SF v. State Ex Rel. TM

Citations: 695 So. 2d 1186; 1996 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 856; 1996 WL 675729Docket: 2950025

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; November 21, 1996; Alabama; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In August 1994, the State of Alabama, representing T.M., filed a lawsuit against S.F. to establish paternity and seek child support for T.M.'s minor child. The complaint included demands for S.F. to cover half of the child's uninsured medical expenses and sought retroactive child support dating back to the child's birth on June 7, 1993. Blood tests indicated a 99.47% probability that S.F. was the father. On February 14, 1995, a district court confirmed S.F.'s paternity, ordering him to pay $106.04 weekly in child support, settle $8,960.64 in arrears, provide medical insurance for the child, cover half of any additional medical costs, and pay $300 for blood testing costs.

S.F. appealed, raising constitutional issues during a June 6, 1995 ore tenus proceeding, claiming a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. He alleged he did not consent to sexual activity with T.M. due to intoxication and argued that the law (26-17-14, Ala. Code 1975) was unconstitutional as it mandated child support payments despite his claims of nonconsensual intercourse. On July 7, 1995, the circuit court ruled that S.F. was the biological father, adjusting his child support obligations to $83.80 weekly and arrears to $9,050.40, while maintaining insurance coverage for the child. The court did not address S.F.'s constitutional arguments.

Following this, S.F. filed post-judgment motions, seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of 26-17-14 and a potential credit against child support due to T.M.'s alleged nonconsensual actions. He also requested a recalculation of arrears based on his income during the child's birth year. On July 19, 1995, the court dismissed S.F.'s constitutional challenge and denied the credit request. It scheduled a hearing for the other motions. Subsequently, on July 27, 1995, S.F. amended his motion, claiming his required support based on 1993 income should only amount to $50 per month, totaling $300 in arrears.

On August 28, 1995, the court determined S.F.'s child support obligation for 1993 to be $120 per month, with a total arrearage of $7,152.40 since June 1993. S.F. appealed this decision on October 3, 1995. During the proceedings, S.F. testified about a party at T.M.'s house in September 1992, stating he had been drinking heavily and did not recall having sex with T.M., claiming he was unconscious when put to bed. His brother corroborated that S.F. was intoxicated and unconscious when left with T.M. Dr. Lane Layton testified that a man who is unconscious can still have involuntary physiological responses, such as an erection and ejaculation. Witness Kimmy Hovater noted S.F.'s intoxication and relayed a conversation where T.M. indicated she had sex with S.F. while he was passed out, claiming it "saved her a trip to the sperm bank." S.F. argued that under Alabama law, child support is contingent upon voluntary actions of the father, suggesting parallels with a Wisconsin statute that exempts sperm donors from support obligations. However, the appellate court concluded that S.F. did not raise this argument in the trial court, thus it could not be considered on appeal, as established by Alabama legal precedent.

S.F. claims that he did not engage in consensual intercourse with T.M. and that he was a victim of her sexual assault. He argues that enforcing child support for the child resulting from this nonconsensual act would unjustly punish him, infringe upon his property rights, and violate his equal protection rights. Notably, S.F. acknowledges his biological paternity. Under Alabama law, a father has both legal and moral obligations to support his minor children, regardless of the parents' marital status. The Alabama Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) emphasizes the equality of all children, ensuring that illegitimate children receive the same rights to paternal support as legitimate ones, prioritizing the interests of the child over other parties involved. Similar cases in other jurisdictions have upheld child support obligations despite claims of nonconsensual intercourse or statutory rape, reaffirming that parental responsibilities remain intact irrespective of the circumstances under which conception occurred. Courts have consistently focused on the child's best interests in these matters, asserting that any wrongdoing by a parent does not absolve them of their support obligations.

The father claimed that the mother should be solely responsible for child support due to her alleged statutory rape. The court ruled that the mother's conduct does not affect the parents' obligations to support their child, emphasizing that the primary concern in paternity proceedings is the child's welfare. The court noted that any wrongful actions by the mother do not relieve the father of his duty to provide support. It also acknowledged that the father could have pursued criminal charges against the mother. 

The father challenged the constitutionality of Ala. Code 1975 § 26-17-14(a), which mandates that paternity determinations include immediate support orders. His argument, however, focused incorrectly on the rape statute, claiming it violated his equal protection rights because it does not allow for female prosecution in male rape cases, referencing the case of People v. Liberta for support. The court found this argument irrelevant to his claims about § 26-17-14(a) and noted that he failed to meet procedural requirements outlined in Rule 28(a)(5) of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment. 

Judge Crawley concurred with the overall ruling but dissented regarding the application of child support guidelines, suggesting that the unique circumstances of the case warranted a deviation from standard guidelines, which the trial court denied. The father’s request for a credit against support payments due to the mother's alleged sexual assault was also denied.

The father’s request for an abatement of child support was interpreted by the trial court as a request for deviation from the established guidelines, despite his lack of specific reference to Rule 32(A). Under Alabama's notice pleading standard, the father's submissions sufficiently informed the mother of his intent for equitable relief. The court emphasized that in child support matters, flexibility in pleading is permitted, with the child's welfare being the foremost concern. 

Testimony indicated that the father, unaware of any sexual encounter with the mother, argued he had consistently taken precautions against fatherhood. Witnesses, including the father's brother, supported his claim of ignorance regarding the sexual activity. The state, limited to inquiries about the mother's income, presented no evidence to contradict the father's assertions. 

The principle of "clean hands" in equity was deemed applicable, suggesting the mother’s sexual misconduct, classified as a misdemeanor, warranted a deviation from child support guidelines. Citing precedent, the court noted that while equitable relief can be denied to parties who engage in misconduct, the child's interests must remain paramount. 

Ultimately, the trial court's denial of the father's motion to abate child support, despite the mother's misconduct, was seen as a failure to consider relevant equitable principles. The conclusion was to reverse the trial court's decision and instruct it to allocate child support based on the mother's earning capacity while recognizing the child's welfare as the priority.

The trial court is to order the father to provide child support only if the mother’s income is insufficient. The mother's gross monthly income is $1,250, while the father's is $2,655. The established basic child support obligation is $534. The trial court has discretion to determine whether the mother’s earnings or potential to earn is adequate for sole support of the child, and there is strong evidence of her ability to earn a sufficient income. The court should consider imputing income to the mother generously. The father's constitutional argument regarding his support obligation, based on his claim of not participating in sexual activity with the mother, was not raised in the trial court and was therefore waived. However, the father’s attorney did address his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, which the trial court allowed for testimony. Despite this, the argument is deemed inappropriate as it could nullify the father's obligation to support the child, which is essential to prevent the child from relying on public assistance. All minor children have a fundamental right to parental support, as established in case law. Additionally, there was a prior motion to prevent the father from introducing evidence about the mother’s behavior at a party, which the state anticipated.