Wallis v. Smith
22 P.3d 682 (2001), 130 N.M. 214, 2001-NMCA-017 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent cannot sue the other parent under tort or contract theories to recover the financial costs of child support, even if conception resulted from a misrepresentation about using birth control, as such a claim contravenes the strong public policy of holding both parents financially responsible for their child.
Facts:
- Peter Wallis and Kellie Rae Smith were in a consensual sexual relationship.
- Wallis clearly communicated he did not want to father a child, and they agreed Smith would use birth control pills.
- Wallis relied on Smith's representation and took no contraceptive precautions himself.
- At some point, Smith stopped taking birth control pills but did not inform Wallis.
- Smith subsequently became pregnant by Wallis and gave birth to a healthy child.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter Wallis filed a complaint against Kellie Rae Smith in New Mexico district court, asserting causes of action for fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and prima facie tort.
- The district court sanctioned Wallis $1,000 for improper use of a subpoena during the discovery process.
- The district court granted Smith's motion to dismiss Wallis's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Wallis, as appellant, appealed the dismissal and the sanction to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, where Smith was the appellee.
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 parent have a legally cognizable claim for damages, such as fraud or breach of contract, against the other parent to recover the cost of child support when conception resulted from the other parent's misrepresentation about using birth control?
Opinions:
Majority - Bosson, Judge
No. A parent does not have a legally cognizable claim for damages against the other parent to recover child support costs based on contraceptive misrepresentation. New Mexico's public policy, as codified in the Uniform Parentage Act, imposes a form of strict liability on both parents for the financial support of their child, making the child's interests paramount. Allowing Wallis's claim would improperly shift the entire financial responsibility for the child to the mother, undermining this immutable duty of parental support. Furthermore, if Wallis did not want to have a child, he was free to use his own contraceptive measures. This case is distinct from medical malpractice cases like Lovelace, as it involves an attempt to assign fault between parents rather than holding a third-party professional liable.
Concurring - Alarid, Judge
No. While agreeing with the outcome, the primary basis for rejecting the claim should be that it intrudes on fundamental privacy interests. New Mexico courts disfavor causes of action that purport to regulate intimate interpersonal relationships, and recognizing a claim for contraceptive fraud would require establishing legal standards of conduct for reproductive matters. The court should not involve itself in such private decisions. This case establishes the principle that contraception is a non-delegable duty, and sexual partners are strictly liable for the support of any child they create through voluntary sexual activity.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that child support obligations are paramount and cannot be contracted around or evaded through tort claims between parents. It establishes that in New Mexico, personal responsibility for contraception is non-delegable, and courts will not intervene to shift the financial consequences of procreation from one parent to another based on private agreements or misrepresentations. The ruling aligns New Mexico with the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions and reinforces a judicial policy of non-intervention into the private reproductive choices of consenting adults, prioritizing the child's right to support above all else.
Unlock the full brief for Wallis v. Smith