Lexplug logoLexplug

Jevning v. Cichos

Court of Appeals of Minnesota
499 N.W.2d 515 (1993)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A father's civil obligation to support his child is not excused by his status as a statutory victim of criminal sexual conduct. The public policy of ensuring a child's welfare and financial support supersedes a non-custodial parent's claim for relief based on the circumstances of the child's conception.


Facts:

  • Around March 11, 1989, appellant (father) and respondent (mother) engaged in consensual sexual intercourse.
  • At the time of conception, the appellant was 15 years old and the respondent was 20 years old.
  • The parties were never married.
  • On December 4, 1989, the respondent gave birth to a child.
  • After the child's birth, the respondent and the child received public assistance.

Procedural Posture:

  • The child's mother and Waseca County commenced a paternity action against the appellant (father) in a Minnesota trial court.
  • Genetic testing indicated a 99.66% probability that appellant was the father.
  • Appellant did not challenge the paternity adjudication but argued he should not be legally responsible for child support.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment to the mother and the county, establishing paternity and ordering appellant to pay child support.
  • Appellant appealed the trial court's decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Locked

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 victim of criminal sexual conduct, due to the mother being more than 24 months older, absolve him of his civil duty to pay child support for a child conceived from that act?


Opinions:

Majority - Randall, Judge

No, a minor father's status as a victim of criminal sexual conduct does not absolve him of his civil duty to pay child support. Paternity proceedings are civil actions focused on the best interests of the child, not on punishing or rewarding the parents. The purposes of the Minnesota Parentage Act are to impose a duty on the father to support the child, prevent the mother from bearing the full financial burden, and protect the public from having to support the child. Child support is paid for the benefit of the child, not as a windfall to the custodial parent; therefore, ordering support does not allow the mother to 'benefit from her crime.' Allowing the father's statutory non-consent defense would deprive the child of support and a legal determination of his father, shifting the burden to the state. This outcome contravenes public policy, which holds that a child's interest in receiving support supersedes the economic consequences the father might suffer.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a clear separation between criminal liability and civil parental obligations in family law. It affirms that the paramount public policy is the welfare and financial support of the child. The ruling prevents a parent from using their status as a 'victim' under a criminal statute as a shield against their fundamental civil duty to provide for their child. This precedent solidifies the principle that child support is a right belonging to the child, independent of the actions or potential culpability of the parents in the act of conception.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Jevning v. Cichos (1993) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Jevning v. Cichos