Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 2, 2006

Just a short note.  Back in 2000, the legislature amended the law on paternity cases to hold that a father couldn't be held liable for arrearages if the child was over three at the time the paternity action was filed, and the father didn't have any knowledge of the child.  On Wednesday, in Smith v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that the statute couldn't be applied retroactively.


The mother had had the child in 1987, but didn't institute paternity proceedings until ten years later, at which point the newly-proud papa was tagged for $44,000 in arrears.  After the passage of the amendment in 2000, he applied for modification, which the legislature had expressly allowed for in the statute.  The Supreme Court concluded that retroactivity would be unconstitutional, since it would deprive the mother of her "vested right" in the court order.

While the Court specifically addresses the situation where there is an existing order on arrearages, the decision could apply well beyond that:  a fairly good argument could be advanced that the mother has a "vested right" in arrearages if the child was born prior to the passage of the amendment, even if no paternity complaint is filed until after passage.  There's certainly nothing in the language of the decision which would foreclose a broader interpretation of it.

I had a case a little while back concerning laches as a defense to arrearages in paternity cases, and I'll do a post on that next week.

Search

Recent Entries

  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture
  • July 20, 2017
    Case Update
    A look at the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Oles, and did you know that Justice Ginsburg has a .311 batting average with runners in scoring position? Oh, wait...
  • July 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Judicial bias, RVO specs, 26(B) stuff, waivers of counsel... And more!
  • July 17, 2017
    No more Anders Briefs?
    I have a case now in the 8th District where I came close to filing an Anders brief the other week. It's an appeal from a plea and sentence. The plea hearing was flawless. The judge imposed consecutive sentences, and...
  • July 13, 2017
    Sex offenders and the First Amendment
    Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Packingham v. North Carolina
  • July 12, 2017
    Removing a retained attorney
    What does a judge do if he thinks a retained attorney in a criminal case isn't competent?
  • July 11, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The court does good work on a juvenile bindover case, and the State finally figures out that it should have indicted someone in the first place
  • July 10, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS ends its term; the Ohio Supreme Court issues another opinion, and likely the last one, on the trial tax
  • June 28, 2017
    Plea Bargaining -- The defendant's view
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision last week in Lee v. United States