Dill v. Dill, 28758
| Decision Date | 07 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28758,28758 |
| Parties | Robert Lowell DILL v. Wanlyn M. DILL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Cobb, Cobb, Penland & Bridges, Chandler Raymond Bridges, Decatur, for appellant.
Edward H. Kellogg, Jr., Leonard W. Rhodes, Decatur, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Wanlyn M. Dill filed a complaint against her former husband Robert Lowell Dill under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act in the State of Idaho.
The defendant filed a motion seeking to declare a portion of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act unconstitutional (Ga.L.1958, p. 34; Code Ann. § 99-903a(6(a), (b)). The motion was overruled by the trial court and the question certified for immediate review by this court. Held:
Code Ann. § 99-903a(6) provides: "Duty of support' includes any duty of support imposed or impossible by law, or by any court order, decree or judgment, whether interlocutory or final, whether incidental to a proceeding for divorce, judicial (legal) separation, separate maintenance or otherwise, and without limitation specifically included for the purpose of this Chapter, the following:
'(b) A mother in one State is hereby declared to be liable for the support of her child children under 18 years of age residing or found in the same State or in another State having substantially similar or reciprocal laws, whenever the father of such child or children is dead, or cannot be found, or is incapable of support of such child or children, and if she is possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, she may be required to pay for the support of such child or children a fair and reasonable sum according to her means, as may be determined by the court having jurisdiction of the respondent in a proceeding instituted under this Chapter.'
The appellant contends that Code Ann. § 99-903a(6(a), (b)) violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by treating male parents differently from female parents in that 6a provides that the former husband is responsible for the support of the child whereas (b) provides that the mother is only responsible for the support of the child whenever the father of such child or children is dead, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keck v. Harris, S03A1425.
...unconstitutional is an appropriate means of raising that issue. See Ward v. McFall, 277 Ga. 649, 593 S.E.2d 340 (2004); Dill v. Dill, 232 Ga. 231, 206 S.E.2d 6 (1974). However, an interlocutory order denying such a motion is appealable only when the trial court issues a certificate of immed......
-
Murphy v. Murphy
...case before this court, but we believe the ratio decidendi of Kahn is dispositive of the issues presented here. See also Dill v. Dill, 231 Ga. 231, 206 S.E.2d 6; and, Husband M. v. Wife M., 321 A.2d 115, decided by the Supreme Court of Delaware, April 18, 1974. The United States Supreme Cou......
- Johnson v. Franklin, 28748
-
Orr v. Orr
...benefit for widowers. . . . (W)e believe the ratio decidendi of Kahn is dispositive of the issues presented here. See also Dill v. Dill, 231 Ga. 231, 206 S.E.2d 6; and, Husband M. v. Wife M., 321 A.2d 115, decided by the Supreme Court of Delaware, April 18, 1974. "The United States Supreme ......