I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - CA- 0 2 3 6 5 - S CT N I TA EL AINE SN Y

D ER D O BB I

N S, I NDI V I DUALLY AND ASNATURAL M OTHER AN D N EXT FR I

EN D O F TH

E I NF AN T CH

I LD NA M ED I N T HE P ET I T ION

v. J OH NNY LEE COLEM

AN D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 08/ 2004 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. M I TCHE LL M
. LUNDY, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: H R
. GA RN ER AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : J OHN WAT S ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 13/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC
. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he fi r s t ques t i on pr es ent ed i s w hetherupon a det er m i nat i on of pat erni t y , M i s s i s s i ppi l aw r equi r es t he natur al fathert o as s um e sol e fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i t y for t he chi l d’ s m edi cal expens es . T he s econd i s w hethert he cha ncel l or ’ s aw ar d of at t or ney ’ s fee s t o t he mot herw as
rea so n ab le an d p rop er.

B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶ 2
. O n M a rc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , N it a E la in e S n y d e r D o b b in s (“ M s. D o b b in s” ) g a v e b irth to T
. H
. C
. (“the C h il d ”) a s a re su lto f re lat ion s b etw ee n h erse lf an d Jo h n n yL ee C o lem an (“M r. C o lem a n ” ). T h e C h ild w a s b o rn o u t o f law f u l w e d lo c k . M s. D o b b in s f iled a P e tit io n to

### 2

E sta b lish P a ter n ityf

o r F ili a tio n , C h ild S u p p o rt a n d O th e r R e lief , as k in g th e c h a n c e llo r to

m ake a det er m i nat i on of pat erni t y , gi ve herexcl us i ve ca r e, cus t ody , and contr ol of the C hi l d, and r equi r e M r . C ol eman “ t o payal l r eas onabl e s uppor t , m ai nt enanc e, m edi cal bi l l s i ncurr ed f o r a n d in (sic ) b e h a lf

o f th e c h ild , to m a in ta in m e d ic a l in s u ra n c e o n th e c h ild , to p a ya ll

m e d ic a l b ills , a s w e ll a s p a ya ll m e d ic a l b ills in c u rr e d .” ¶3
. M r. C o lem a n f

ile d a n A n sw er a n d C o u n ter-Pe ti ti o n , ad m itti n g h e w as th e C h il d ’s father , butdeny i ng s ol e r es pons i bi l i t yforanyexpens es orm edi cal bi l l s . H e r eques t ed the

cour t gi ve hi m “r eas onabl e, s peci fi c and de s i gnat ed vi s i t at i on w i t h t he mi norchi l d” and j oi nt l egal cus t odyof t he C hi l d. M r . C olem an al s o cl ai m ed M s . D obbi ns s houl d payhal f t he C hi l d’ s m edi cal expens es notcover ed byheal t h i ns ur ance . ¶ 4
. In h is T e m p o ra ry O rd e r, th e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d M r. C o lem a n w a s th e f a th e r o f th e C h ild

a n d r e q u i r e d h i m t o p a y $ 2 0 0 p e r mo n t h i n c h i l d s u p p o r tt o M s . Do b b i n s u n t i l t h e c a s e c a me fora fi nal hear i ng. T he cha ncel l or al s o gr ant ed M r . C ol eman t empora r yvi s i t at i on w i t h t he C hi l d. ¶ 5
. In h e r A n sw e r to C o u n ter -P e tit io n , M s. D o b b in s d e n ied M r. C o lem a n w a s e n tit led to j oi ntl egal cus t odyof t he C hi l d. She agai n as s er t ed t hat , once M r . C ol eman w as adj udi cat ed t he fa t h e r , M i s s i s s i p p i l a w r e q u i r e s h i m t o b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o ra l l t h e e d u c a t i o n a n d o t h er expens es i ncurr ed on beha l f of the C hi l d. ¶6. I n hi s O r der of Fi l i at i on, t he chanc el l or found M r . C ol eman w as t he natur al fatherof t he C hi l d. T he chance l l oraw ar ded the part i es j oi ntl egal cus t ody , gr ant ed phy s i cal cus t ody

