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

  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech
  • March 28, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Pro se motions, pro se defendants, and advice for deadbeat dads