Thereafter, St. Mary's sought payment for those services from Freddie, Karen and Monika. When payment was not forthcoming, St. Mary's filed an amended collection action against all three parties on August 3, 1994. Freddie filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the basis that he did not consent to be responsible for the medical expenses, and thus, should not be held liable for them. St. Mary's now appeals. Specifically, St. Mary's contends the trial court's decision ignores the fundamental principle that a father has a legal duty and obligation to support and provide for his children.
Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine controversy exists.
In reviewing the propriety of the grant of summary judgment, this court applies the same standard as the trial court. The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating no genuine issue of material fact exists and he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the instant case, the facts are not in dispute. Thus, our review is concerned solely with whether Freddie was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Our Supreme Court has recognized a parent's duty to provide support for his minor child, which includes the provision of reasonable and necessary medical services for that child.