Stephen, thanks for the comment! I think this was a case about jurisdiction. The supposed father had a creative argument about why the DNA test should be relevant anyway, but the argument didn’t hold water in the end. It seems to me the court got this one right, and not just on a technicality.

You may not understand California’s writ system (about which I know nothing) but I do not understand the County of Los Angeles Child Support Department! It seems they are focused exclusively on winning and wholly unconcerned with justice or judicial economy or conserving taxpayer resources.

Sure, technically the Superior Court overreached, but a DNA test is a sure way to determine the truth (vel non) of paternity. It is the simplest, most economical and efficient way of putting an end to the litigation. And if Ms. Bischoff is resisting DNA testing, it strongly suggests she is has doubts about whether Mr. Youngblood is really the father.