KY Supreme Court Child Support Decision

[JudgeDredd]

I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on the implications of the Rhoades decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court? They threw out 3 separate DNA tests, including a court-ordered DNA test, proving that Rhoades was the biological father in their ruling against him. This seems like a decision that could have huge ramifications throughout the system.

[Blue Meanie]

I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on the implications of the Rhoades decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court? They threw out 3 separate DNA tests, including a court-ordered DNA test, proving that Rhoades was the biological father in their ruling against him. This seems like a decision that could have huge ramifications throughout the system.

Provide the link to the case...Please.

[JudgeDredd]

Oops sorry, it was widely reported. I don't have a link to the case itself, but here are some reported stories:

Time Magazine - [url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736006,00.html?iid=fb_share]Despite DNA, Dad's Paternity Denied - TIME[/url]

Local Radio - [url=http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/18316554.html]KY Supreme Court Rules Against Fatherhood for Adulterers[/url]

Local TV - [url=http://www.whas11.com/news/local/stories/091307whasmjdLocalHebertCustodyCases.cd53613e.html]Emotion vs. biology: child custody cases in court | LOCAL NEWS | WHAS11.com | News for Louisville, Kentucky[/url]

I'll look through FindLaw and see if I can find the actual case.

[Perky]

I don't know how far-reaching the results will be. It seems that KY is very narrow in their interpretation of who has standing in this type of case, and not all states are so restrictive. However, here are a couple of links:

[url]http://opinions.kycourts.net/SC/2007-SC-000175-MR.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs/Reilly.pdf[/url]

If the .pdf doesn't work, you can get to the first one through a link on this page:

[url=http://louisvilledivorce.typepad.com/info/2008/04/bio-dad-lacks-s.html]Divorce Law Journal: Putative Father Lacks Standing To Assert Paternity Of Child Born During Marriage In Kentucky[/url]

The case is Ricketts v Rhoades if you want to google.

[LdiJ]

I just read the case and I don't see this having far reaching effects at all. Its actually a very narrow ruling. In addition, the court gave very broad hints to the legislature to amend the laws to deal with this issue.

This is a case where a child was born of a marriage and it was presumed that the husband was the father. The alledged biological father attempted to pursue paternity. The husband and wife appealed the trial courts ruling that he had standing, the appeals court affirmed, and the supreme court reversed and remanded under a very narrow set of facts.

I believe that the KY legislature will likely take up the "challenge" to amend the laws to reflect the DNA technology of today.

However, this is something that has been discussed heavily on these forums, in years past (not recently) and this is not the first case, nor the first state in which an alledged biological father has been denied standing to sue for paternity of a child born of a marriage, and it likely won't be the last. Its actually more common than one might believe...and none of those cases have had "far reaching effects".

And that's as it should be. If any male could sue for paternity of any woman's child, there are many people who could be seriously harassed by crazies with fantasy lives...particularly celebrities.

[Ronin]

After heavy lobbying, the Kentucky legislature recently killed House Bill 28 (aptly branded the adulterers' rights bill) intended to reverse the decision in Ricketts v. Rhoades.

The feeling was this would undermine marriage.

The KY Supreme Court made the right call for the way the law is written in KY. And it looks like the legislature has no intention of amending the law at this time to correct this "problem".

However, thirty three states currently allow a man to challenge the presumption that a child born to a married couple is the husbands.

[JudgeDredd]

I see your points on this issue. In reading the opinions of the majority justices there seemed to be some very strong language that came down in support of the presumption of paternity -- even in the face of science. There was also some strongly worded commentary opposing interference by "strangers to the marriage". Almost seems like the justices wanted to make a social statement as much as anything else. I just wonder how many challenges to currently in-force child support rulings KY will get, if for no other reason than to determine exactly how "narrow" the set of circumstances is.

The Kentucky legislature has been touting their bills to "defend families" for years now, but they have yet to pass anything. There was a big argument for the legislature's consideration of the bill that went something like this: "what if a rapist got his victim pregnant and demanded paternal rights?"

BTW, in Kentucky you can challenge the paternity as well, but they consider the presumption of paternity to be the "strongest presumption known under the law". AFAIK there is only one way to overcome the presumption -- you have to prove that the husband and wife didn't engage in "marital conduct" for 10 months prior to the birth of the child. The only accepted reasons, to date, are that the husband didn't have "access" to the wife (in jail, physically separated, dead), or that the husband could not perform marital acts (medical reasons).

[LdiJ]

I see your points on this issue. In reading the opinions of the majority justices there seemed to be some very strong language that came down in support of the presumption of paternity -- even in the face of science. There was also some strongly worded commentary opposing interference by "strangers to the marriage". Almost seems like the justices wanted to make a social statement as much as anything else. I just wonder how many challenges to currently in-force child support rulings KY will get, if for no other reason than to determine exactly how "narrow" the set of circumstances is.

