167 So. 3d 573
La.2015Background
- Melissa Lowrie had two children during her marriage to Thomas Lowrie; the younger child’s paternity was disavowed but the older child A.L. remained legally presumed to be Thomas Lowrie’s child.
- DCFS (through the Jefferson Parish DA) filed a child support enforcement action against Thomas Lowrie for A.L.
- Thomas Lowrie moved to join Stephen Wetzel, alleged biological father, arguing Wetzel’s income should be included and that Wetzel was a necessary party; Wetzel filed procedural exceptions.
- Evidence in the record included the mother’s admissions and a 2008 paternity analysis showing a 99.17% probability that Wetzel is A.L.’s biological father.
- The juvenile court (via hearing officer) dismissed Lowrie’s third‑party claim and declined to consider Wetzel’s income; appellate court denied relief; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lowrie) | Defendant's Argument (State/Wetzel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper characterization of Lowrie’s filing (third‑party vs. nonjoinder/defense) | The filing should permit joinder of Wetzel so his income can be considered | The filing was an improper third‑party claim and Wetzel is not a proper defendant absent filiational determination | Court construes the pleading liberally as an Art. 927(A)(4) nonjoinder/defense and allows it to stand |
| Whether an alleged biological father owes support when child has legally‑presumed father | Wetzel is biological father and thus owes support; Lowrie may seek deviation including Wetzel’s income | State warns joinder would delay enforcement and is barred by DCFS practice when mother didn’t name alleged father | Court holds biological father has support obligation and, if paternity proven, his income may be considered for deviation from guidelines |
| Whether Wetzel must be joined as a necessary party | Lowrie: Without Wetzel complete relief cannot be accorded and there is risk of inconsistent obligations | State: DCFS policy limits filing against alleged biological father unless named by custodial parent; joinder unnecessary | Court holds joinder proper under La. C.C.P. art. 641 because complete relief cannot be fashioned absent Wetzel if he is biological father |
| Legitimacy of DCFS policy declining to pursue unnamed alleged fathers | Lowrie: DCFS must act in child’s best interest and may pursue filiation/support notwithstanding mother’s application | State: internal DCFS policy bars pursuing an alleged father not named by custodial parent; practical concerns about delays | Court rejects the policy as inconsistent with statute and agency authority; statutory duty to establish paternity and obtain support controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren v. Richard, 296 So.2d 813 (La. 1974) (recognized problem of dual paternity and that biological father may be legally relevant despite legal‑father presumption)
- Smith v. Cole, 553 So.2d 847 (La. 1989) (held biological father remains obligated to support child even when child is legitimate under legal‑father presumption)
- T.D. v. M.M.M., 730 So.2d 873 (La. 1999) (affirmed recognition of biological father’s rights and obligations, and discussed dual paternity policy considerations)