In Re Paternity of KB
2004 OK CIV APP 97, 104 P.3d 1132 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A biological father's legal obligation to provide child support is not excused by the fact that he was below the legal age of consent and technically the victim of statutory rape at the time the child was conceived.
Facts:
- Justin Stringer, a fifteen-year-old minor, and Larena Baker, a nineteen-year-old adult, engaged in a consensual sexual relationship.
- As a result of this relationship, Baker conceived and gave birth to a child, K.B., on or about December 20, 1988.
- Due to the age difference, Stringer was legally considered the victim of statutory rape under Oklahoma criminal law, although no criminal charges were ever filed.
- A DNA test later confirmed a 99.93% probability that Stringer was K.B.'s biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1989, Larena Baker initiated a suit in Texas against Justin Stringer to establish paternity and obtain a child support order.
- In 1993, the Texas district court dismissed Baker's action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
- In 2001, Baker reopened the case through an administrative action in Oklahoma, which was subsequently transferred to the District Court of McCurtain County after Stringer filed a petition to relinquish his parental rights.
- The Oklahoma trial court granted summary judgment for Baker on Stringer's petition to relinquish parental rights.
- Following a trial on Baker's counterclaim for child support, the trial court found Stringer to be the father and ordered him to pay current and past-due child support.
- Stringer (Appellant) appealed the trial court's child support order to the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma.
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 the fact that a biological father was below the legal age of consent and technically the victim of an uncharged statutory rape at the time of the child's conception absolve him of his legal duty to pay child support?
Opinions:
Majority - Bay Mitchell, Presiding Judge
No. The fact that a father was legally incapable of consenting to the sexual act that resulted in a child's birth does not absolve him of his duty to support that child. This is a civil child support matter, not a criminal proceeding, and the primary focus is the welfare of the child, who is an innocent party. The court reasoned that child support payments are for the benefit of the child, not the custodial parent. Citing uniform persuasive authority from other states, the court held that the public policy mandating parental support of children outweighs any policy of protecting minors from the consequences of their willing participation in sexual misconduct.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear precedent in Oklahoma that a biological parent's duty of support is paramount and is not affected by their legal status as a minor or a victim of statutory rape at the time of conception. The decision firmly prioritizes the child's right to financial support from both parents over any competing public policy arguments, such as protecting minors from the consequences of their own actions. By aligning with the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions, this ruling reinforces the principle that civil child support obligations are entirely separate and distinct from the criminal culpability of the parents.
