ILNews

Putative dad can file paternity petition for child

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that although a putative father's paternity petition should be dismissed, he could proceed as the next friend of the alleged daughter in her paternity petition.

"We acknowledge the apparent anomaly that a putative father barred by one statutory section from petitioning for paternity on his own behalf may nevertheless succeed in filing, under a different statutory section, substantially the same petition as next friend on behalf of the child," wrote Judge Margret Robb. "Yet where two statutes appear inconsistent in some respect, we must give effect to both if possible."

In today's opinion In the Matter of Adoption of E.L., and In Re: the Paternity of E.L. b/n/f R.J.; R.J. v. V.N., No. 49A05-0902-CV-152, the appellate court concluded alleged father R.J. hadn't registered as E.L.'s putative father when the adoption petition was filed by V.N.'s new husband and couldn't proceed with his paternity petition. V.N. was unmarried at the time she had E.L. and no father was listed on E.L.'s birth certificate. Both parties believed R.J. was the father.

Indiana Code Section 31-19-5-12(a) says a putative father must register 30 days after the child's birth, or the earlier date of the filing of a petition for adoption or termination of the parent-child relationship of the mother. A putative father who fails to file within the specific deadlines listed in the statute waives notice of an adoption proceeding and gives implied consent to the child's adoption.

R.J. argued that because he had timely filed a paternity action, the issue of filing with the Putative Father Registry was moot, but the appellate court dismissed this argument. Under I.C. Section 31-19-5-6(b), the filing of a paternity action by a putative father doesn't relieve him of the obligation of registering or the consequences of failing to register, wrote Judge Robb. Even if he had timely registered, his instant petition is likely time-barred because the general time limit for filing a paternity action is two years, subject to six exceptions. R.J. didn't file until after E.L. was older than two, and he doesn't fall under any of the exceptions.

The trial court erred, however, in dismissing E.L.'s paternity petition filed by R.J. as a next friend. Indiana hasn't statutorily defined "next friend" but the Court of Appeals has held that a putative father is a proper next friend for purposes of a paternity action. Even though R.J. was barred in filing his own action, he is not time barred by filing as next friend for E.L. The time limitations defined in statute don't apply when the petitioner is the child.

"Ultimately, the trial court erred in dismissing the paternity petition with respect to E.L. because no Indiana statute sets forth applicable grounds for dismissing a paternity petition filed on behalf of a minor child by a next friend," the judge wrote.

The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT