Title: Holtz v. State ex rel. Houston

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Holtz v. State ex rel. Houston1993 WY 15847 P.2d 972Case Number: 92-74Decided: 02/01/1993Supreme Court of Wyoming

 

William R. HOLTZ, 
III,

Appellant 
(Respondent),

v.

STATE of 
Wyoming, ex rel., Nicole 
HOUSTON,

Appellee 
(Petitioner).

Appeal from District 
Court, Laramie 
County, Edward L. Grant, 
J.

Robert T. Moxley 
of Gage and Moxley, Cheyenne, for appellant.

Ronald E. 
Triggs, Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before MACY, C.J., 
THOMAS, CARDINE, and GOLDEN, JJ., and BROWN, J., Retired.

BROWN, Justice 
(Retired).

[¶1]      In a paternity 
action, appellant, William R. Holtz, III, was determined to be the father of a 
child born out of wedlock. Judgment was also entered against him for $12,003 
which included reimbursement to the State of Wyoming for child support paid 
to the mother, support from date action commenced to emancipation, costs and 
attorney fees.

[¶2]      Appellant states 
the issues as:

1. Is it proper for a 
judgment to include amounts already paid?

2. In a paternity 
proceeding commenced by the State, as assignee of support rights, is it error to 
assess judgment for AFDC reimbursement in addition to full guideline child 
support, both for the same time period? 

3. Does the State of 
Wyoming, under statutory law and its assignment of payable support owing, have 
standing to seek judgment on the non-party mother's behalf for retroactive 
support covering any time periods prior to the determination of 
paternity?

4. Was it plain legal 
error to ignore the current guidelines, under the guise of rejecting identical 
guidelines from the paternity statute, in setting child support?

5. Is it inequitable, 
unlawful or unconstitutional, not to give all the respondent's children equal 
standing and access to his bounty; i.e., to give priority to an illegitimate 
child with no presumption of paternity, over natural children and the stepchild 
of a marriage?

[¶3]      Appellee urges 
the issues differently:

1. Is Nicole Houston the 
natural, biological child of the appellant, William R. Holtz, III?

2. Does the biological 
father of a child have a duty to support said child during their 
minority?

3. Does the law of this 
state and the facts of this case warrant the order entered by the district court 
herein?

[¶4]      We will affirm 
the judgment with a modification.

[¶5]      Appellant 
fathered or otherwise obligated himself to support more children than he thinks 
he can afford. We now hear his plaintive cry that he labored mightily to support 
children he knew not whom. Appellant Holtz is presently married for the second 
time. He has a son - the issue of his first marriage - for whom he pays child 
support. Holtz has a daughter from his current marriage. His present wife has a 
son from a prior marriage residing in the Holtz home for whom she receives child 
support.

[¶6]      This case is a 
paternity action filed by the State of Wyoming on September 1, 
1989. The authority for the 
State of Wyoming to file this action is 
Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-104 (Supp. 1989).1

[¶7]      Nicole Houston 
was born on June 28, 
1972, as a consequence of a 
close encounter between Nancy Houston and appellant, William R. Holtz, III. In 
his answer to the State's petition, appellant equivocates, but does not deny, 
paternity. He states by way of justification for his non-support that he feared 
violence at the hand of Nancy Houston's family. In connection with this 
paternity action, blood tests were taken and reflect a probability of paternity 
of 99.91 percent. Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-109(e)(iv) (Supp. 1989) establishes a 
probability of paternity at 97.00 percent.2 It is the burden of the person 
against whom such probability is established to rebut that paternity by "clear 
and convincing evidence." Appellant did not attempt to rebut the presumption of 
paternity, he was aware of Nancy Houston's pregnancy and knew of the birth of 
Nicole. He visited his child one time when she was a baby.

[¶8]      Appellant's gross 
income was approximately $60,000 in 1987 and was reduced to approximately 
$40,000 by 1989. At the time the petition was filed, appellant had savings. 
However, he spent most of it fighting child support actions in 
Colorado and this action. Nancy 
Houston had minimal paying jobs and supported Nicole until 1979. In 1978, 
Nancy sustained a serious 
injury and since then has subsisted on social security disability. She has also 
received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

[¶9]      Appellant's 
present wife moved to intervene in the paternity action, which motion was 
denied. After oral denial of the motion to intervene, appellant's wife filed a 
support action in the Eighth Judicial District contemplated by Wyo. Stat. § 
20-2-102 (1987).3 The action in the Eighth Judicial 
District for support appears to be a friendly or contrived lawsuit in an effort 
to make an end run around the paternity action. In any case, the trial judge in 
the paternity action did not consider it in his final determination.

