Hughes v. Parham

• Decision Date: 04 April 1978
• Docket Number: No. 33071,33071
• Citation: 243 S.E.2d 867,241 Ga. 198
• Parties: Ellis Franklin HUGHES v. Curtis PARHAM.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 867

243 S.E.2d 867

241 Ga. 198

Ellis Franklin HUGHES v. Curtis PARHAM.

No. 33071.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 4, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1978.

Burnside, Dye, Miller & Bowen, A. Montague Miller, Thomas W. Tucker, Augusta, for appellant.

Tisinger, Tisinger & Vance, Thomas E. Greer, Carrollton, for appellee.

NICHOLS, Chief Justice.

This case draws into question the constitutionality of Ga.Code Ann. § 105-1307 (Ga.L.1887, pp. 43-45; 1952, p. 54) which provides as follows: "A mother, or, if no mother, a father, may recover for the homicide of a child, minor or sui juris, unless said child shall leave a wife, husband or child. The mother or father shall be entitled to recover the full value of the life of such child. In suits by the mother the illegitimacy of the child shall be no bar to a recovery." (Emphasis supplied.) The 1952 amendment inserted the last sentence relating to illegitimate children.

Upon the death of the illegitimate child, the natural father and the maternal grandmother, in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of the deceased child, brought separate wrongful death actions against the appellant. The appellant moved for summary judgment against the natural father, contending that there was no legal theory upon which the natural father could recover.

In denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that Curtis Parham, the appellee, was the natural father of the deceased child; that the natural mother of the deceased child had been killed in the automobile collision that took the life of the child; that the child had been born out of wedlock to Curtis Parham, the appellee, and the deceased mother; and that although the appellee never had married the deceased mother, he had executed the child's birth certificate acknowledging paternity of the child, had paid the birth expenses for the child, had regularly supported the child from its birth until its death, had at all times acknowledged the child as his own, and had visited the child daily. The court further found that the Georgia wrongful death statute does not bar a wrongful death action by the mother of an illegitimate child. The trial court concluded as a matter of law that because the wrongful death statute allows a mother to maintain an action for the wrongful death of her illegitimate child but denies that right to the father of an illegitimate child, the statute violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution.

While the trial court's order cited no authority in support of its conclusion that the wrongful death statute is unconstitutional, we assume that it was persuaded by appellee's arguments that the United States Supreme Court's decisions outlawing arbitrary legislative classifications based upon illegitimacy mandated the result. Although a superficial consideration of the policies enunciated in those cases might lead one to the conclusion that the trial court has not erred, a close and detailed examination of the constitutional analysis employed in those decisions yields a different result.

1. With limited exception, the analysis used by the Supreme Court in illegitimacy cases appears to be grounded in equal protection. See Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 20 L.Ed.2d 436 (1968); Glona v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company et al., 391 U.S. 73, 88 S.Ct. 1515, 20 L.Ed.2d 441 (1968); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Weber v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 406 U.S. 164, 92 S.Ct. 1400, 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972); Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 93 S.Ct. 872, 35 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973); New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization et al. v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619, 93 S.Ct. 1700, 36 L.Ed.2d 543 (1973); Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628, 94 S.Ct. 2496, 41 L.Ed.2d 363 (1974); Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976); Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 97 S.Ct. 1473, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977); Trimble v. Gordon et al., 430 U.S. 762, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 52 L.Ed.2d 31 (1977); and Quilloin v. Walcott, --- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978).

The equal protection test focuses on whether the "ends" to be reached by the governmental classification are legitimate and whether the means employed to achieve those ends are substantially related to them, i. e., whether the exclusion of fathers of illegitimate children from the benefits of a wrongful death action is substantially related to legitimate state interests. The equal protection test is further complicated by the addition of differing standards of scrutiny depending upon the area being examined. Strict scrutiny is utilized for those areas of suspect classifications where discrimination against a particular class has traditionally existed or where paramount constitutional rights are abridged. In contradistinction to this strict scrutiny standard, a less stringent standard is used where economic or business interests are classified by the state.

The means used in the case sub judice is obviously the denial by the General Assembly of an action for wrongful death to the father of an illegitimate child. The ends, however, are not so readily discernible. The state ends might be the interests in promoting a legitimate family unit and in forestalling potential problems of proof of paternity in wrongful death actions. The promotion of this state interest might have been the result of the conclusion of the General Assembly that more often than not the father of an illegitimate child who has elected neither to marry the mother nor to legitimate the child pursuant to proper legal proceedings suffers no real loss from the child's wrongful death. Finally, the General Assembly may have decided that the state's interest in setting a standard of morality was enhanced by refusing to allow a natural father, who has refused to comport with the General Assembly's idea that society needs a legitimate family unit, to share in a statutorily given wrongful death action.

In upholding Social Security law provisions which required illegitimate dependents in certain situations to submit individualized proof of dependency against attacks based upon the equal protection clause, Justice Blackmun held that "Congress is (not) required in this realm of less than strictest scrutiny to weigh the burdens of administrative inquiry solely in terms of dollars ultimately 'spent,' ignoring the relative amounts devoted to administrative rather than welfare uses . . . While the scrutiny by which their showing is to be judged is not a toothless one (cits.), the burden remains upon the appellees (plaintiffs) to demonstrate the insubstantiality of that relation." Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. at 510, 96 S.Ct. at 2764. Justice Blackmun's statement illustrates that the standard of scrutiny used when reviewing legislative classifications placed upon illegitimates is somewhat less than "strict scrutiny." Unfortunately, the standard enunciated by Justice Blackmun can only serve as a starting point for deciding which standard of analysis should be employed here. That standard of scrutiny is a direct result of the highest court's concern with the traditional discrimination against the illegitimate child itself. "As we said in Lucas, the constitutionality of this law 'depends upon the character of the discrimination and its relation to legitimate legislative aims.' . . . In subsequent decisions, we have expressly considered and rejected the argument that a state may attempt to influence the actions of men and women by imposing sanctions on the children born of their illegitimate relationships." Trimble v. Gordon, 97 S.Ct. at 1464-1465.

Here, the classification...