### 3

to M s. D o b b ins, an d g ran ted v isi tat ion ri g h ts t o M r. C o lem an . T h e c h an ce ll o r ord ere d M r. C ol eman t o i ncl ude t he C hi l d under hi s gr oup m edi cal i ns ur ance and t o cont i nue the $ 2 00 perm ont h s uppor tpaym ent s unt i l a fi nal hear i ng on t he s uppor t m at t er , not i ng t hat t he fi nal

s uppor tamount coul d be adj us t ed in li g h t of t he gui del i nes found i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 43- 19- 101. Fi nal l y , t he chanc el l or t ook under advi s ement t he i s s ues of pay m ent of pastand futur e m edical exp enses and t he aw ardi ng of reasonab l e fees. ¶7. A ft erbr i efi ng byt he a tt or ney s , t he cha ncel l ori s s ued hi s opi ni on on t hes e mat t er s fr om th e b e n c h o n N o v e m b e r 8 , 2 0 0 4
. T h e c h a n c e llo r sta ted “ th a t to m a k e a f a th e r so lely

r es pons i bl e for al l pas t and fut ur e m edi cal expens es , r egar dl es s of the party ’ s fi nanci al s t atus and w her ew i t hal w oul d be a vi ol at i on of equa l pr ot ect i on l aw s and w oul d be maki ng a d e ter m in a tio n b a se d so lelyo n se x a n d n o t f in a n c ial a b ili tya n d c a n n o t b e c o n stitu ti o n a lly per m i s s i bl e. ” The chanc el l orent er ed hi s O r der on N ovember 15, 2004, m aki ng t he part i es

“ e q u a llyre sp o n sib le f

o r th e b a lan c e s o f

th e e x istin g m e d ica l b ill s” a n d re q u irin g th e m to sp lit al l futur e m edical bil l s as w el l
. T he chan cel l or als o ordered M r. C olem an to r ei m bu rs e M s. D obbi ns fort he r eas onabl e att or ney ’ s fee s s he i ncurr ed i n br i ngi ng and mai nt ai ni ng her Pet i t i on t o E s t abl i s h Pat erni t yforFi l i at i on, C hi l d Suppor tand O t herR el i ef. ¶8. M s . D obbi ns now appea l s t he chance l l or ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat M r . C ol eman w oul d be resp o n sible fo r on lyh alf o f th e C h il d ’s m ed ical ex p en ses, rathe r th an the fu ll am o u n t. M r. C o le m a n c ro s s -a p p e a ls w ith re s p e c t to th e c h a n c e llo r’ s a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s .

### 4 DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he chancel l or er red i n hol di ng t hat t he nat ural f at her o f a n ill e g itim a te c h ild c a n n o t b e m a d e a u to m a tic a lly r e sp o n sib le f or al l pas t , pr e s e nt , and f ut ur e m e di c al e xpens e s of t he c hi l d. ¶9. O n appea l , M s . D obbi ns cl ai m s t he cha ncel l orcomm i tt e d r e v e r s i b l e err orbydecl ar i ng M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 93- 9- 7 uncons t i tut i onal and hol di ng t hat t he fatherof

an il legiti m ate c h il d ca n n o t be m ad e so lel yresp o n sible fo r th e p ast, p rese n t, an d fu ture

m edi cal expens es of hi s chi l d. M r . C ol eman r es ponds t hatt he cha ncel l orcorr ect l yhel d t hat Se c t i o n 9 3
- 9
- 7 was u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l b e c a u s e t h e p r o v i s i o n “ [ d o e s ] n o t s e r v e i t s s t at ed l egis l at i ve p urpose i n a m ann er w hich can p ass s crut i ny . ” S ect i on 93 -9- 7 st at es: O b lig a tio n s o

f th e fa th e r . T he fa t herof a c hi l d w hi ch i s or m aybe born outof l aw ful m atr i m onyi s l i abl e t o t he s ame ext entas t h e fat herof a c hi l d bor n of l aw ful m atr i m ony. . . fort he reasonabl e expe ns e of the mot her ’ s pr egnanc y and confi nement , and for t he educ at i on, nece s s arys uppor tand mai nt enanc e, a n d m e d ic a l . . . e x p e n s e s o f th e c h ild
. . . . A n o th e r sta tu te r e le v a n t to th is iss u e , ac c o rd in g to th e c h a n c e llo r a n d th e p a rties , is M ississi p p i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 4 3 -19 -10 1 (6), w h ich s tat es in p art, “[ a]ll o rde rs i nvol vi ng t he s uppor tof m i norchi l dr en, as a mat t er of l aw , s hal l i ncl ude r eas onabl e medi cal

s u p p o rt .” ¶ 1 0
. T h e p a rties ’ a rg u m e n ts in th is c a se re st o n th e a ss u m p tio n th a t th e c h a n c e llo r a c tu a lly h e ld th a t S e c tio n 9 3 -9 -7 v io late s th e E q u a l P ro tec tio n C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. L ooki ng car eful l y at t he l anguage of t he O r der , t hough, r evea l s t hat t he chanc el lor d i d notMiss. Code Ann. §§ 93-9-1 et seq . (1972). 1 

