for specific purposes)
- Kincade v. U.S., 379 F.3d 813 (3d Cir. 2004) (Diminished privacy interests for supervised-release offender; state interest in accuracy and prosecution)
- Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, 93 Cal.App.3d 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (Privacy rights in medical records; need for compelling interest and probable cause)