Frazier v. Office of Child Support Enforcement

• Decision Date: 10 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. CV-19-805,CV-19-805
• Citation: 2021 Ark. App. 65,618 S.W.3d 415
• Parties: Jeffery C. FRAZIER, Appellant v. OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Jana L. Bland, and Paige E. Bland, Appellees
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

2021 Ark. App. 65

618 S.W.3d 415

Jeffery C. FRAZIER, Appellant

v.OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Jana L. Bland, and Paige E. Bland, Appellees

No. CV-19-805

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION I.

Opinion Delivered: February 10, 2021

Rehearing Denied March 10, 2021

James & Streit, by: Jonathan R. Streit, for appellant.

Gil Dudley, for separate appellee Office of Child Support Enforcement.

Robert Hudgins, Searcy and Robert Abney, for separate appellees Jana Bland and Paige Bland.

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

This is a paternity and child-support case. Appellant Jeffery C. Frazier appeals from a summary-judgment order wherein he was found to be the father of appellee Paige Bland and ordered to pay a judgment of $179,080.54, which represented eighteen years in retroactive child support. For reversal of the summary-judgment order awarding child support, Jeffery first argues that the trial court erred in joining Paige Bland as a party plaintiff in the case. Jeffery also argues that the trial court erred in rejecting his affirmative defenses of unclean hands, laches, waiver, and equitable estoppel.¹ We affirm in part, and we reverse and remand in part.

Appellee Jana Bland is the mother of appellee Paige Bland, who was born on September 21, 1998. When Paige was seventeen years and eight months old, Jana assigned her rights to child support to appellee Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). OCSE filed a paternity complaint against Jeffery on May 19, 2016. OCSE was the only named plaintiff in the complaint. OCSE alleged that Jeffery is Paige's father and that Jeffery should be ordered to pay eighteen years of retroactive child support. Subsequent DNA testing showed a 99.99 percent probability that Jeffery is Paige's father.

On January 5, 2017, Jeffery filed an amended response to the paternity complaint.² In his amended response, Jeffery generally raised the affirmative defenses of unclean hands, laches, waiver, and equitable estoppel, although he offered no specific facts in support. On February 16, 2017, Jeffery filed a motion to join Jana, the mother, as a party to the action so that he could raise his affirmative defenses. In that motion, Jeffery asserted:

The acts and omissions of the custodial parent were such that ... Jeffery was prohibited from having any relationship whatsoever with his child as he was not aware of the child's existence until being contacted by Plaintiff 17 years after the child was born. Now that the child has reached the age of majority, the Defendant is precluded from being able to obtain any court-ordered contact or visitation with the child to establish any such relationship.

On April 25, 2017, OCSE filed a motion to strike Jeffery's amended response or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement on the grounds that Jeffery had failed to provide either a factual or legal basis for his affirmative defenses.

On May 26, 2017, the trial court held a hearing and took up the issue of which parties should be among the party plaintiffs in the case. At this hearing, the trial court sua sponte suggested that Paige, who was now an adult, should be made a party to the lawsuit. Paige was asked to testify. Paige testified that she was aware that her mother had used OCSE to attempt to establish paternity and child support; that she understood she would never be able to make a claim for child support herself if her mother pursued the back child-support award; that she was aware that there may be potentially different arguments made in opposition to the child-support claim if she were the party bringing the claim rather than her mother; and that she wanted her mother to pursue the action, specifically waiving her right to be a party in the case. Despite Paige's stated desire to not be a party in the case, the trial court made her a party and stated:

The court only has jurisdiction over the parties to a lawsuit. [Paige] has an interest in this lawsuit. She has now told me she will trust her mother to handle the back child support. If she remains a party, I think that statement has unquestionable validity and certainly is effective. If she's not a party, I'm not sure about it. So I'm going to make her a party.

After the trial court found that Paige would be made a party, Jeffery objected and argued that Paige should not be a party to this case for either paternity or child-support purposes. Jeffery's objection was overruled, and the trial court announced that OCSE, Jana, and Paige were all parties to the case.

