Still v. Hayman

• Decision Date: 30 July 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02 JE 27.,02 JE 27.
• Citation: 794 NE 2d 751,153 Ohio App.3d 487
• Parties: STILL, Appellee, v. HAYMAN; Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Agency, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

153 Ohio App.3d 487

2003-Ohio-4113

794 NE 2d 751

2003-Ohio-4113

STILL, Appellee, v. HAYMAN; Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Agency, Appellant.

No. 02 JE 27.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Jefferson County.

Decided July 30, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John Mascio Jr., for appellee.

M. Catherine Savage Dylewski, for appellant.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

VUKOVICH, Judge.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Agency ("CSEA") appeals from the judgment of the Jefferson County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division. The trial court held that the doctrine of laches barred CSEA from establishing paternity and seeking child support and reimbursement for ADC benefits from plaintiff-appellee Clyde Still Jr. This court is asked to determine whether the doctrine of laches bars the establishment of parentage and an order for reimbursement for ADC monies paid by CSEA. For the reasons stated below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS

{¶ 2} In 1984, Melissa Hayman and Still had a one-time sexual encounter resulting in Hayman becoming pregnant. Hayman was approximately 15 years old and Still was approximately 13 years old. During Hayman's pregnancy, Still approached her and questioned her about whether he was the father of the child. Hayman informed Still that the father was a man she had met in Arizona on vacation. None of Hayman's family, with whom Still was friends, ever indicated that he was the father. On March 3, 1985, Hayman gave birth to Amber, which would later be proven to be Still's daughter.

{¶ 3} In 1987, a couple years after Amber's birth, Hayman began receiving public assistance benefits for the minor child through the Jefferson County Department of Human Services and has continued to receive public assistance benefits on and off since that time. Before receiving public assistance benefits, Hayman was required to name the father of the minor child so that paternity and an order of support could be established. Hayman, knowing that Still was Amber's father, lied to the Department of Human Services and informed the agency that Amber's father was a man by the name of Jeff Mills and that she knew no other information about him besides his name. It is unclear what actions were taken to locate the fictitious Mills.

{¶ 4} In August 2000, when Amber was 15/6, Still was told by Amber that he was her father, and in October 2000, Hayman informed CSEA that Still, not Mills, was Amber's father. Hayman told CSEA that at the time she began receiving assistance, she did not want to get into trouble, so she just picked a name for the father. Hayman further stated that she had not previously truthfully disclosed the identity of Amber's father because Still had raped her.

{¶ 5} Due to this information, genetic testing was conducted on November 14, 2000. The results indicated that there was a 99.98 percent probability that Still was Amber's biological father. In December 2000, CSEA issued an administrative order establishing a parent-child relationship between Still and the minor child. Still filed a parentage complaint against Hayman requesting that the trial court bar the establishment of a parent-child relationship based on the doctrine of laches. CSEA requested to be named as a party to the action. CSEA and Hayman both then asked the court to appoint Hayman counsel. The court granted CSEA's request to be made a party but denied the request that Hayman be appointed counsel.

{¶ 6} The case proceeded to a hearing, but before the hearing began, CSEA requested that Amber be named as a party to the action and either an attorney or a guardian ad litem be appointed to represent her interests. The court considered the request but never made a ruling on the issue. The hearing proceeded with testimony from Still and Donna Anderson, a CSEA investigator. The court held that the doctrine of laches barred the mother's attempt to establish paternity and collect child support and since CSEA's rights are derived and assigned from the mother, the doctrine of laches bars CSEA's rights. CSEA timely appeals raising three assignments of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. ONE

{¶ 7} "The trial court erred in applying the doctrine of laches."

{¶ 8} "Laches is an omission to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party." Connin v. Bailey (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 34, 35, 15 OBR 134, 472 N.E.2d 328, quoting Smith v. Smith (1957), 107 Ohio App. 440, 443, 8 O.O.2d 424, 146 N.E.2d 454. Laches is predominantly a question of fact to be resolved according to the circumstances of each individual case and, as such, is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bitonte v. Tiffin Sav. Bank (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 734, 739, 585 N.E.2d 460. Therefore, we must examine whether the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable and not merely an error of judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 5 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140.

