DELONEY BY AND THROUGH DELONEY v. Downey
944 P.2d 312, 1997 OK 102 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child's paternity action is not barred by a prior divorce decree between the mother and her husband because the child's distinct legal interests mean they are not in privity with the parents for purposes of claim or issue preclusion. Furthermore, a statutory conclusive presumption of the husband's paternity does not apply if the child was not reared by the husband and wife as a member of their family for the required two-year period.
Facts:
- Charleszetta Deloney had sexual intercourse with Cartius Downey during the likely period of conception in 1979.
- Charleszetta Deloney did not have sexual intercourse with Lawrence A. Deloney, Jr. during 1979.
- On January 21, 1980, Charleszetta Deloney married Lawrence A. Deloney, Jr.
- Carneisha Ladarrian Deloney was born on February 4, 1980, approximately two weeks after the marriage.
- Lawrence, a member of the U.S. Army, was stationed in Germany and Fort Sill and was largely absent from the family home during the first two years of Carneisha's life.
- Lawrence moved into the family residence in November 1980 but moved out permanently in December 1980, less than a year after Carneisha's birth.
- Although Lawrence used Charleszetta's address for mail, he and Charleszetta did not live together with Carneisha as a family unit after December 1980.
- Charleszetta and Lawrence divorced on October 18, 1982, in a proceeding that stated Carneisha was born 'of the marriage'.
Procedural Posture:
- Carneisha Deloney, through her mother, sued Cartius Downey in an Oklahoma trial court to establish paternity and obtain child support.
- Following a non-jury trial, the trial court found in favor of Carneisha, establishing Downey's paternity and ordering child support.
- Downey, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the paternity suit was statutorily barred, and remanded with directions to enter judgment for Downey.
- Carneisha Deloney, as appellee, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Oklahoma law, specifically the two-year statutory bar on disputing paternity and the doctrine of issue preclusion, prevent a child born during a marriage from bringing a paternity action against a putative biological father, where the child was not reared by the marital couple for two years and was not a party to the mother's prior divorce action?
Opinions:
Majority - Lavender, J.
No. A child born during a marriage is not precluded from establishing paternity in a man other than the mother's husband when the statutory bar does not apply and the child was not in privity with the parents in their prior divorce action. First, the two-year statutory bar that makes the presumption of legitimacy conclusive, 10 O.S. § 3(B), is inapplicable. The trial court's factual finding that Carneisha was not 'reared by the husband and wife as a member of their family' for two years was not against the clear weight of the evidence, as testimony showed the former husband only lived with the family for approximately two months during that period. Second, the doctrines of claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) do not bar Carneisha's suit. Carneisha was not a party to her mother's divorce action, nor was she in privity with her mother or former husband. A child's interests in establishing true paternity—which include inheritance rights, knowledge of heritage, and medical history—are distinct from and not adequately represented by the parents' interests in a divorce proceeding. Therefore, she cannot be bound by any determination of paternity made in that prior case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly protects a child's independent right to establish parentage, prioritizing the child's interests over the legal finality of divorce decrees and the traditional presumption of legitimacy for children born within a marriage. It clarifies the narrow scope of 'privity' for preclusion purposes, establishing that a child's unique and transcendent interests in knowing their lineage prevent them from being bound by their parents' litigation. This precedent strengthens the ability of children to seek financial support and non-financial benefits (like knowledge of medical history) from their biological fathers, even in legally complex family situations.
Unlock the full brief for DELONEY BY AND THROUGH DELONEY v. Downey