Scheland v. Chilldres, 92-1306
| Decision Date | 10 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1306,92-1306 |
| Parties | Patricia SCHELAND and Tom Scheland, Appellants, v. David Leslie CHILLDRES, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
R. Ted Vandagriff, Art Givens, Sherwood, for appellants.
Milas H. Hale, No. Little Rock, for appellee.
This appeal comes to us from a second order mandating that the parties and infant child undergo blood tests to establish paternity of the child. We dismiss the appeal due to the absence of an appealable order.
On December 4, 1991, appellee David Leslie Chilldres filed a Complaint to Establish Paternity in Pulaski County Chancery Court. He alleged that from March 19 to mid-April, 1991, he and the defendant, appellant Patricia Scheland, were actively dating though Mrs. Scheland was married at the time, and that Mrs. Scheland had become pregnant with his child, which was estimated to be due in the January 15, 1992 time frame. Chilldres stated that Mrs. Scheland had acknowledged his paternity to several persons. Chilldres subsequently joined Mrs. Scheland's husband of nineteen years, Tom Scheland, as a party defendant.
Chilldres sought to be declared the father of the child and requested that he be given visitation rights and allowed to support the child and pay part of the birth expenses. The child was born on January 6, 1992.
In a counterclaim filed on February 3, 1992, Mrs. Scheland prayed that in the event that Chilldres's allegations were proved, she be paid $26,109.92 for prenatal care and laying-in expenses, $5,584 in lost wages, and child support in an amount to be set by the court. She also prayed, irrespective of the paternity determination, that she be awarded $13,282.50 for psychiatric-psychological treatment and damages for future physical pain, suffering, and medical treatment resulting from Chilldres's mental abuse as well as $100,000 in punitive damages.
Mrs. Scheland filed an answer to Chilldres's complaint, also on February 3, 1992, denying Chilldres's allegations and asserting that under the common law the husband of a married woman is presumed to be the father of all children of the married woman and that it would be contrary to public policy to permit Chilldres to interfere with the Schelands' marital relationship. In an amended answer filed on June 5, 1992, the Schelands objected to Chilldres's efforts "to illegitimize their child that was conceived in wedlock and born in wedlock."
Following a hearing, the chancellor ordered that blood tests be performed on Chilldres, the Schelands, and the infant child to assist in deciding paternity under her authority set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Villines Iii et al v Harris
...standing alone, is an insufficient basis for this court to accept jurisdiction of an interlocutory appeal. Scheland v. Chilldres, 313 Ark. 165, 167, 852 S.W.2d 791, 792 (1993). Here, Harris suggests that appellees' conduct rises to the level of an "illegal exaction" in a manner never before......
-
Jones v. Trojak
...Michael T., 524 Pa. 306, 571 A.2d 1380, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 850, 111 S.Ct. 140, 112 L.Ed.2d 107 (1990).5 E.g., Scheland v. Childress, 313 Ark. 165, 852 S.W.2d 791 (1993); State v. Marut, 63 Ohio App.3d 487, 579 N.E.2d 281, appeal dismissed, 45 Ohio St.3d 711, 545 N.E.2d 910 (1989); Heavn......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Harper
...be involved is not sufficient in itself for the appellate court to accept jurisdiction of an interlocutory appeal. Scheland v. Chilldres, 313 Ark. 165, 852 S.W.2d 791 (1993). We have made an exception to the Rule 2 requirement that the order be final in cases where the interlocutory order, ......
-
Doe v. Union Pacific R. Co., 95-682
...effect of a final ruling on the merits of the case. That is not the situation here. This case is more analogous to Scheland v. Chilldres, 313 Ark. 165, 852 S.W.2d 791 (1993), in which the trial court rendered a decision on an important issue but did not, from a practical standpoint, conclud......