State of Fla., Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services on Behalf of Petit v. Breeden, 72626
| Decision Date | 11 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 72626,72626 |
| Parties | STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HRS on Behalf of Valarie J. PETIT, Appellee, v. Steven BREEDEN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The purpose of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, K.S.A. 23-451 et seq., is to improve and extend the enforcement of duties of support by reciprocal legislation.
2. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act contemplates the enforcement of support obligations, even where the duty of support has not yet been judicially established because paternity remains unascertained.
3. The provisions of K.S.A. 23-476 permit the adjudication of paternity in an action initiated under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.
4. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act provides neither the procedure nor the substantive law to determine paternity but is merely a procedural vehicle to enforce support rights secured under other provisions of state law.
5. The absence of a specific procedural or substantive requirement in the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act does not mean that such a requirement will not be imposed by the state paternity statute. Jurisdictional requirements of a responding state's paternity statute must be satisfied in an action initiated under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.
6. Kansas law governing child support forms the procedural and substantive vehicle for determining whether there is any obligation to be enforced through a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act proceeding.
7. Under the applicable rules of construction, it is held that the Kansas Parentage Act governs paternity proceedings authorized by the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.
8. The Kansas Legislature intended that an agency of another state with an assignment of support rights similar to that which would permit the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to bring a paternity action may bring a paternity action as well in a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act action.
9. In an action to establish an order for support of a child, failure to join any person as a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine whether a party to the action has a duty to support the child and, if so, to enter an order for support. K.S.A. 38-1117(b).
10. A statute which makes a purely procedural change in law will be applied to cases pending at the time of the change.
11. The legislature may deprive a party of technical defenses involving no substantive equities. Acts affecting the jurisdiction of courts relate to a matter of remedy only and are therefore valid, even though they are made to operate on existing and pending causes of action.
12. The rule established in State ex rel. Secretary of SRS v. Stephens, 13 Kan.App.2d 715, 782 P.2d 68 (1989), that the trial court lacks jurisdiction in a paternity action brought by the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services unless the child, the mother, the presumed father, and the alleged father are made parties to the action, was overturned by legislative amendments to K.S.A. 38-1117, effective July 1, 1994, as to pending and future cases.
13. The mere filing of a paternity action does not automatically imply that the action is in the child's best interests.
14. Once the judge, in the interest of judicial economy, ruptures the father/child relationship, the judge cannot return the parties to the position they were in prior to the blood test, no matter how wise or great his or her judicial power.
15. The Kansas Parentage Act requires courts to act in the best interests of the child when imposing legal obligations or conferring legal rights on the mother/child or father/child relationship.
16. A trial court is required to have a hearing as required by In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 783 P.2d 331 (1989), before ordering a blood test in a paternity proceeding pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1115(b).
17. Where a K.S.A. 38-1115(b) paternity proceeding is initiated through an interstate support enforcement mechanism and the child resides in another state, the trial court should await a determination from the court of the initiating state that a blood test establishing paternity is in the best interests of the child before making its determination of paternity.
Donna J. Long, of Vernon, Retter & Long, Concordia, for appellant.
J. Scott Thompson, of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Topeka, for appellee.
Before RULON, P.J., LARSON, J., and TOM MALONE, District Judge, Assigned.
This case arises from an action brought by the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (FHRS) for child support enforcement under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) against Steven Breeden, a Kansas resident. After determining that Breeden was the child's father, the trial court entered a support order against him. Breeden appeals.
FHRS and Valarie J. Petit filed a petition in the circuit court of Bay County, Florida, against Breeden under URESA seeking support for F.E.P., born May 23, 1988. The petition was forwarded to Kansas and filed in October 1993 in the county of Breeden's residence. The petition sought the establishment of Breeden's paternity of F.E.P., a child support order, reimbursement of public assistance, an income withholding order, and other monetary relief. According to the petition, Valarie J. Petit has made an assignment of her rights to FHRS.
The petition alleges Breeden is the father of Valarie's child, F.E.P. Breeden and Petit were never married. At the time of F.E.P.'s birth, Valarie Petit was married to Patrick Petit, who is the child's presumed father under Kansas law. The URESA petition included a paternity affidavit of Valarie alleging that F.E.P. resembles Breeden and that she did not have sexual intercourse with any man other than Breeden during the time 30 days before and 30 days after F.E.P. was conceived. According to the affidavit, Valarie Petit married Patrick Petit when she was two months pregnant. Breeden is not named on the birth certificate. There is no indication in the record where Patrick Petit resides.