### 5 d e c lar e a n yp o rtio n o f

th e M iss iss ip p i U n if

o rm L a w o n P a ter n ity uncons t i t ut i onal , and 1

r i ght l ys o; r ather , he corr ect l y hel d t hat an i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut es aut om at i cal l yhol di ng t h e f a t h e rs o l e l yr e s p o n s i b l e f o ra l l o f h i s c h i l d ’ s me d i c a l e x p e n s e s i s i mp e r mi s s i b l e . As pr evi ous l ynot ed, Sect i on 93- 9- 7 s t at es , “ [t ] he fa t herof a c hi l d w hi ch i s orm aybe born out of l aw ful m atr i m onyi s l i abl e t o t he sa m e e x ten t as t he fa t herof a c hi l d bor n of l aw ful

m atr i m ony . . . . ” ( em

phas is added)
. I n hi s O r der , t he cha ncel l ors t at ed: T o hol d t he father s ol el yr es pons i bl e fort he paym entof al l pas t , pr es entand f u tu re m e d ica l b ill s n o t c o v e r e d b yh e a lth in su ra n c e w o u ld b e u n ju st, uncons ci onabl e, and w oul d vi ol at e equal pr ot ect i on l aw s undert he pr ovi s i ons of M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 93- 9- 7, 93- 9- 9, 93- 3- 11, 93- 9- 15, 93- 9- 29, 93- 9- 4 5
. M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 4 3 -19 -10 1 (6) pro v ides that all o rde rs i nvol vi n g s u p p o r to f

mi n o rc h i l d r e n , a s a ma t t e ro f l a w, s h a l l i n c l u de re a s o n a b le m e d ic a l s u p p o rt
. ¶ 1 1
. A p re c ise re a d in g o f b o th th e c h a n c e llo r’s b e n c h o p in io n a n d O rd e r co n f irm s h e d id

n o t dec lare the statu te un co n sti tuti o n a l. T h e c h an ce ll o r m ere lyrejected o n e p arty ’s i nt erpr et at i on of the pr ovi s i on aut om at i cal l y r equi r i ng a fa t hert o payal l m edi cal expens es
a n d c o m m e n ted th a t su c h a n in ter p re tatio n w o u ld b e u n c o n stitu tio n a l. T h e sta tu te p lain ly p r o v i d e s t h a ts o m e o n e l i k e M r . C o l e m a n , t h e f a t h e r o f a c h i l d b o r n o u to f l a w f u l m a t r i m o n y, i s l i abl e t o t he s am e ext entas t he fa t herof a chi l d bor n of l aw ful m atr i m ony- no gr eat er
e x te n t, n o le s s e r e x te n t. ¶12. A s w e not ed i n Moulds v. B r adley , 791 S o . 2 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 9 ( M i s s . 2001) , “[a ] ft er an ad jud icati o n o f p atern ity , an il legiti m ate c h il d ’s l eg al relati o n sh ip to the fa ther w ith reg ard

### 6

t o fi nanci al s u p p o rt i s no di ffe r entt han thatof a l egi t i m at e chi l d bor n t o a mar r i age that ended i n di vor ce. ” (

p e r co n c u rr in go

p in io n o f D ia z , J ., w i th tw o Jus t i ces j oi ni ng and thr ee Just i ces j oini ng i n p art )
. I n Moulds , aft ert he C hancery C our tent er ed a de cr ee f i ndi ng M o u ld s to b e th e n a tu ra l f a th e r o f B ra d ley’s c h ild , the c o u rt o rd e re d M o u ld s to p a yw e e k ly chi l d s uppor tof fi ftydol l ar s and t o pr ovi de the chi l d w i t h m edi cal and dent al i ns ur ance once f in a n c ia lly a b le
. I

