ILNews

COA: State had no authority to bring paternity action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court erred in ordering a southern Indiana teen to undergo genetic testing to establish paternity of a stillborn child, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday. It found the state, which filed the petition for paternity on behalf of the mother, had no authority to bring the action because there were no custody or support issues to be determined.

In In re the Paternity of D.M.: J.W. v. C.M., 10A01-1306-JP-253, C.M. and her mother asked the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office for assistance in establishing paternity of D.M. C.M. gave birth at home to D.M., who was stillborn. C.M. indicated that she did not know that she was pregnant and did not have any prenatal care. She said J.W. was the father, which he denies.

C.M. assigned her rights to the state pursuant to an assignment for persons not receiving public assistance and Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. J.W. filed a motion to dismiss, arguing because of the circumstances of D.M.’s birth, there were no prenatal, birth or postnatal expenses to be reimbursed, nor was C.M. receiving services or assistance from the state which could be reimbursed.

The trial court, noting there is a “dearth of guidance by our appellate courts” in cases such as these, denied J.W.’s motion. The judge found J.W. should bear the cost of DNA testing if he chooses to do so.  

The Court of Appeals agreed there is a “dearth of guidance” on the particular point raised by this case, but disagreed with the decision to deny J.W.’s motion. In general, C.M., even though not receiving Title IV-D assistance, is allowed under state law to request the state’s assistance in pursuing a paternity action, and the state is authorized to do so.

But the purpose of Title IV-D and the Indiana Child Support program is to enforce support obligations owed to custodial parents and their children. Because J.W. would owe no support to D.M. even if his paternity was established, the state has no authority under the Indiana Child Support Program to bring this paternity action.

The prosecutor’s only interest in bringing a paternity action is to represent the child’s interests, but a stillborn child does not have any interests, the court held.

Paternity can still be established for a stillborn child, but just not in an action brought by the state. I.C. 31-14-4-1 provides a list of people or entities that may file a paternity action within two years of the child’s birth.

“Therefore, in an appropriate case, paternity of a stillborn child may be established for the purpose of recouping those costs,” Judge Margret Robb wrote.

 “Although we understand and sympathize with C.M. and her family and their wish to legally establish paternity for purposes of closure, respect, and learning the truth, these are not issues that the paternity statutes are intended to remedy,” she continued in a footnote.
 

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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT