Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the petitioner, involved in a paternity action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1968, faced requests for admissions regarding his relationship with a child's mother. The petitioner, having acknowledged paternity for three children but denying it for the youngest, refused to answer citing Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The court ordered him to respond, dismissing his privilege claims. The admissions sought would establish a conclusive presumption of paternity, creating a legal obligation to support the child, and could be used as evidence in potential prosecution for willful nonsupport under Penal Code section 270. The petitioner argued that compelled admissions might incriminate him, but the court found no merit in claims for use immunity concerning future conduct. The privilege against self-incrimination was considered too attenuated in this civil context to apply, and a pending civil action did not preclude prosecution for past nonsupport. The alternative writ was discharged, and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Conclusive Presumption of Paternitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Admissions regarding the child's birth during marriage and the nature of cohabitation could establish a conclusive presumption of paternity, thereby creating a legal obligation of support.
Reasoning: Affirmative responses would create a 'conclusive presumption' of paternity, which would establish his legal obligation to support the child.
Immunity from Prosecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner's claim for use immunity regarding future conduct was rejected as meritless, indicating that immunity from prosecution was not warranted in this context.
Reasoning: Without immunity for past conduct, the petitioner cannot be constitutionally compelled to respond to requests for admissions. However, the petitioner's claim for use immunity regarding future conduct is deemed meritless.
Privilege Against Self-Incriminationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The privilege against self-incrimination was deemed not applicable when the connection between the civil admissions and potential criminal liability was considered too attenuated.
Reasoning: If such privilege were applicable, it could be invoked in any civil case where responses might lead to a judgment enforceable by criminal contempt, which is considered too attenuated.
Self-Incrimination and Requests for Admissionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination can be invoked to refuse answering requests for admissions in a civil paternity case.
Reasoning: The court dismissed his claims of privilege and ordered him to respond.
Use of Civil Admissions in Criminal Prosecution for Nonsupportsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered whether admissions in a civil paternity case could be used as evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution for willful nonsupport.
Reasoning: While the admissions are not directly admissible as evidence, a final establishment of paternity could be used as evidence in a subsequent prosecution for willful nonsupport under Penal Code section 270.