Matthews v. Dukes
314 Ga. App. 782
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Matthews, married to his wife until separated, had ongoing affair with the wife beginning in 2003 with Matthews married to someone else.
- The wife became pregnant in 2005 and suspected Matthews as the father; the husband was told the affair had ended.
- DNA testing (via secret test under false names) showed Matthews was the biological father, but no paternity steps were taken at that time.
- Matthews visited the child and provided cash and clothes over several years, without formal acknowledgement or legitimation; the couple maintained a long-running adulterous affair.
- In 2010 the husband discovered Matthews’ ongoing contact and the affair; Matthews filed to legitimize the child in 2011 after visits ceased and the marriage persisted.
- The trial court denied Matthews’ legitimation petition, ordered a no-contact provision, and ordered Matthews to pay child support; Matthews and the wife appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether legitimation was properly denied under OCGA 19-7-22. | Matthews contends he retained an opportunity interest to legitimate. | Dukes argues Matthews abandoned his opportunity interest. | Denied; trial court appropriately found abandonment and no best-interest support. |
| Whether the no-contact order was proper to protect the child and family. | Matthews argues no basis to restrict contact. | Court required protections due to abuse of relationship. | Affirmed; no-contact order upheld with written permission mechanism. |
| Whether Matthews may be required to pay child support after legitimation denial. | Matthews asserts no support obligation without legitimation. | Husband argues support should be paid for the child. | Reversed; no support obligation where legitimation denied and no legal father established. |
| Whether the case should have been transferred to juvenile court or treated as paternity/legitimation in context of existing marriage. | Not explicitly stated as error; Matthews sought to challenge legitimacy. | Paternity/legitimation actions are not juvenile termination actions. | No transfer; case remains under paternity/legitimation framework. |
| Whether public policy and presumption of legitimacy barred the attempted deligitimation in this context. | Presumption of legitimacy should permit challenge. | Fraud and adulterous conduct justify defeating establishment of paternity. | Court applied Baker and related authorities; preserved presumption with best-interests analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Morris, 309 Ga.App. 387 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (abandonment factors; abuse of opportunity interest standard)
- Baker v. Baker, 276 Ga. 778 (Ga. 2003) (presumption of legitimacy; strong public policy favoring marriage)
- Davis v. LaBrec, 274 Ga.5 (Ga. 2001) (abandonment analysis in legitimation context)
- Ghrist v. Fricks, 219 Ga.App. 415 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (presumption of legitimacy and related public policy)
- In re Baby Girl Eason, 257 Ga. 292 (Ga. 1987) (opportunity interest in unwed father vs. third-party challenges)
- Patterson v. Whitehead, 224 Ga.App. 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997) (fraudulent conduct affecting paternity; status of legal father)