d. at 223. Such a chi l d s uppor t or der w as s quar el y w i t hi n t he pr ovi nce of t he cha ncel l or . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 19- 101( 6) ; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 93- 9- 29; M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 3 -11 -65 (1). T h e c o u rtn ev er r eq u ir ed the fa ther t o p ay all p ast, p rese n t, an d fu ture

m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s f

o r t h e ille g itim a te c h ild
. Moulds , 791 So. 2d at223. T he s uppor tw as
s ubj ectt o adj us t m ent , and once M oul ds ’ i ncome i ncr eas ed, t he courtm odi fi ed the amount

o f s u p p o rt p u rs u a n t to th e g u id e lin e s in S e c tio n 4 3 -1 9 -1 0 1
. I d . at226. ¶13. T he cha ncel l ori n t hi s cas e as s um ed a si m il ar co u rse o f ac ti o n . I n i t s O r der of F i l i at i on , t he co urtfou nd M r. C olem an to be t he n atural fat her of the C hil d. T he co urtal so
o rd e re d M r. C o lem a n to p a y$ 2 0 0 in m o n th ly s u p p o rt a n d to in c lu d e th e C h ild u n d e r h is gr oup m edi cal i ns ur ance . Fi nal l y , t he court not ed “that at t he fi nal hear i ng of thi s caus e the chil d sup po rtm aybe incr eased o r r edu ced b y the C ou rt , dep end i ng up on adjust ed g ross i ncome as defi ned as ( s i c) M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 19- 101 ( 1972)
. ” ¶14. T he cha ncel l or , i n hi s N ovember 15 O r der , det erm ined that t he part i es s houl d be equal l yr es pons i bl e fort he C hi l d’ s m edi cal expens es , a r es ul tcl ear l yper m i t t ed bySect i on 9 3 -9 -7 b e c a u se , “[ t]h e f a th e r o f a c h ild w h ich is . .
. b o rn o u t o f law f u l m a trim o n yis liab le

### 7

t o t he s ame e xt ent as t he father of a c hi l d bor n of l aw ful m atr i m ony. . . . ” The O r dernot ed i n concl us i o n t hat , “[a ] l l as pect s of the O r derof Fi l i at i on ent er ed on Sept ember 24, 2004, sh a ll rem a in in f

u ll fo rc e a n d e f

f e c t,” m a k in g th e f

in a l am o u n t o f

su p p o rt su b

jec t to adj us t m ent , j us tas i n Moulds
. ¶15. N ot hi ng i n t he s tat u tes o r in o u r ju ri sp rudence de m ands t hatt he fa t herof an i l l egi t i m at e chi l d be aut om at i cal l y l i abl e foral l of hi s chi l d’ s m edi cal expens es . T he chanc el l orcorr ect l yarr i ved at a per m i s s i bl e fi nanci al arr angement cl ear l ycont empl at ed by t he s t atut e w her e both par ent s s har e pas tand futur e medi cal expens es equal l y . M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 9 3 -1 1 -6 5 (2 ) ev e n p ro v id e s, “ w h e re th e p ro o f sh o w s th a t b o th p a re n ts h a v e se p a ra te in c o m e s o r e sta tes , th e c o u rt m a y re q u ire th a t ea c h p a re n t co n trib u te to th e su p p o rt a n d m a in ten a n c e o f th e c h ild re n in p ro p o rtio n to th e re lativ e f in a n c ial a b ili ty
o f e a c h .” ¶16. T he cha ncel l ornot ed i n t he H ear i ng for O r al O pi ni on t hatan i nt erpr et at i on of Sect i on 9 3 -9 -7 re q u irin g th e f

a th e r o f a n ill e g iti m a te c h ild to p a y a ll m e d ica l ex p e n se s c o n f licte d w ith M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 43- 19- 101( 6) , w hi ch s t at es , “[a ] l l o rde rs i nvol vi ng supp ortof m i no r chi l dren, as a m at t er of l aw , shal l i nclude reasonab l e m edical supp ort
. ” M s. D o b b ins al so ac k n o w ledg es th e co n fli ct b etw ee n an interpre tat ion o f S e c tio n 9 3 -9-7

r equi r i ng t he fa t hert o aut om at i cal l ypr ovi de fu ll m edi cal s uppor t , and the l anguage of S ect i on 43 -19-101 (6) w hich r equ i res r eas onabl e m edi cal s upport
. Onc e agai n, Sect i on 93- 9- 7 s t at es t hat t he fa t herof an i l l egi t i m at e chi l d m us tpayr eas onabl e medi cal expens es t o t he