[¶10]   In the paternity and child support 
action, the court determined that appellant was responsible for and should pay 
$160 per month for February through August 1989, or a sum of $1,120. This amount 
was to reimburse the State for AFDC benefits expended. In the court's order of 
paternity and judgment, it fixed child support at $484 per month and related it 
back to the date the petition was filed (September 1, 1989), a sum of $7,260. 
From this $484 per month, $160 for ten months (a sum of $1,600) was awarded the 
State as reimbursements for further AFDC funds expended during the action. The 
balance of this $484 per month (a sum of $5,660) was awarded Nancy Houston for 
child support from the commencement of this action, September 1, 
1989, to the emancipation of 
Nicole Houston December 12, 
1990.

[¶11]   In the summary portion of his 
appeal brief, appellant refines or narrows the issues urged. He designates three 
issues: (1) double recovery of child support; (2) calculating support for the 
illegitimate offspring without regard to need of wife and children residing in 
appellant's home; and (3) the State enforcing an inchoate right retroactively, 
and representing the mother "across the board." We will address these refined 
issues.

I

[¶12]   Judgment in the trial court was for 
$12,003. Appellant contends that there were errors in calculating the amount of 
the judgment. Appellee concedes an error in the judgment. In the court's 
judgment dated February 20, 
1992, there were some 
calculation errors. There was a mathematical error in adding the individual 
items in the award. Another error was that the AFDC funds expended during the 
pendency of this action were not properly accounted for in the judgment. The 
judgment should be corrected to reflect: (1) $2,720 reimbursement for AFDC funds 
expended both before and after commencement of this action; (2) $5,660 child 
support awarded to Nancy Houston; (3) $2,815 for attorney fees and other costs 
incurred in proving paternity; for a total of $11,195. From this total, a 
deduction of $150 paid to Nancy Houston should be subtracted. This results in a 
corrected figure of $11,045. The judgment accordingly will be modified to 
reflect a correct amount of $11,045.

[¶13]   Appellant further contends that 
$1,578.86 placed by him in an account at Equality State Bank, according to a 
court order, should have been deducted from the judgment entered. We disagree. 
Appellee has not received the $1,578.86 on deposit. At such time as this sum is 
received by appellee, it will be credited in partial satisfaction of judgment. 
When this partial satisfaction is effected, the remaining balance on the 
judgment will correspond with appellant's calculations.

II

[¶14]   In his brief, appellant traces the 
history of child support guidelines insofar as he thinks they pertain to this 
case:

The "divorce" guidelines 
as they existed at the time of the petition were not incorporated by the 
paternity statute. Instead, the paternity statute had its own guidelines at W.S. 
§ 14-2-113(e).[4] But 35 days before judgment, the 
old paternity guideline from W.S. § 14-2-113(e)(viii) found itself moved to the 
guideline statute.

* * * * * *

Most of these 
considerations, including subsection (viii), were taken out of the paternity 
statute, but incorporated by its reference into the child support guidelines 
themselves, at W.S. § 20-6-302,5 35 days before the 
judgment.

[¶15]   Appellant contends that the trial 
court failed to follow the support guidelines set out in either Wyo. Stat. § 
14-2-113(e) or Wyo. Stat. §§ 20-6-302 and 304.6 At trial and in his appellate 
brief, appellant illustrates in several ways the application of the support 
guidelines, considering both a three-child obligation to support and a 
four-child obligation. It would serve no useful purpose to set out these 
illustrations in this opinion. Suffice it to say, they all demonstrated a child 
support figure less than that set by the trial court in its 
judgment.

[¶16]   The trial court was aware of, and 
considered, the guidelines set out in Wyo. Stat. §§ 20-6-302 and 304. Before 
explaining its determination, the court stated:

[T]here is a wide amount 
of discretion available, equity still plays a large role.

I believe the current 
version of the statute after listing specifically items that the Court could 
consider in deviation includes among that list other factors that the Court 
deems appropriate.

[¶17]   In explanation of its decision, the 
court said:

From the point of view 
that I think is the accurate one, we see Mr. Holtz coming into this court in the 
name of equity asking for equitable relie[f] in effect in the face of a record 
that establishes that he has totally and blatantly ignored the relationship 
arising out of his paternity of Nicole, his obligations to Nancy and even to 
himself. He offers a thoroughly unconvincing excuse for such selfishness and 
even going further by saying that the relationship was undermined by attempts to 
establish an enforced support. I believe that that's nonsense.

After 17 years of doing 
nothing while his daughter subsisted on welfare benefits and his wife worked as 
a waitress, I'm sorry, never his wife, but the mother of his daughter, he never 
sought in any fashion to establish paternity, never sought in any fashion to in 
any way meet his moral and financial responsibilities to Nicole.