On August 23, 2017, the trial court entered an order finding that OCSE shall remain a party to the case and shall be the first plaintiff; that Jana is made a party to the case and shall be the second plaintiff; and that Paige is made a party to the case and shall be the third plaintiff. In that order, the trial court also addressed OCSE's motion to strike or, in the alternative, for a more definitive statement. The trial court gave Jeffery additional time to cure these deficiencies and ordered Jeffery to file a second amended response.

As ordered, on September 20, 2017, Jeffery filed a second amended response to the paternity complaint. In his second amended response Jeffery again raised the affirmative defenses of unclean hands, laches, waiver, and equitable estoppel. Jeffery provided facts in support of his affirmative defenses.

In support of his defense of unclean hands, Jeffery asserted that Jana had told him that he was not Paige's father. He further asserted that, thereafter, Jana held Paige out to be the child of Mike Bland for over seventeen years by giving Paige Mike Bland's last name and by allowing Mike Bland to develop a father/daughter relationship with Paige. Jeffery claimed he had no reason to believe that Paige was his child. Jeffery further asserted that Paige also held herself out to be Mike Bland's daughter by assuming a relationship with Mike Bland's family as if they were her relatives. Then, after it was too late for Jeffery to develop any kind of relationship with Paige and after it was too late for him to enforce a visitation schedule, Jana opened a case with OCSE to establish paternity and child support. Jeffery argued that the "plaintiff" was barred in equity from the relief requested in the paternity complaint due to Jana's conduct under the doctrine of unclean hands.

In support of his defense of laches, Jeffery asserted that Jana waited until four months before Paige's eighteenth birthday to pursue any claim against him. Jeffery argued that the "plaintiff" was barred in equity from the relief requested in the paternity complaint because of the unreasonable delay of bringing a claim.

In support of his defense of waiver, Jeffery repeated many of the above allegations and stated further that the purpose of child support is to ensure that the basic needs of a child are met. Jeffery asserted that Paige was only a child for four months after the case was opened and was now an adult capable of meeting her own basic needs. Jeffery argued that the "plaintiff" was barred in equity from the relief requested in the paternity complaint because of Jana's waiting over seventeen years to pursue any sort of remedy against him, which constituted a waiver of the relief sought.

Finally, in support of his defense of equitable estoppel, Jeffery repeated many of the above allegations and added that Jana strategically waited more than seventeen years to pursue any legal remedy in attempt to secure eighteen years’ worth of child support without her having to share any time with Paige. Jeffery stated that Jana wants him to have all the financial obligations of being a father only after having first stripped him of the ability to ever have any of the joys and privileges that would come with that role. Jeffery argued that the "plaintiff" is barred from the relief requested in the paternity complaint because of the acts and omissions of Jana, which he was led to rely on to his detriment.

On October 22, 2018, Jeffery filed a motion to dismiss Paige from the case. In the motion, Jeffery alleged that Paige, an adult, lacked standing to pursue the establishment of child support. Jeffery also alleged that Paige was not the real party in interest pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 17(a). Finally, Jeffery contended that Paige should be dismissed as a party pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 21 because Paige's status as a separate plaintiff was cumulative to Jana's status and that he would be substantially prejudiced if he had to continue to defend against three plaintiffs. Each of the three plaintiffs filed responses to Jeffery's motion, and each objected his request to dismiss Paige from the case. Jeffery's motion to dismiss Paige from the case was never specifically ruled on by the trial court, and Paige remained a party to the case.

A joint motion for summary judgment was submitted by Jana and Paige on October 17, 2018. In the motion, Jana and Paige sought summary judgment on the issue of paternity, asserting that paternity testing established a 99.99 percent probability that Jeffery is Paige's father. In the motion, Jana and Paige also asked for an award of eighteen years of back child support in the amount of $179,080.54. Attached to the motion was the affidavit of Bambi George, a child-support specialist with OCSE, along with documents used by Ms. George to calculate the child-support arrearage. Using Jeffery's admitted income as applied to Administrative Order No. 10, Ms. George calculated his child-support arrearage to be $179,080.54.³

In the summary-judgment motion, Jana and Paige maintained that none of the affirmative defenses raised by Jeffery were applicable. The motion asserted that although Jana Bland was once married to Mike Bland, they had divorced before Paige's conception and birth and that, during that entire time, Mike Bland was in the Navy stationed out of state. The motion further alleged that Paige had been given the last name "Bland" because it was the last name of her mother, Jana Bland. Attached...