### 8

s ame ext entas t he fa t herof a chi l d bor n of l aw ful m atr i m ony . T he corr ecti nt erpr et at i on of t hes e s t atut es demonst r at es how t he pr ovi s i ons compl i m ent eac h ot her , r athert han conf l i ct

w ith ea ch o ther. ¶17. T her e i s no r eas on t o co n d u ct a cons t i tut i onal anal y s i s of Sect i on 93- 9- 7 on equal pr ot ect i on gr ounds beca us e the cha ncel l ors i m pl ydi d nothol d t hat t he provi s i on vi ol at ed the E qual Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment
. A ddi t i onal l y , atno poi ntdi d ei t her part yargue t he co nst i tuti on al i t yof Secti on 93 -9- 7 bel ow . T herefore w e decli ne t o ad dress

a n yo f th e p a rt ie s ’ a rg u m e n ts a s to th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e p ro v is io n . See E s tate of P atters on v. P atters on , 7 9 8 S o .2 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); P i ckens v. D onalds on , 748 So. 2d 6 8 4 , 6 9 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ). ¶1 8
. T h e ch an ce ll o r a rri v ed at a p erm issi b le re su lt u n d er S ec ti o n 9 3 -9-7 an d o ther statu tory chi l d s uppor tpr ovi s i ons , and w e mayon ly rev erse t he cha ncel l or ’ s fi ndi ngs w hen “the

c h a n c e llo r w a s m a n i f

e s tly w ro n g , c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s , o r a p p lie d th e w ro n g le g a l s ta n d a rd .” Miss. D ep’t

of Hu m an S ervs. v. Mu rr , 797 So. 2d 818, 820 ( M i s s . 2000)
. T he cha ncel l or app l i ed the corr ect st and ard, and t here i s no b asi s upo n w hich t o reverse hi s det erm i nati on s. ¶ 1 9
. T her efor e, we a f f i r m th e c h a n c e l l o r ’ s Se p t e mbe r 2 4 Or d e r o f Fi l i at i on and t he N o v em b er 1 5 O rde r. I I . W het her the chancel l or erre d i n rul i ng t ha t M s . Dobbi ns w as respo n si b l e for ha l f of the C h i l d ’s p ast and future m ed i cal bi l l s. ¶20. M s . D obbi ns ’ s econd i s s ue on appe al bas i cal l yr es t at es herfoundat i on ar gum ent fr om the first issue - that M r. C o lem an sh o u ld be req u ir ed to pay all p ast, p rese n t, an d f u ture

### 9

me d i c a l b i l l s . Ag a i n , M i s s i s s i p p i Co d e An n o t a t e d S e c t i o n 9 3
- 9
- 7 c l e a r l yp e r mi t s s o me d iv isio n o f th e f

in a n c ial b u rd e n f

o r a c h ild b o rn o u t o f w e d lo c k b e c a u se th e f a th e r o f a c h ild bor n o u t o f l a wfu l ma t r i mon y “ i s l i a b l e t o t h e s a me e x t e n t a s t h e f a t h e r o f a c h i l d b or n of la w f u l m a trim o n y .” M r. C o lem a n ’s lia b ili ties a re n o t au to m a tica llyg re a ter o r le ss sim p ly b e c a u se h is c h ild w a s b o rn o u t o f law f u l m a trim o n y . A ss ig n in g th e f in a n c ial re sp o n sib ili ty fo r th e c h il d ’s m ed ical ex p en ses is p rop erlyleft t o the c h an ce ll o r. B ec au se th e c h an ce ll o r’s deci s i on w as notm ani fes t l yw r ong orcl ear l yerr oneous bas ed on the re cor d, w e af fi r m t he S ep tem b er 2 4 O rde r of

