722 N.E.2d 1036 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1997
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *446 This appeal again raises the difficult and troubling questions of the rights, duties, and equities of the parties in a parentage action. The parties in this case are Elva Snider, the mother, her daughter Rita Snider, now an adult, and Jack A. Lillie, Jr., Rita's biological father.
While generally some adjudication or acknowledgement of paternity is necessary for the court to invoke its power to order support under R.C.
Filing a timely action to determine the existence of a father-child relationship, as was clearly done in this case by both mother and daughter, will not and cannot preserve an untimely claim for support. This is not a matter of *448 estoppel or laches, which was the basis, in part, of the trial court's decision. It is a matter of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
By both the statutory and common law of Ohio, parents are obligated to support their minor children. State ex rel. Wrightv. Indus. Comm. (1943),
The statutory duty of biological and adoptive parents to support their children is codified generally at R.C.
The age of majority is presently eighteen. R.C.
This appeal also raises the related question of whether the court can order Lillie to pay eighteen years, of back support. The answer to this question is no. There is no provision in R.C. Chapter 3111 which allows for retroactive child support to be awarded, in the first instance, to or for an adult child. Park v. Ambrose (1993),
We hold today that in order to present a cognizable claim for back support, an action for support or an action which triggers the duty to support must have been commenced during the child's minority when the legal duty to support exists.4 This proposition is implicit in this court's decisions in bothCrawley-Kinley v. Price (Mar. 13, 1996), Hamilton App. No. C-940920, unreported, 1996 WL 107569 (motion for support filed when child was sixteen), and Davis v. Joyner (Apr. 3, 1996), Hamilton App. No. C-950650, unreported, 1996 WL 149076 (paternity and support action filed when child was seventeen). See, also,Lewis v. Chapin (1994),
The purpose of child support is to meet the current needs of a minor child. Park v. Ambrose,
Judgment affirmed.
DOAN, P.J, and GORMAN, J., concur.