Posted on : February 14, 2017, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Time Limit to Establish Paternity in Arizona
An Arizona statute, A.R.S. § 12-631, sets a one-year period that an unmarried woman can bring a paternity suit against a putative father. Does this limitations statute apply to paternity actions brought under other state laws? In State v. Christensen, 508 P. 2d 366 (1973) the Arizona Court of Appeals discussed this issue.
Facts of the Case
The State of Arizona brought a paternity action against Mr. Christensen on behalf of a mother of a child born out of wedlock. He was found by the jury to be the father of the child. He brought this appeal.
Statute of Limitations
Mr. Christensen argues that the paternity action was time-barred. He claims that it had to be brought within a year after it accrued. Instead, he claims, it was brought more than two years after it accrued.
A.R.S. § 12-541 provides: “There shall be commenced and prosecuted within one year after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions: … 3. Upon a liability created by statute….”
Time Frame for Establishing Paternity in Arizona.
Mr. Christensen argues that the mother’s paternity action accrued with the birth of the child. Therefore, he claims, any paternity action could not be prosecuted more than one year from that date.
Arizona statutes regarding support for children born out of wedlock are overlapping and complex.
• There is the legislative determination, embodied in A.R.S. § 14-206, that “every child is the legitimate child of its natural parents and is entitled to support and education as if born in lawful wedlock….”
• There is A.R.S. § 12-631 which provides that an action may be initiated by the mother of a child born out of lawful wedlock against the alleged natural father to establish paternity. Action must be brought within one year after the birth of the child. This action is expressly declared cumulative to the remedies provided by other statutes.
• Under A.R.S. § 12-841 et seq., the mother can bring an action prosecuted in the name of the State for paternity and, in the event the defendant is found “guilty,” he is adjudged the father of the child and charged with its maintenance until it attains the age of majority
• Under A.R.S. § 12-850, the State may initiate an action on its complaint if the child is or is likely to become a public charge.
In the case of State v. Nerini, 151 P.2d 983 (1944) the Arizona Supreme Court determined that the one-year statute of limitation did not apply to an action under A.R.S. § 12-841 since the remedies under the two statutes were cumulative.
The policy enunciated in Nerini was that a father’s duty to support his child, legitimate or illegitimate, has no time bar. Mr. Christensen argues on appeal that the obligation to support a child has no time bar. However, he claims, an action to determine paternity must be brought within one year after the birth.
The Court held that the issues of paternity and child support are inextricably bound together in a proceeding under A.R.S. § 12-841.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the legislature never intended to impose a time limit on an action for paternity and child support. The Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations in A.R.S. § 12-541 doesn’t apply to a paternity action under A.R.S. § 12-841 et seq.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Hildebrand Law was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
At the beginning of the trial, the judge instructed the witnesses to remain outside the courtroom until called to testify. He also told them not to discuss their testimony with anyone other than the attorneys.
However, the mother’s sister, her corroborating witness, called her uncle just before testifying. She wanted to clarify the date of her uncle’s wedding. It was relevant to fixing the time the mother became pregnant.
After completing the call, the sister testified about the uncle’s wedding. The fact that she had violated the exclusionary rule came to the court’s attention. The court held that the conduct was contrary to the instructions of the Court and inappropriate. However, it allowed the testimony to stand.
Time Limit to Establish Paternity in Arizona.
The Court of Appeal noted that administration of the exclusionary rule was left to the discretion of the trial judge. A ruling admitting testimony will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion and prejudice.
The Court also noted that the mother’s testimony was substantially identical before and after the telephone call. The only possible taint on the witnesses’ testimony related to the exact date of the uncle’s wedding.
The State, here, was required to prove that an act of intercourse occurred when conception was possible. It was not required to prove the particular date on which the mother became pregnant. The jury was fully aware of the telephone call. The judge instructed them to consider the motive, interest, bias or prejudice of the witnesses in determining the weight to be accorded their testimony.