F il iat ion an d N o v em b er 1 5 O rde r. I I I . W h ether the ch an cel l or ab u sed hi s di s c r e t i on i n aw ar d i n g M s. D o b b in s ’ a tt o r n e y ’s fe e s a g a in s t M r . C o le m a n . ¶21. O n cr os s - appea l , M r . C ol eman ar gues t hat t he chance l l or ’ s aw ar d of att or ney ’ s fee s to M s. D o b b in s p u r s u a n t to M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 9 3 -9 -4 5 w a s b o th

uncons t i tut i onal undert he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m en d m entand

unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof t he fa ct s . T he fi r s tcl ai m i s pr ocedur al l ybarr ed, w hi l e the s econd

c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶22. Sect i on 93- 9- 45 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi U ni for m L aw on Pat erni t y contr ol s t he aw ar di ng of t he pet i t i oner ’ s cour tcos t s and att or ney ’ s fee s agai ns ta def en d an t af

ter t he entr yof an O rderof F i l i at i on and st at es: If th e c o u rtm ak es a n o rde r of fil iat ion , d ec lari n g p atern ityan d fo r th e su p p o rt and mai nt enanc e, and educat i on of t he chi l d, cour t cos t s , i ncl udi ng t he cos tof t he legal ser vices of th e a tt orneyrepr esent i ng t he p et i t i on er, exp ertw i t ness fee s , t he courtcl er k, s her i ff a nd ot hercos t s sh all b e t axed a gai ns tt he d e f e n d a n t.A third aff idav i t conce rningthe re asonable ness of Ms. Dobbins’ attorney ’s fe es wa s 2 provided by

H.R. Gar ner, counsel for Ms. Dobbins. Bec ause of the potentially

self-servingnature 

### 10 ¶ 2 3
. M r. C o lem a n ’s c laim re g a rd in g th is p ro v isio n ’s u n c o n stitu tio n a lity is p ro c e d u r a lly barr ed forfa il u re to raise t he i s s ue i n t he courtbel ow . A tno poi ntdi d M r . C ol eman ever
a rg u e th a t S e c tio n 9 3 -9 -4 5 v io late d th e E q u a l P ro tec tio n C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t o n th e b a s is o f s e x . A s s u c h , w e w ill n o t r e v ie w th is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r. See P atters on , 7 9 8 S o .2 d a t 3 5 1 ; Pi c ke ns , 7 4 8 S o .2 d a t 6 9 2
. ¶2 4
. M r. C o lem an ’s sec o n d claim - that the att o rne y ’s fe es aw ard ed to M s. D o b b ins w ere
unr eas onabl e - i s w i t houtm er i t
. Sect i on 93- 9- 45 pr ovi des t hatw hen an O r derof Fi l i at i on i s ent er ed by t he cour t , t he defenda nt w i l l be ass es s ed “t he cost of the l egal s er vi ces of t he at t or neyr epr es ent i ng t he pet i t i oner. . . . ” H er e, t he cha ncel l orent er ed an O r derof Fi l i at i on
o n S ep tem b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , w ith resp ec t to the p eti ti o n er, M s. D o b b ins, an d the d ef en d an t, M r. C ol eman. T he cha ncel l or , i n hi s N ovember 15 O r der , hel d t hat t he at t or ney ’ s fee s i ncurr ed b yM s . D o b b in s w e re re a s o n a b le a n d w e re to b e p a id b yM r. C o le m a n . ¶25. W h il e the aw ardi ng of at t or ney ’ s fee s and cos t s appea r s aut om at i c pur s uant t o t he

s ta tu te , w e h a v e h e ld th a t th o s e f e e s m u s t b e re a s o n a b le
. R .E . v . C .E .W . , 752 So. 2d 1019, 1028 ( M i s s . 1999)
. T he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e i ncl udes a det ai l ed A t t or ney ’ s R epor t of Fees I ncurr ed fo r N it a El ai ne Sny derD obbi ns w i t h an i t emi zat i on of al l char ges and expe ns es
r e l a t e d t o t h i s p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n , a n e m p l o ym e n tc o n t r a c t , a n d a f f i d a v i t s f r o m t w o a t t o r n e ys p ra c ticin g in D e S o to C o u n tya s to th e u su a l an d c u sto m a ryf e e s c h a r g e d b ya tto rn e y s in dom es t i c r el at i ons cas es i n t he comm u n it y . I n hi s opi ni on, t he cha ncel l ornot ed, “[t ] he 2of this third affidavit, we dec line to consider it when a ssessing the“re asonable ness” issue. 

