Johannesen v. Pfeiffer

Decision Date23 June 1978
Citation387 A.2d 1113
PartiesJohn H. JOHANNESEN v. Colleen PFEIFFER.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Anthony & Howison by Cushman D. Anthony (orally), Portland, for plaintiff.

Glassman & Potter by Caroline Glassman (orally), Roderick H. Potter, Portland, for defendant.

Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, DELAHANTY and GODFREY, JJ.

GODFREY, Justice.

On May 28, 1975, appellant Johannesen began this action in Superior Court to establish that he is the father of a child born to Colleen Pfeiffer on March 2, 1975. By his amended complaint, he brought the action in his own name and as next friend of the infant child, alleging that he was the father and defendant the mother of the child, and that defendant has refused to acknowledge his paternity or permit him any right to see the child or "share in its parenting." He prayed for an adjudication of his own paternity of the child, visitation rights, custody, support for the child from the mother, and appointment of a guardian ad litem for the child. Appellee moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P. for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P alleging that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that appellee was entitled to dismissal of the complaint as a matter of law. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint.

The Superior Court order seems to have been based on a construction of the Maine statute governing paternity suits. Maine has adopted the Uniform Act on Paternity, 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 271-287 (Supp. 1977-78). The first sentence of section 272 of title 19 provides:

"Paternity may be determined upon the complaint of the mother, child or the public authority chargeable by law with the support of the child."

Since the statute includes no provision in terms that a person claiming to be the father of a child may sue to establish paternity, the Superior Court may have considered that appellant lacked standing to bring the present suit.

We believe that the court erred in dismissing the complaint. Since the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, we examine the complaint to determine whether it sets forth facts entitling appellant to relief on any theory.

As noted above, the complaint sought a declaration of paternity as well as certain relief that appellant alleged could result from such a declaration. In 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 5951-5963 (1964), Maine adopted the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. Section 5953 provides, in part

"Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. . . ."

Under Maine law, appellant has at least one right which would be enhanced by a declaration of paternity. The father of a child born out of wedlock has the right to inherit from the child if the father acknowledges paternity before a justice of the peace or notary. 18 M.R.S.A. § 1003 (1964). To protect that right, the father may seek a present declaration of his status as father of the child while evidence is available to support that conclusion.

One section of the Maine adoption statutes provides an opportunity for a putative father to establish paternity and, under certain conditions, contest adoption and assert custody rights. 19 M.R.S.A. § 532-C (Supp. 1977-78). The statute applies in terms only when the mother sets about to consent to an adoption. To protect any rights he may have under that statute, a putative father should be permitted to have his status as parent established while evidence of his paternity is still available even though the mother has not yet begun adoption proceedings. Appellant thus had standing to seek a declaratory judgment of paternity to protect any rights he may have under the inheritance laws or the laws relating to adoption of illegitimates.

We need not decide at this point what other rights with respect to the child appellant would be entitled to assert if he established paternity. It is now clear that unwed fathers have important interests in their offspring that are entitled to constitutional protection. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). The Stanley decision and subsequent cases suggest that a putative father has a constitutional right to a forum to establish paternity. In re Lisa R., 13 Cal.3d 636, 119 Cal.Rptr. 475, 532 P.2d 123, cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1014, 95 S.Ct....

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Happel v. Mecklenburger
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 8, 1981
    ...(1978-79).3 See "Who May Dispute Presumption of Legitimacy of Child Conceived or Born During Wedlock," 90 A.L.R.3d 1032.Johannesen v. Pfeiffer (Maine 1978), 387 A.2d 1113, putative father had right to seek declaration of paternity to protect any rights he may have under the inheritance laws......
  • Sullivan v. McGaw
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 28, 1985
    ...and is in accord with decisions from other jurisdictions. See Kendrick v. Everheart (Fla.1980), 390 So.2d 53, 57-61; Johannesen v. Pfeiffer (Me.1978), 387 A.2d 1113; In re Mengel (1981), 287 Pa.Super. 186, 429 A.2d 1162, 1164-67; Slawek v. Stroh (1974), 62 Wis. 295, 215 N.W.2d 9, In respons......
  • Kendrick v. Everheart
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1980
    ...See Willmott v. Decker, 56 Hawii 462, 541 P.2d 13 (1975); A. B. v. C. D., 150 Ind.App. 535, 277 N.E.2d 599 (1971); Johannesen v. Pfeiffer, 387 A.2d 1113 (Me.1978); Dawson v. Eversberg, 257 Md. 308, 262 A.2d 729 (1970); Crane v. Battle, 62 Misc.2d 137, 307 N.Y.S.2d 355 (Fam.Ct.1970); Slawek ......
  • White v. Mertens, 85-627
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1987
    ...Ill.App.3d 969, 62 Ill.Dec. 605, 436 N.E.2d 631 (1982); A.--B.-- v. C.--D.--, 150 Ind.App. 535, 277 N.E.2d 599 (1971); Johannesen v. Pfeiffer, 387 A.2d 1113 (Me.1978); K.D.R. v. D.E.S., 637 S.W.2d 691 (Mo.1982); L.M.K. v. D.E.K., 685 S.W.2d 614 (Mo.App.1985); Brauch v. Shaw, 121 N.H. 562, 4......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT