S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M.
695 So. 2d 1186 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A biological father's legal duty to support his minor child is absolute and is not excused by the circumstances of the child's conception, including claims that the father did not consent to the sexual act. The primary purpose of paternity and support proceedings is to protect the interests of the innocent child, which are paramount to any alleged wrongful conduct of the parents.
Facts:
- In September 1992, S.F. attended a party at T.M.'s house after drinking heavily at a nightclub.
- S.F. became extremely intoxicated, vomited, and was put into a bed by his brother and T.M. while he was unconscious and fully clothed.
- The next morning, S.F. awoke wearing only his unbuttoned shirt with no memory of having engaged in sexual intercourse with T.M.
- A child was born to T.M. on June 7, 1993.
- Court-ordered blood tests indicated a 99.47% probability that S.F. was the biological father of the child.
- Multiple witnesses testified that S.F. was unconscious or not cognizant of his surroundings on the night in question.
- Two witnesses testified that they later heard T.M. brag about having sex with S.F. while he was passed out, with one witness stating T.M. said it "saved her a trip to the sperm bank."
Procedural Posture:
- In August 1994, the State of Alabama, on behalf of T.M., sued S.F. in district court to establish paternity and obtain child support.
- The district court found S.F. to be the father and ordered him to pay child support and arrearages.
- S.F. (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the circuit court.
- The circuit court conducted a trial, found S.F. to be the father, and ordered him to pay child support.
- S.F. filed post-judgment motions asking the court to rule on his constitutional challenges and recalculate the support amount.
- The circuit court denied S.F.'s constitutional arguments but adjusted the arrearage amount.
- S.F. (appellant) appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
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 imposition of a child support obligation on a man who is the biological father, but claims he did not consent to the sexual act that caused the pregnancy, violate his constitutional rights or otherwise excuse him from the duty to support?
Opinions:
Majority - Yates, Judge
No, the imposition of a child support obligation does not violate the father's rights and he is not excused from the duty to support. A father has both a legal and moral duty to support his minor children, and under the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act, the interests of the child are paramount and take precedent over the interests of the parents. The court reasoned that the child is an innocent party, and any wrongful conduct on the part of the mother in causing the conception does not alter the father's duty to provide support. Citing precedents from other states involving birth control fraud and statutory rape of the father, the court affirmed that the mother's alleged fault is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and support, as the father's potential remedy for any assault lies in the criminal justice system, not in avoiding his obligation to the child.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Crawley, Judge
No, the father cannot be excused from his duty of support, but the trial court should have deviated from the standard child support guidelines. While the interests of the child are paramount, the mother's reprehensible sexual misconduct means she comes to the court with 'unclean hands.' The application of the standard guidelines is unjust and inappropriate in these unusual circumstances. This opinion argues that the case should be reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to require the mother to support the child to the full extent of her ability, with the father only being obligated to pay the amount that the mother is unable to provide.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle that child support is a duty owed to the child, entirely separate from the conduct or relationship of the parents. It establishes in Alabama that the circumstances of conception, even an alleged sexual assault against the father, are legally irrelevant to the fundamental obligation of parental support. This decision prioritizes a child's right to support from both biological parents above all other considerations, reinforcing that parental grievances must be addressed in other legal forums, such as criminal or tort law, rather than through the withholding of child support.
Unlock the full brief for S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M.