Columbia v. Lawton
193 Vt. 165
| Vt. | 2013Background
- J.B. was born July 2008; Orleans Family Division entered a 2010 parentage order naming Buffy Lawton and Joshua Bacon as legal parents of J.B. and another child, based on stipulation with no genetic testing evidence other than the stipulation; June 16, 2010 order found them living together as an intact family.
- Bradley Columbia filed a putative parentage action Aug. 4, 2010 seeking genetic testing to prove paternity and acknowledged no contact with the child or birth-related evidence beyond possible genetic link.
- The court required John Bacon to be joined as a necessary party; at a 2011 hearing, mother urged the matter to end, and Columbia offered no evidence beyond possible paternity.
- The family court denied genetic testing, dismissed the action, and held that 15 V.S.A. § 302(a) barred a second parentage action after a previous parentage determination; it exempted the parties from genetic testing under § 304.
- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that § 302(a) bars second parentage actions absent a constitutional overlay or exception, and concluded Columbia lacked constitutionally protected parental rights.
- The court recognized potential distinct constitutional considerations for a child and discussed possible relief avenues (e.g., Rule 60(b)) but left unresolved whether non-parties could pursue relief outside statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §302(a) bar a second parentage action after an existing parentage order? | Columbia contends the statute should not bar potentially independent paternal claims. | Lawton/Bacon argue §302(a) prohibits relitigating parentage for the same child once adjudicated. | Yes; §302(a) precludes a new parentage action when parentage has been previously determined. |
| Does the statutory bar violate due process for a putative father? | Columbia asserts the bar infringes due process rights as a biological father. | State asserts statutory finality serves child/family interests; no constitutionally protected right overrides the bar. | No; absent a constitutional overlay, the bar is consistent with due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Godin v. Godin, 168 Vt. 514, 725 A.2d 904 (1998) (finality of paternity adjudications; conclusive where no special circumstances shown)
- Jones v. Murphy, 172 Vt. 86, 772 A.2d 502 (2001) (conflicting judgments; requires single case flow to adjudicate parentage)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983) (biological link not sufficient; focus on commitment to parenthood)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental rights are fundamental; requires hearing on fitness before termination)
- In re C.L., 2005 VT 34, 178 Vt. 558, 878 A.2d 207 (2005) (prompt action in establishing parental relationships; context for biology vs. relationship)