Texas Dept. of Human Resources v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 28 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 19558,19558
• Citation: 570 S.W.2d 46
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Appellant, v. Ricky L. CHAPMAN, Appellee.

Page 46

570 S.W.2d 46

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Appellant, v. Ricky L. CHAPMAN, Appellee.

No. 19558.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

June 28, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 18, 1978.

Steven A. Smith, State Dept. of Public Welfare, Dallas, for appellant.

Gerald W. Livingston, Bean, Francis, Ford & Wills, Dallas, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Justice.

The Texas Department of Human Resources sued Ricky L. Chapman under the provisions of Section 13.01 Et seq. of the Texas Family Code to establish a parent-child relationship between Chapman and an illegitimate child. The department brought the action under an assignment from the child's mother. Chapman filed a plea in bar asserting that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Section 13.01 of the Texas Family Code, which provides that a suit to establish the parent-child relationship between an illegitimate child and the alleged natural parent must be brought within one year from the birth of the child. The trial court sustained the plea and dismissed the cause. We affirm.

The initial question on this appeal is whether the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Section 13.01 of the Family Code ¹ invidiously discriminates between illegitimate children so as to deny them equal protection of the law. If we conclude that it does not, we must then decide whether the statute denies illegitimate children due process of law. ²

Equal Protection

The Department first argues that Section 13.01 invidiously discriminates against illegitimates and thereby denies them equal protection of the law. Before deciding this question, we must first determine the applicable standard of constitutional review. Although the Department urges that classifications based on illegitimacy are "suspect" and must be subjected to " strict scrutiny," we cannot apply that standard. In Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976), the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that illegitimacy is a "suspect" classification. According to the court, such classifications are "in the realm of less than strict scrutiny." Thus, the pertinent analytical approach is whether the statute bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. Mathews v. Lucas, supra, at 505-510, 96 S.Ct. 2755.

With the proper perspective established, we next consider the case of Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 93 S.Ct. 872, 35 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973), which forms the foundation of the Department's constitutional attack. In Gomez, the supreme court invalidated a Texas statute which granted support rights to legitimate children but denied that right to illegitimates. The court concluded that the statute violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, stating:

(O)nce a State posits a judicially enforceable right on behalf of children to needed support from their natural fathers, there is no constitutionally sufficient justification for denying such an essential right to a child simply because its natural father has not married its mother. (409 U.S. at 538, 93 S.Ct. at 875)

As this language indicates, a state may not Absolutely foreclose the right of an illegitimate child to receive support from the natural father. Indeed, the court recognized the narrowness of its holding in Gomez by stating:

We recognize the lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity. Those problems are not to be brushed lightly aside, but neither can they be made into an Impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination. (409 U.S. at 538, 93 S.Ct. at 875) (Emphasis added)

In the present case, however, the challenged statute is not an "impenetrable barrier" to an illegitimate child's right to support. The statute does not Prohibit a suit for support; rather, the statute simply sets forth a time period within which the suit must be brought. As a matter of constitutional law, statute of limitations relate to remedies, and do not destroy fundamental rights. Cathey v. Weaver, 193 S.W. 490 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1917), Aff'd 111 Tex. 515, 242 S.W. 447 (1917); Lucia v. United States, 474 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1973). Accordingly, we conclude that the present case is not controlled by Gomez, and that our ultimate decision must be based upon whether this limitation on the remedy afforded an illegitimate child is constitutionally deficient.

It cannot be denied that proof of paternity places a burden upon illegitimates which is not shared by legitimate children; however, such a proof requirement is an unavoidable and indispensable element of the child's claim for support. See Krause, Illegitimacy: Law and Social Policy 82 (1971); Note, Illegitimacy and Equal Protection, 49 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 479, 511 (1974). Legitimate and illegitimate children are not similarly situated classes. Illegitimate children are fundamentally different from legitimate offspring, for at birth, they have no legal relationship to their natural father. Therefore, it is not only reasonable but Essential that the state require proof of paternity as a condition of asserting an otherwise equal support right. Cessna v. Montgomery, 63 Ill.2d 71, 344 N.E.2d 447 (1976); Krupke v. Witkowski, 256 N.W.2d 216 (Iowa 1977). The question presented here is whether a requirement that this proof be made within one year from the birth of the child is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. We conclude that it is. No supreme court case has held that illegitimates must be given an unrestricted right throughout their minority to bring a paternity suit. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims. The purpose of statutes of limitation is to compel exercise of rights within a reasonable time, so as to afford the opposing party a fair opportunity to defend while the evidence is readily available. Price v. Anderson's Estate, 522 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.1975); Gaddis v. Smith, 417 S.W.2d 577 (Tex.1967). It may be that the legislature has concluded that the longer the period between birth and suit, the greater the danger of fraud. At the very least, the defendant's problems of proof are substantially increased with the passage of time. It has long been held that the legislature, not the courts, is entrusted with the responsibility of considering the public interest of this state regarding limitation of actions. See Williams v. Reed, 160 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1942, writ ref'd); Bean v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 221 S.W. 634 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1920, writ ref'd). With respect to paternity actions, the legislative discretion is not subject to judicial review unless the prescribed period is so short as to be tantamount to the "impenetrable barrier" proscribed in Gomez. See Cessna v. Montgomery, supra; Krupke v. Witkowski, supra. A one-year limitation is not insurmountably brief, and although the forfeited right is important, this court is not empowered to invalidate legislative enactments based on our own policy concepts of what a reasonable time would be.

In view of the legitimate...