{¶ 9} The trial court held that the doctrine of laches barred Hayman from establishing paternity and collecting child support from Still. It further found that CSEA's rights are derived from Hayman and "the doctrine of Laches applies and that the Plaintiff, Clyde Still Jr., does not owe a duty of support for the child, Amber Hayman, a child born on March 3, 1985, because he has materially been deprived of his parental right in raising his daughter and in having visitation and other contact with the child." Therefore, according to the trial court, if Hayman is barred from establishing paternity and a support order, so is CSEA, since only CSEA has the rights Hayman assigned to it.

{¶ 10} CSEA argues that the trial court's holding is incorrect. CSEA contends that laches is not a viable defense against any state agency. Furthermore, CSEA insists that the elements necessary to establish the doctrine of laches have not been met.

{¶ 11} First, we will address the argument that laches cannot be imputed against the state. It is true that generally laches will not apply against the state when such an action is contrary to an ascertainable public interest. Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Frantz (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 143, 146, 555 N.E.2d 630. The rationale behind this rule is one of public policy; the public should not suffer due to the inaction of public officials. Campbell v. Campbell (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 48, 50, 621 N.E.2d 853, citing 28 American Jurisprudence 2d (1966) 782, 787, Estoppel and Waiver, Sections 122 and 124. Despite this rationale, the imposition of an absolute bar to the availability of laches as a legal defense against the state has never been held by the Ohio Supreme Court. Adams Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Osborne (May 3, 1996), 4th Dist. No. 95CA592, 1996 WL 230038 (stating that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find that the doctrine of laches bars CSEA from seeking child support under certain facts). Instead, it has been held that laches is not applicable under the specific facts of a case. Id., citing Athens Cty. Prop. Owners Assn. v. Athens (Aug. 26, 1992), 4th Dist. No. 1482, 1992 WL 209497. For example, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that laches may be applicable in parentage actions but only if material prejudice is shown. Wright v. Oliver (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 10,12, 517 N.E.2d 883 (holding that material prejudice was not present under the facts; however, an agency of the state was not a party to the action). Furthermore, the Fourth Appellate District has held that laches bars CSEA from establishing a reimbursement order for ADC monies paid when CSEA is the actual cause of the delay and prejudice. Adams, 4th Dist. No. 95CA592 (stating the mother informed CSEA that the child's father was one of three men, which included appellant; however, CSEA waited 14 years before proceeding to name appellant as the father and seek a reimbursement and child support order). From the foregoing, we conclude that there is no absolute prohibition against applying the doctrine of laches against the state. Instead, the use of the doctrine against the state is disfavored but will be applied when general public-policy interests against the application of the doctrine of laches are outweighed by other public-policy interests served by applying the doctrine and when the elements of laches are met.

{¶ 12} In accordance with that view, we must determine whether, in the case at hand, laches is applicable against CSEA in the establishment of paternity. A strong public policy exists that it is in the child's interest that a parent-child relationship be formed. Liptay v. Feruski (Jan. 13, 1994), 8th Dist. No. 64557, 1994 WL 11323. See Crago v. Kinzie (2000), 106 Ohio Misc.2d 51, 69, 733 N.E.2d 1219 (discussing disestablishment of paternity, the court stated that "it is inequitable and against public policy for a child who is a citizen of Ohio to be subjected to becoming filius nullius or `no one's son'"). Moreover, public policy dictates that a parent is responsible to provide for the health, maintenance, welfare, and well-being of his child. Lewis v. Chapin (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 695, 702, 639 N.E.2d 848 (stating that it is a principle of natural law that a parent is responsible for the well-being of his child). In accordance with these public policies, it can be concluded that Ohio favors the establishment of a parent-child relationship when it is possible. Prior to the child turning the age of majority, a parent-child relationship can be established through court-ordered visitation. See State ex rel. Donovan v. Zajac (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 245, 251, 708 N.E.2d 254 (stating no prejudice results by not having a relationship with the child when visitation could have been ordered). Accordingly, the public-policy interest of establishing a parent-child relationship when...