3rd April
Stern DNA Appeal Fails
By Quincy Parker
The road has been cleared for the results of a DNA test on the late Anna Nicole Smith’s six-month-old daughter Dannielynn Hope to be revealed on Tuesday during custody proceedings in the Bahamas Supreme Court.
Lawyers for Howard K. Stern on Monday morning withdrew an appeal against the use of the DNA evidence taken from Dannielynn after being confronted by the Justices of Appeal with the incongruity of the appeal.
Mr. Stern is the child’s presumptive father since his name appears on her Bahamian birth certificate as her father.
That certificate, and Mr. Stern’s designation as the child’s father, has been challenged by LA photographer Larry Birkhead, Ms. Smith’s ex-lover who also claims to be Dannielynn’s father. Mr. Birkhead has waged a crusade for months to have Dannielynn submitted for a DNA test to prove he is her father.
Damian Gomez, who appeared in the Court of Appeal before Justices Emmanuel Osadebay, Lorris Ganpatsingh and Hartman Longley on Mr. Stern’s behalf, challenged the authority of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Isaacs to order the DNA test of the child on constitutional grounds.
Mr. Gomez argued that Dannielynn, who was not represented in either the Supreme Court case or the appeal, had a constitutional right to her own DNA that the court ought to have protected.
However, Justice Longley pointed out that both parties in the Supreme Court – Messrs. Stern and Birkhead – applied for the same relief.
On March 14, Mr. Birkhead sought for the court to order the DNA test, and on March 19 Mr. Stern asked for the same thing, only he wanted a different DNA expert to conduct the test.
The justices pointed out that Mr. Stern had submitted the child for the test, and was in fact present when it was done. They said it was incongruous and inconsistent, therefore, for Mr. Stern to then turn around and argue in the Court of Appeal that the test shouldn’t have been done.
“You seem to have put the cart before the horse,” Justice Longley told Mr. Gomez.
Justice Osadebay said that the DNA test wasn’t challenged on constitutional grounds in the Supreme Court.
“If a right is being breached, and nothing is being complained about, you give the judge the impression that what he is doing is right,” he said.
Justice Ganpatsingh said he was “a bit perplexed by the application.” While he reserved comment on what he called “the merits of the matter,” he said he thought it inconsistent to allow the test in the Supreme Court and then argue in the Court of Appeal that it should not have been done.
Mr. Gomez conceded the point, and withdrew the application.
The withdrawn application paves the way for proceedings on Tuesday to move ahead as planned. It is anticipated that the results of the DNA test performed on Dannielynn Hope Marshall Stern will be revealed at Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing.
http://www.jonesbahamas.com/?c=45&a=12167
sw