Hamm v. Office of Child Support Enforcement
336 Ark. 391, 985 S.W.2d 742 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor father's legal status as the victim of statutory rape does not negate his legal obligation to provide financial support for a child conceived as a result of that act, as the child's interest in receiving support from both biological parents is paramount.
Facts:
- Susan N. Atkinson, age fifteen, and Scott Hamm, age thirteen, engaged in sexual intercourse.
- As a result of their encounters, Susan conceived a child.
- On July 22, 1995, Susan gave birth to a male child, Keegan.
- Susan applied for and received Aid for Dependent Children (ADC) benefits from the State to support Keegan.
- Scott's parents initiated criminal proceedings against Susan for statutory rape.
- Susan subsequently pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of second-degree sexual abuse, a Class A misdemeanor.
Procedural Posture:
- The State Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) filed a paternity action against Scott Hamm in a chancery court (trial court) to establish paternity and seek reimbursement for ADC benefits.
- Scott Hamm filed an answer to the complaint.
- After a hearing, the chancellor found Scott to be the father of the child, Keegan.
- The chancellor ordered Scott to pay for genetic testing costs but, due to his age, did not order immediate child support payments and denied OCSE's request for reimbursement of birthing expenses.
- Scott Hamm (appellant) appealed the chancellor's paternity finding to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
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 a minor father's status as a statutory victim who was below the legal age of consent relieve him of the legal obligation to pay child support for a child conceived as a result of the criminal act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Tom Glaze
No. A minor father's status as a statutory victim does not relieve him of his duty to support a child conceived from that act. The court first dispensed with Scott's procedural argument, holding that he waived the defense of insufficient service of process by failing to raise it in his initial answer or by motion per Ark. R. Civ. P. 12. Regarding paternity, the court found the chancellor's determination was not clearly erroneous, as it was based on Susan's testimony and Scott's own admission to having sex with her during the probable time of conception, despite the court's rejection of the flawed scientific test results. Most importantly, the court rejected Scott's public policy and 'clean hands' arguments, aligning with other jurisdictions to hold that the state's interest in ensuring children are supported by both parents overrides any competing interest in protecting a juvenile from the consequences of his actions, even when those actions involved being the victim of a crime. The child is the only truly innocent party and is entitled to support from both biological parents regardless of their age or the circumstances of conception.
Dissenting - Justice Donald L. Corbin
Yes. A minor father who is a statutory victim should be relieved of his child support obligation. The majority's holding thwarts the public policy behind statutory rape laws, which are designed to protect children under fourteen who are legally incapable of consent. To require a person under fourteen to be financially responsible for a child born from a sexual crime against him effectively punishes the victim for the perpetrator's criminal act. The state should handle this situation as it would if the father were unknown or deceased, thereby upholding the policy of protecting vulnerable minors.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle in Arkansas that the obligation of child support is paramount and attaches to biological parentage, irrespective of the legality of the sexual act that led to conception. It establishes that a parent's status as a statutory crime victim is not a defense to a child support action. This aligns Arkansas with the majority of jurisdictions, prioritizing the child's right to financial support over the legal culpability or victim status of the parents. The ruling clearly separates the purpose of criminal law (punishing offenders) from family law (ensuring the welfare of children).
Unlock the full brief for Hamm v. Office of Child Support Enforcement