If this is not 
disgraceful conduct, certainly it is conduct that makes Mr. Holtz' plea for 
equity ring extremely hollow. * * *

Mr. Holtz had an 
obligation to Nicole from the day she was born, even prior to the day she was 
born. He should have helped to pay the expenses related to birth. He should have 
been making a regular systematic appropriate contribution to her support from 
the day of her birth, and he should be providing her with the father to which 
she is entitled.

So it just does not seem 
very convincing to me to have him now standing before this Court pleading that 
the equities of this situation demand that he be given some sort of 
consideration. I think the demands now being made by Nicole's mother and by the 
State are minimal if you compare it to what Mr. Holtz should have been paying 
throughout all of these years.

[¶18]   A trial court should give serious 
consideration to the support guidelines. However, strictly following the 
guidelines blindly would nullify the court's traditional discretion and would 
not be in the interest of justice in all circumstances. The guidelines set out 
in the statute were not crafted to give any special protection or advantage to a 
parent owing support. Guidelines are just that - guidelines, and do not 
accommodate to all circumstances or cases. As a matter of policy, we are 
hesitant to impinge on the trial court's historic discretion.

[¶19]   An award of child support is a 
matter addressed to the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed 
on appeal except for a clear abuse of this discretion. Grosskopf v. Grosskopf, 
677 P.2d 814 (Wyo. 1984). Appellant has not 
demonstrated, nor have we detected, an abuse of discretion in determining child 
support.

[¶20]   Appellant's appeal to equity has a 
hollow ring. He is only required by court order to contribute to the support of 
his child for a period of twenty-two months. While Nancy Houston and Nicole 
subsisted on lowpaying jobs, social security disability and AFDC, appellant 
enjoyed a substantial income, as high as $60,000 a year.

III

[¶21]   Appellant states his final 
assignment of error several ways. It appears that he is complaining that the 
appellee is attempting to collect child support for a time period before 
determination of paternity and that appellee is attempting to collect additional 
child support beyond what had been paid from the public funds. Appellant does 
not seriously object to the judgment for AFDC paid either before the filing of 
the petition or after, this period of time being from February 1989 to June 
1990. His objection is to the court fixing child support in the sum of $484 per 
month and reaching back to the date the petition was filed, that is, 
September 1, 
1989. His further objection 
is that, in the action filed by the State, Nancy Houston was also awarded child 
support.

[¶22]   Appellant brings to our attention 
Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-108(d) (Supp. 1992), which provides in part:

(d) During the pendency 
of an action and on application of either party, the court may enter an order 
providing for:

* * * * * *

(ii) Temporary support of 
the child when the genetic test tends to establish the paternity or when the man 
alleged to be the natural father has acknowledged his paternity of the child in 
writing[.]

This statute may have 
some bearing on temporary support; however, in this case we are concerned with 
an order of paternity and judgment which was the final order of the trial court. 
As indicated earlier in this opinion, Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-104(c) is the authority 
to pursue this action.

[¶23]   Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-113 (Supp. 1992) 
provides in part:

(a) The judgment or order 
of the court determining the existence or nonexistence of the parent and child 
relationship is determinative for all purposes.

* * * * * *

(c) The judgment or order 
may contain any other provision directed against the appropriate party to the 
proceeding concerning the duty of support, the custody and guardianship of the 
child, visitation privileges with the child, the furnishing of bond or other 
security for the payment of the judgment or any other matter in the best 
interest of the child. The judgment or order may direct the father to pay the 
reasonable expenses of the mother's pregnancy and confinement.

(d) * * * The court as it 
deems just, may limit the father's liability for past support of the child * * 
*.

* * * * * *

(f) The court has 
continuing subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enforce or modify a 
judgment or order made pursuant to W.S. 14-2-101 through 14-2-120 * * 
*

Wyo. Stat. § 
14-2-204(d) (Supp. 1992) provides in part:

The measure of recovery 
from the defendant is the reasonable value of the care or support which has been 
furnished to the child by the petitioner. In addition, the court may make other 
suitable order for future care or support of the child. These remedies are 
cumulative and in addition to other remedies provided by law.

[¶24]   It seems reasonably clear that the 
statutes contemplate provisions in the judgment for more than recovery of 
"expenses incurred." (In this case, AFDC funds.) The statutes address matters in 
the future as well as "expenses incurred." Likewise, there is not a provision 
that limits the state (if it is the petitioner) to expenses incurred. The only 
portion of the judgment that was truly retroactive was the provision that 
appellant reimburse the state for expenses incurred before the date the petition 
was filed. Other matters contained in the petition do not reach back beyond the 
date of the petition. The only prohibition against retroactive application is a 
prohibition against retroactive modification of an order of child support. 
Wyo. Stat. § 
14-2-113(f).