The Kentucky legislature has been touting their bills to "defend families" for years now, but they have yet to pass anything. There was a big argument for the legislature's consideration of the bill that went something like this: "what if a rapist got his victim pregnant and demanded paternal rights?"

BTW, in Kentucky you can challenge the paternity as well, but they consider the presumption of paternity to be the "strongest presumption known under the law". AFAIK there is only one way to overcome the presumption -- you have to prove that the husband and wife didn't engage in "marital conduct" for 10 months prior to the birth of the child. The only accepted reasons, to date, are that the husband didn't have "access" to the wife (in jail, physically separated, dead), or that the husband could not perform marital acts (medical reasons).

I would also like to point out that the justices specifically noted that the alledged biological father did not challenge the constitutionality of the law, therefore they did not address that.

[Ronin]

I would also like to point out that the justices specifically noted that the alledged biological father did not challenge the constitutionality of the law, therefore they did not address that.

It does appear there is merit to an argument that the right of a fit parent to the care and custody of their child is a constitutionally protected fundamental liberty interest, and this would apply even in cases that tend to "undermine marriages". But I am far from a legal scholar.

Beyond this I would guess the father may have failed to properly raise and preserve the constitutional complaints in the trial court, and this in turn effectively waived his right to raise this on appeal to the Supreme Court. The rules of appellate procedure are very unforgiving of such errors. Most attorneys would not miss an opportunity to raise a constitutional issue with a Supreme Court.

[nextwife]

If it were MOM and hubby who wanted initially to disestablish hubby's paternity and hold the biodad responsible for child support, would the justices have been so adamant about the "sanctity of the marriage" staying intact? If boiodad can be sought out for financial reasons, should he not, in turn, have the right to seek out his child for all the other reasons a man wishes to parent their child?

I just don't believe we should extend rights to one gender we are unwilling to extend to the other. If a WOMAN cheats, she still gets to raise the product of the tryst, but if a man has a child with a woman who cheats, his child is denied him completely? Seems like an obvious gender bias.

[LdiJ]

If it were MOM and hubby who wanted initially to disestablish hubby's paternity and hold the biodad responsible for child support, would the justices have been so adamant about the "sanctity of the marriage" staying intact? If boiodad can be sought out for financial reasons, should he not, in turn, have the right to seek out his child for all the other reasons a man wishes to parent their child?

I just don't believe we should extend rights to one gender we are unwilling to extend to the other. If a WOMAN cheats, she still gets to raise the product of the tryst, but if a man has a child with a woman who cheats, his child is denied him completely? Seems like an obvious gender bias.

While it seems like a gender bias, the original intent of these laws (prior to the ability to test for DNA) was to ensure that a child born of a marriage was considered to be a legitimate product of the marriage. The laws were enacted to protect children. Its only been in the last 30 years or so that there was any viable means to determine paternity, and only in the last 20 or so that DNA has made it even more viable.

These laws have been on the books far longer than that.

[JudgeDredd]

If it were MOM and hubby who wanted initially to disestablish hubby's paternity and hold the biodad responsible for child support, would the justices have been so adamant about the "sanctity of the marriage" staying intact? If boiodad can be sought out for financial reasons, should he not, in turn, have the right to seek out his child for all the other reasons a man wishes to parent their child?

Here's another for instance: assume mom and dad are seeking out biodad for support, and biodad argues that the supreme court ruled he has "no rights or responsibilities" to the child since he was born to a married couple... At the very least this is going to test the limits of this "narrow" ruling. I'd be interested to see how the courts back out of this one when it inevitably happens.

[LdiJ]

Here's another for instance: assume mom and dad are seeking out biodad for support, and biodad argues that the supreme court ruled he has "no rights or responsibilities" to the child since he was born to a married couple... At the very least this is going to test the limits of this "narrow" ruling. I'd be interested to see how the courts back out of this one when it inevitably happens.

If you haven't read the whole ruling, you should. I think that you will then understand better what I mean by "narrow".

[JudgeDredd]

If you haven't read the whole ruling, you should. I think that you will then understand better what I mean by "narrow".

The more I read it, the more it sounds like the Supreme Court simply reinforced the Kentucky Revised Statutes presumption of paternity. I think the opening paragraph basically says it all.

"We hold that Kentucky's paternity statutes do not grant subject-matter jurisdiction to our courts to determine paternity claims where, as here, there is no evidence or allegation that the marital relationship ceased ten months before the child's birth."

This is just a reinforcement of the existing law -- the presumption of paternity that says the wife must produce evidence that the marital relationship ceased ten months before the child's birth.

What's interesting is the Family Courts/Circuit Courts in Kentucky have gotten lax in their interpretation of the presumption of paternity. Instead of requiring the evidence as required by statute the Family Courts tend to show a bias towards the wife/mother, allowing her to overcome the presumption with an affidavit.