Leger v. Leger
258 So. 3d 624 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that provides a shorter time limit for a biological father to establish paternity of a child born into an existing marriage than for a mother to contest her husband's paternity does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting the child's stability, and the legal actions available to mothers and biological fathers are not similarly situated, thus justifying different treatment.
Facts:
- A minor child was born on August 21, 2012, during the marriage of Danielle Gotreaux Leger and Michael J. Leger, II.
- John Jerome Fontenot alleges he is the child's biological father and was aware of this fact.
- Fontenot did not immediately file a paternity action, claiming that Danielle Leger told him she feared her husband's abusive behavior and that taking action would endanger her and the child.
- In May 2014, Michael Leger initiated divorce proceedings against Danielle Leger.
- On June 17, 2014, nearly two years after the child's birth, Fontenot filed a petition to establish his paternity.
Procedural Posture:
- John Jerome Fontenot intervened in the divorce proceeding between Danielle and Michael Leger in trial court, seeking to establish paternity.
- Michael Leger filed an exception of peremption, arguing Fontenot's claim was untimely under La.Civ.Code art. 198's one-year deadline.
- The trial court granted Mr. Leger's exception and dismissed Fontenot's paternity action.
- Fontenot (Appellant) appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- Fontenot then filed a new 'Petition to Declare Louisiana Civil Code Article 198 Unconstitutional' in the same trial court.
- The trial court denied the petition, finding the statute to be constitutional.
- Fontenot (Appellant) appealed the trial court's decision on the constitutional issue to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
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 Louisiana Civil Code article 198, which imposes a one-year peremptive period for a man to establish paternity of a child presumed to be the child of another man, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Louisiana Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Amy, Judge.
No, Louisiana Civil Code article 198 does not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The court reasoned that the one-year peremptive period for a biological father to assert paternity serves the state's legitimate policy interest in protecting children from the 'upheaval of such litigation' and preserving the stability of the family unit. Fontenot's delay in filing until the child was nearly two, after divorce proceedings had begun, was contrary to this policy because the child had lived in an 'intact family structure' with the presumed father up to that point. Regarding the equal protection claim, the court held that mothers and alleged biological fathers are not similarly situated. A mother's action under La.Civ.Code art. 193 is a complex claim to both disprove her husband's paternity and establish another's, while a biological father's action under Art. 198 is a simpler claim to establish his own paternity, which does not automatically terminate the presumed father's rights. Because the nature, interests, and consequences of these actions differ, the different time limits are reasonably based and not unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the state's significant interest in promoting the stability of the legal family unit, often referred to as the presumption of legitimacy for a child born within a marriage. The court prioritized this interest over the rights of a biological parent who fails to act within a strict, legislatively mandated timeframe. This ruling illustrates that equal protection challenges based on gender distinctions in family law may fail if the state can demonstrate that the different legal actions available to men and women are not truly comparable in their purpose, complexity, and legal effect. The case signals that courts will grant substantial deference to legislative judgments in balancing the rights of biological parents against the state's interest in protecting children's established family relationships.
Unlock the full brief for Leger v. Leger