ILNews

Adult son could file paternity, support petition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A retroactive child support action brought by an adult child presented an issue of first impression for the Indiana Court of Appeals, which ruled the adult child could bring the action, but his mother would be the proper recipient of the retroactive payments.

In In Re: the paternity of: Brennan McGuire-Byers, a child born out of wedlock; Raymond S. Byers v. Brennan McGuire-Byers and Mary S. McGuire (mother), No. 71A03-0803-JV-132, Raymond Byers appealed the trial court's award of retroactive child support and attorney fees for his adult son, Brennan McGuire-Byers.

Mary McGuire and Byers were living together in Illinois in 1987 when McGuire-Byers was born, but after about a year Byers was no longer part of his son's life. He moved to Indiana but did not allow McGuire to know his location. He sent an occasional card or letter to his son but didn't pay child support.

McGuire-Byers found Byers while in high school and lived with him for about a year. In April 2006, he initiated a paternity proceeding, with his mother as a petitioner, against Byers, who was determined to be McGuire-Byers' father. The trial court ordered Byers to pay retroactive child support from the date of McGuire-Byers' birth, pay an arrearage of nearly $120,000, and pay one-third of McGuire-Byers' college expenses. The child support payments would end when McGuire-Byers turned 21. The trial court ordered the payments be made directly to McGuire-Byers.

Byers argued on appeal the retroactive child support order was improper because the paternity action was initiated by McGuire-Byers, an adult, in his own name. Under Indiana Code, McGuire-Byers could file the paternity petition in his individual capacity because he filed it before he turned 20, wrote Judge Michael Barnes. Retroactive child support was proper because the trial court found Byers was in McGuire-Byers' life for a year and would send him money and cards, signed, "Love, Dad." Byers knew he was McGuire-Byers' father but avoided responsibility, so it wasn't an error to award retroactive child support, wrote the judge.

McGuire-Byers shouldn't receive all of the retroactive child support payments, but as his mother, McGuire should be awarded the payments because she supported McGuire-Byers from the time of his birth. Because there is some question as to when McGuire stopped supporting McGuire-Byers, the appellate court remanded for the trial court to determine whether McGuire is entitled to payments from the time McGuire-Byers lived with Byers and whether she or McGuire-Byers is the proper recipient of the child support payments.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the award of attorney's fees in favor of McGuire and remanded for the trial court to calculate the award of appellate attorney's fees for McGuire.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT