In Re Paternity of JLH
441 N.W.2d 273, 149 Wis. 2d 349 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A biological father's civil obligation to support his child is based on the voluntary act of intercourse that resulted in parenthood and is not excused by the fact that the act could be classified as a criminal sexual assault against him due to his age.
Facts:
- In the summer of 1981, J.J.G., a fifteen-year-old boy, ran away from a children's home.
- He met L.H., an eighteen-and-a-half-year-old woman whom he knew from the home.
- J.J.G. stayed with L.H. at her father's home for approximately ten to fourteen days.
- During this time, J.J.G. and L.H. had sexual intercourse on four occasions.
- J.J.G. stated that L.H. initiated the sexual activity and that it was his first time having intercourse.
- As a result of their intercourse, L.H. became pregnant and gave birth to a child, J.L.H., on May 8, 1982.
- J.J.G. subsequently claimed he suffered psychological damage as a result of what he characterized as sexual assault.
Procedural Posture:
- L.H. filed a petition in a Wisconsin trial court to establish J.J.G.'s paternity of her child, J.L.H., and to obtain a child support order.
- J.J.G. answered, denying paternity but arguing that if he were the father, he should not have to pay support because he was a victim of sexual assault.
- L.H. moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for L.H., adjudicating J.J.G. as the father and ordering him to pay child support.
- J.J.G., as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. L.H. is the respondent.
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 ordering a minor father to pay child support violate his constitutional rights to substantive due process and equal protection when the child was conceived through an act of intercourse that could constitute a criminal sexual assault against him by the adult mother?
Opinions:
Majority - Gartzke, P.J.
No. Ordering the minor father to pay child support does not violate his constitutional rights. A parent's civil duty to support a child arises from the voluntary act of intercourse leading to parenthood, regardless of whether that act could be deemed criminal under sexual assault statutes due to the parent's age. The court reasoned that the criminal statute's provision that a person under 15 is incapable of consent applies to criminal proceedings against a defendant, not to determine the civil duties of a victim in a paternity action. Furthermore, evidence indicated J.J.G.'s participation was voluntary, negating his civil defense of non-consent. The court also held there was no due process violation because the duty of support is for the benefit of the child, not a reward for the mother, and therefore does not allow her to 'profit from her crime.' Finally, J.J.G.'s equal protection claims failed for lack of standing, as he never attempted to compel an abortion or terminate his own parental rights, and thus suffered no injury from the classifications he challenged.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear separation between criminal liability for sexual assault and the civil obligation of child support. It reinforces the strong public policy that biological parents are financially responsible for their children, and this duty is paramount to the circumstances of conception, provided the act of intercourse was factually voluntary. The case significantly limits the ability of a statutory-rape victim who is also a parent to use the criminality of the act as a shield against child support obligations. This precedent ensures that the focus in paternity and support actions remains on the child's welfare rather than the conduct of the parents toward one another.