[¶25]   We believe that Wyo. Stat. §§ 
14-2-101 through 204, and specifically the sections we have referred to, are 
broad enough to permit the court, as it has done here, to set the effective date 
of child support to be the date of the filing of the petition for support. We 
are further of the opinion that the statutes are broad enough to permit an 
award, on the petition of the state, for child support owing the child's mother 
and other expenses. A ruling by this court that only partial relief could be 
granted may result in other actions to award that portion of child support that 
the state did not collect. This would be contrary to our traditional policy of 
judicial economy. We believe that the applicable statutes should be construed 
liberally to the end that the burden of supporting children should fall on the 
parents rather than the public.

[¶26]   Affirmed as modified.

Footnotes

1 
Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-104 
provides in pertinent part:

(b) 
Any interested party may bring an action at any time for the purpose of 
determining the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship 
presumed under W.S. 14-2-102(a)(iv).

(c) 
An action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship with 
respect to a child who has no presumed father under W.S. 14-2-102 may be brought 
within the time specified under W.S. 14-2-105(a) by the child, the department of 
health and social services, the mother or personal representative of the child, 
the personal representative or a parent of the mother if the mother has died or 
is a minor, a man alleged or alleging himself to be the father, or the personal 
representative or a parent of the alleged father if the alleged father has died 
or is a minor.

2 
Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-109(e)(iv) 
provides:

If 
the experts conclude that the genetic tests show that the alleged parent is not 
excluded and that the probability of the alleged parent's parentage is 
ninety-seven percent (97%) or higher, the alleged parent is presumed to be the 
parent and this evidence shall be admitted. This presumption may be rebutted 
only by clear and convincing evidence.

3 
Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-102 reads 
in pertinent part:

When the husband and wife 
are living separately, or when they are living together but the husband does not 
support the wife or children within his means, and no proceeding for divorce is 
pending, the wife in behalf of herself or minor children may institute a 
proceeding for support.

4 
Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-113(e) 
(Supp. 1986) states:

In 
determining the amount to be paid by a parent for support of the child and the 
period during which the duty of support is owed, a court enforcing the 
obligation of support shall consider all relevant facts including:

(i) 
The needs of the child;

(ii) The standard of 
living and circumstances of the parents;

(iii) The relative 
financial means of the parents;

(iv) The earning ability 
of the parents;

(v) 
The need and capacity of the child for education including higher 
education;

(vi) The age of the 
child;

(vii) The financial 
resources and the earning ability of the child;

(viii) The responsibility 
of the parents for the support of others; and

(ix) The value of 
services contributed by the custodial parent.

5 
Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-302 (Supp. 
1992) states:

(a) 
The guidelines established by W.S. 20-6-304 shall be rebuttably presumed to be 
the correct amount of child support to be awarded in any proceeding to establish 
or modify temporary or permanent child support amounts.

(b) 
A court may deviate from the child support guidelines established by W.S. 
20-6-304 if it issues a written finding or specific finding on the record that 
the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a 
particular case. In determining whether to deviate from the child support 
guidelines established by W.S. 20-6-304, the court may consider the following 
factors:

(i) 
The age of the child;

(ii) The cost of 
necessary child day care;

(iii) Any special health 
care and educational needs of the child;

(iv) The responsibility 
of either parent for the support of others;

(v) 
The value of services contributed by either parent;

(vi) Any expenses 
reasonably related to the mother's pregnancy and confinement for that child, if 
the parents were never married or if the parents were divorced prior to the 
birth of the child;

(vii) The cost of 
transportation of the child to and from visitation;

(viii) The ability of 
either or both parents to furnish health, dental and vision insurance through 
employment benefits;

(ix) The amount of time 
the child spends with each parent;

(x) 
Any other necessary expenses for the benefit of the child;

(xi) The net income and 
financial condition of each parent relative to each other;

(xii) Whether or not 
either parent has violated any provision of the divorce decree, including 
visitation provisions, if deemed relevant by the court; and

(xiii) Other factors 
deemed relevant by the court.

6 
Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-304 
provides:

Child Support 
guidelines.

(a) 
Child support shall be expressed in a specific dollar amount and shall be 
determined in accordance with the following guidelines:

Obligor's Monthly Net Income                                                                                              
Number of Children

_______________________________________________________________________________________

1                                  
2                                  
3                                     
4                                  
5          
                        
6 or more 

                                                                                                
            
________________________________________________________________________________________

$ 
500-$1,000                                                                                     
17%                            
25%                
            
30%                            
32%                            
37%                            
42%

 $1,001-$1,500                                                                                 
20%                            
28%                
            
32%                            
35%                            
40%                            
45% 

$1,501-$2,000                                                          
                        
22%                            
29%                
            
32%                            
40%                            
40%                            
45%

 $2,001-$3,000                                                                                 
26%                            
30%                
            
33%                            
40%                            
40%                            
45% 

$3,000-above                                                                                    
$780*              
            
$900*              
            
$990*              
            
$1,200*                      
$1,200*                      
$1,350*