### 11 at t or ney ’ s fee s ar e r eas onabl e, and the s t atute also s ay s t hatt he futur e fa t hers hal l pay
a tto rn e yf

e e s if th e ya re re a s o n a b le a n d th e ya re g ra n te d . H e s h a ll p a yth e m .” ¶26. T hi s C our t “w i l l not di s turb t he factual fi ndi ngs of a chanc el l or w hen su p p o rt ed by

s ubs t ant i al evi dence unl es s t he C our tcan s ayw i t h r eas onabl e ce r t ai n ty thatt he cha ncel l or abus ed hi s di s cr et i on, w as m ani fes t l y w r ong, cl ear l y err oneous or appl i ed an er r oneous l egal

s t andar d. ” C um m ings v. B ender m an , 6 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 7 , 1 0 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e ch an ce ll o r’s deci s i on t o aw ar d at t or ney ’ s fee s pur s uant t o Sect i on 93- 9- 45 cannotbe cha r act er i zed a s an
a b u s e o f d is c re tio n , m a n if

e s tly w ro n g , o r c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . ¶27. M r . C ol eman’ s r el i ance on Clark v. W hi ten , 508 So. 2d 1105 ( M i s s . 1987) and McK ee
v. McK ee , 4 1 8 S o .2 d 7 6 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 2 ), i s m is p la c e d
. Clark i nvol ved a j ur y ’ s , r athert han a j udge’ s , aw ar di ng of at t or ney ’ s fee s w i t houtanyevi dence s uch as t he r eas onabl enes s of t he h o u rl yra te c h a rg e d b yth e p e titio n e r’ s a tto rn e y s . Clark , 5 0 8 S o .2 d a t 1 1 0 8 -0 9
. In c o n tra st, the fe es char ged byM s . D obbi ns ’ at t or neyfal l w i t hi n t he cus t om arychar ge i n t he

comm uni t y , as expl ai ned i n t w o at t or neyaff i davi t s . I n McK

ee , w e found t hatfee s bas ed on

an es t i m at ed 850 hour s w or ked on the ca s e w ere too s pecul at i ve t o s uppor tan aw ar d of

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s . McK

ee , 418 So. 2d at7 6 6 -67
. H er e, t he cha ncel l orw as pr ovi ded w i t h an i t emi zed a ccountof al l of M s . D obbi ns ’ at t or ney ’ s fee s and char ges . G i ven the s ubs t ant i al

e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e c h a n c e llo r’s a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’s f e e s to M s. D o b b in s, w e d e c lin e to dis turb t he ch ancell or’ s fi nd i ng s. M r. C olem an’s as si gn m ent of err or fai l s on the m eri t s.

### 12 CO NC L US I ON ¶2 8
. C o n tr aryto the o p in io n s e x p re s s e d b ythe p arti es, th e c h an ce ll o r did n o t d ec lare M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 9 3 -9-7 o n the o b li g ati o n s o f a n il legi tim ate c h il d ’s fathert o be uncons t i tut i onal
. T he chanc el l or m er el y s t at ed t hat an i nacc ur at e i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e maki ng t he fa t hers ol el yr es pons i ble foral l of hi s chi l d’ s m edi cal expens es
w oul d vi ol at e equal pr ot ect i on l aw s under t he M i s s i s s i ppi U ni for m L aw on Pat erni t y . U nder t he s t atut or ys cheme for es t abl i s hi ng chi l d s uppor t , as w el l as t hi s C our t ’ s j ur i s prudence , t he chanc el l orm ade a per m i s s i bl e di vi s i on of t he fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i t yform edi cal expens es b e tw e e n b o th p a re n ts. B e c a u se th e c h a n c e llo r a p p lied th e c o rre c t sta n d a r d a n d h is det e r mi n a t i o n was n e i t h e r ma n i f e s t l y wr o n g n o r c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , t h i s Cou r t a f f i r ms t he di s pos i t i on. ¶29. M r . C ol eman neverr ai s ed the i s s u e of the cons t i tut i onal i t yof aw ar di ng at t or ney ’ s fee s underSect i on 93- 9- 45 befor e t he tr i al cour t , s o w e ar e pr ocedur al l ybarr ed fr om r evi ew i ng t hatas s i gnm entof err or . Fi nal l y , t he re cor d does nots uppor tM r . C ol eman’ s as s er t i on t hat M s. D o b b ins’ att o rne y ’s fe es w ere u n rea so n ab le. T h ere fo re, w e a lso a ff irm the c h an ce ll o r’s

a w a rd o f M s . D o b b in s ’ a tto rn e y ’s f e e s a g a in s t M r. C o le m a n . ¶30. AF F I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y , C A R L S O N A N D G R A V E S , J J ., CO NC UR . CO B B , P . J . , DI AZ AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .