ILNews

Federal judge rules against state on immigrant paternity case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Sitting at the crossroads between immigration law, paternity establishment, and the controversy on how the United States handles illegal immigrants, a federal judge in Indianapolis has ordered state health officials to stop denying unmarried immigrant parents without a Social Security number the ability to file an affidavit establishing paternity.

U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction stopping the Indiana State Department of Health from using a new policy that targets those without Social Security numbers, whether they are individuals here on working visas or those with pending immigration statuses. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in November on behalf of a group of families whose immigration status doesn’t allow them to get those numbers and as a result, deprives them of their 14th Amendment rights to have their U.S. born children get child support and related benefits of paternity.

The state used to accept affidavits even if one or both parents' Social Security numbers were missing, but in July that policy changed to require both numbers in order to validate the forms. This case, L.P., et al. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health, No. 1:10-CV-1309, follows that.

In a hearing Thursday, state register Erin Kellam, who took that job in March 2010, told Judge Pratt that she’d understood state statute to require Social Security numbers and didn’t think it was subject to interpretation.

But Judge Pratt disagreed, pointing to the state department’s “inconsistent” and “perhaps even incoherent” internal policies and how the state argued it needed that information to track a child’s parents in case child support enforcement is needed.

“This reasoning rings hollow,” she wrote. “In effect, the Commissioner is arguing that not establishing paternity at all is somehow preferable to establishing paternity if the affidavit is missing a social security number. Given that the overarching purpose of the law in this area is to establish paternity and enforce child support obligations, this justification defies common sense. Where the choice is between establishing paternity at birth without the parents’ social security numbers and not establishing paternity at all, only the former choice will further the state’s interests. At bottom, the Commissioner’s interpretation erects impenetrable roadblocks to being legitimated via paternity affidavit for Plaintiffs. Regardless of the level of scrutiny employed, Plaintiff’s stand on their Equal Protection Clause claim.”

Judge Pratt disregarded the state’s claim that plaintiffs could turn to the court system to establish paternity, instead of the affidavits.

“However, as the Court well knows, the process of navigating this sometimes maddening world is, to put it charitably, burdensome,” she wrote.

Legitimatizing children is paramount and something that is in the public interest, Judge Pratt said.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office has not yet determined whether it will appeal the ruling to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, but spokesman Bryan Corbin said the AG has 30 days to make that decision.

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT