Thе defendant, Lorena Lain, appeals from a declaratory judgment that she is not the child of the decedent, Harold E. Hawk. She argues that although she was born while her mother was married to another man, blood tests and other evidence successfully rebutted the рresumption that she was the husband’s child. She contends Hawk was her natural father, and she is entitled to inherit from him because (1) Hawk and her mother were married after her birth, legitimatizing her under Iowa Code section 595.18; and (2) she is entitled to inherit under Iowa Code section 633.222 even if she wаs not legitimatized because of Hawk’s “general and notorious” recognition of her as his child. On our de novo review, Iowa Code sеction 633.33, we conclude the presumption of paternity by her mother’s husband was rebutted, that Hawk’s paternity was established, and that Lorena was legitimatized through Hawk’s marriage to Lorena’s mother. Accordingly, we reverse.
Harold E. Hawk died intestate in 1980. When his estate was opened, Nancy J. Hawk was shown as his surviving spouse, and three children were listed as heirs: Margueritte Hudson and Lois Owen, Hawk’s daughters by a prior mаrriage, and Harold Hawk, Jr., the son of Hawk and Lorena’s mother. Later, a supplemental probate inventory was filed amending the value of certain assets and adding the name of Lorena Lain as a daughter. Daughters Margueritte and Lois filed this petition for declaratory judgment to establish that Lor *662 ena is not a child of the decedent and therefore ineligible to share in his estate.
I. Presumption of Legitimacy.
At the time of Lorena’s birth, her mother was married to Leslie Plants. Lorena’s last name was Plants, and the evidence showed that, prior to Hawk’s death, shе had believed she was Plant’s daughter. A child born in wedlock is presumed to be legitimate, although the presumption may be rebutted by “cleаr, strong and satisfactory” evidence.
In re Marriage of Schneckloth,
Lorena relies on testimony by her mother and the results of blood tests to show she could not havе been the child of Leslie Plants. The trial court concluded the evidence fell short of rebutting the presumption, despite the blood test results which showed there was no possibility Plants could have been the father. The court further concluded that the testimony of Nanсy Hawks, Lorena’s mother, was “unpersuasive” and that the effect of evidence tending to show Plants was the father outweighed the bloоd test evidence. To reach any other conclusion, the plaintiffs now argue, would be tantamount to giving conclusive effect to the blood test.
In
Schneckloth,
we quoted from
Little v. Streater,
As far as the accuracy, reliability, dependability — еven infallibility — of the tests are concerned, there is no longer any controversy. The result of the test is universally accepted by distinguishеd scientific and medical authority. There is, in fact, no living authority of repute, medical or legal, who may be cited adversely. ... [T]here is now ... practically universal and unanimous judicial willingness to give decisive and controlling evidentiary weight to a blood test exclusion of paternity.
(quoting from 1 S. Schatkin, Disputed Paternity Proceedings § 9.13 (1975)). We did not give the blood test conclusive effect in Schneckloth, holding only that under our de novo review the statutory presumption that the husband was the father of the child had been successfully rebutted.
Similarly, while we do not hold the blood tests are conclusive here, we believe that the tests, together with the other evidence, particularly the testimony of Lorena’s mother, have rebutted the presumption of legitimacy. We conclude Lorena was not the daughter of Leslie Plants.
II. Effect of Illegitimacy.
Showing shе is not the daughter of Leslie Plants, of course, does not establish Lorena’s right to inherit from Harold Hawk. She must establish (1) that she is the daughter of Hаrold Hawk and (2) either that she was openly and notoriously recognized by him as his daughter, Iowa Code section 633.222, or legitimatized by the marriаge of Hawk and her mother. Iowa Code § 595.18.
A.
Evidence of Hawk’s paternity.
A showing of paternity requires only a preponderance of the evidence.
Forman v. Wilcox,
While the trial court’s findings are entitled to weight,
see Forman,
Moreover, while the trial court found Nancy to be motivated by a “misguided sense of motherly proteсtiveness” in testifying to Hawk’s paternity, we note that she stood to gain nothing financially from it, and in fact, acted against her own interests when she testified to this illicit relationship.
Upon examination of the whole record, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supports Lorena’s claim that Harold Hawk was her father.
B.
The effect of
the
marriage.
Following Nancy’s divorce from Plants, she moved in with Hawk, whо was also divorced, and the two began a common-law marriage. No one disputes that the parties were legally married.
See In re Marriage of Winegard,
Assuming, as we have found, that the presumption of legitimacy has been rebutted and Hawk’s рaternity is established, the issue presented is whether the common law marriage of Hawk and Nancy legitimatize Lorena under Iowa Code section 595.18, which provides:
Illegitimate children become legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents. Children born of a mаrriage in violation of section[s] 595.3 [license provisions] or 595.19 [void marriages] are legitimate.
These plaintiffs contend, and the trial сourt held, that this section is inapplicable because it applies only to an illegitimate child, which Lorena was not, and only if Lorena proves Hawk was her father, which she failed to do. We have, of course, resolved those issues adversely to the plaintiffs. Lorena was legitimatized by the common law marriage, under section 595.18. Other courts addressing this issue under similar statutes agree.
See, e.g., In re Succession of Mitchell,
We conclude that Lorena has established her right to share in the estate of Harold Hawk and accordingly reverse the trial court.
REVERSED.