In December 1993, the trial court held a hearing at which a Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) staff attorney represented the plaintiff and Breeden appeared without representation. The trial court ordered a blood test to determine the paternity of F.E.P. In May 1994, Breeden's attorney filed a "Motion for Best Interests of the Child Hearing." The motion contended that In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 783 P.2d 331 (1989), required an evidentiary hearing to determine whether establishing paternity is in the best interests of the child and prohibited considering the results of a blood test until such a determination was made. Breeden also argued the trial court was without jurisdiction to determine F.E.P.'s paternity without joining the presumed father as a party. See State ex rel. Secretary of SRS v. Stephens, 13 Kan.App.2d 715, 717, 782 P.2d 68 (1989).
The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem for F.E.P. and scheduled a hearing to determine whether a best interests of the child hearing was required and to resolve other pretrial issues.
At a hearing in July 1994, the guardian ad litem agreed with Breeden that a Ross hearing was necessary before determining paternity and that the presumed father needed to be a party to the action in order for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction, and argued Kansas was an inconvenient forum. The trial court ruled the Kansas determination of paternity had no res judicata effect between the mother and the presumed father and that no hearing was required to assess the best interests of the child. The trial court found that Breeden was F.E.P.'s father and ordered child support, AFDC reimbursement to FHRS, and income withholding.
Breeden's appeal questions the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and its conclusion that no best interests of the child hearing was required prior to establishing paternity for child support purposes.
Do the provisions of the Kansas Parentage Act apply to paternity determinations authorized under URESA?
The purpose of the URESA is to improve and extend the enforcement of duties of support by reciprocal legislation. Thompson v. Kite, 214 Kan. 700, 703, 522 P.2d 327 (1974).
URESA contemplates the enforcement of support obligations, even where the duty of support has not yet been judicially established because paternity remains unascertained. K.S.A. 23-476 permits the adjudication of the paternity issue in an action initiated under URESA when it states:
Both of Breeden's arguments are founded on the same basic premise, that the substantive and procedural requirements of the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA), K.S.A. 38-1110 et seq., apply to determinations of paternity in Kansas initiated under URESA. These are questions of first impression in our state.
Although URESA itself does not explicitly contemplate a best interests of the child test or notice to presumed fathers, 2 Schatkin, Disputed Paternity Proceedings § 31.10 (4th ed. 1988) has stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryco Packaging Corp. of Kansas v. Chapelle Intern., Ltd.
... ... Sutherland, Jr., signed both addenda on behalf of Chapelle ... In May 1994, ... The guarantors rely on State ex rel. Ludwick v. Bryant, 237 Kan. 47, 697 P.2d ... in the business of providing day care services. The corporation stopped operations in August ... Florida Dept. of HRS v. Breeden, 21 Kan.App.2d 490, 500, 901 ... ...
-
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Com'n
... ... formerly received from long distance services, i.e., a "revenue neutral" transition. There was ... supervise every public utility within the state in accordance with the provisions of this act." ... , 399 P.2d 583, 585 (Wyo.1965); State of Fla., Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services on Behalf of Petit v. Breeden, 21 Kan.App.2d 490, 901 P.2d ... ...
-
State v. Brooker, 82,503.
... ... In Florida Dept. of HRS v. Breeden, 21 Kan. App.2d 490, 499-500, ... ...
-
Anderson v. Richard
... ... Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services, 296 Kan. 906, 935, 296 P.3d 1106 (2013). An ... State ex rel. Secretary of SRS v. Stephens, 13 ... regarding child support actions by Florida Dept. of HRS v. Breeden, 21 Kan.App.2d 490, 901 P.2d ... )(2) states that [a] child or any person on behalf of such a child, may bring an action at any time ... ...
-
A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act
...22 Kan. App. 2d 941, 925 P.2d 447 (1996); State of Fla. v. Dep't. of Health and Rehabilitative Svcs. on Behalf of Petit v. Breeden, 21 Kan. App. 2d 490, 901 P.2d 1357 (1995); In re the J.H.G., 254 Kan. 780, 869 P.2d 640 (1994); In re H.D., 11 Kan. App. 2d 531, 729 P.2d 1234 (1986); In re Ba......
-
Challenging the Presumption of Paternity
...of the relationship become evident." 245 Kan. at 601, 783 P.2d at 338 (citations omitted). [FN22]. K.S.A. 23-9,701(b) (1995). [FN23]. 21 Kan. App. 2d 490, 901 P.2d 1357 (1995). [FN24]. 21 Kan. App. 2d at 496, 901 P.2d at 1363. [FN25]. 21 Kan. App. 2d at 503, 901 P.2d at 1366-67.. [FN26]. 25......