Source: http://www.massachusetts-divorce.com/cases/JC-v-EM.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:37:46+00:00

Document:
We take the facts from the stipulation of the parties and the findings of the judge. In December, 1977, A.C. (husband) married J.C. (mother). [Note 1] Prior to the marriage, the husband had had a successful vasectomy which had not been reversed. On November 20, 1984, the mother had sexual relations with E.M. (father) and gave birth to a daughter on August 21, 1985. [Note 2] Although the husband knew he was not the father, he agreed to place his name on the birth certificate to avoid embarrassment in the small community in which they lived. [Note 3] After the child's birth, the mother supported her financially while the husband stayed home and took care of her.
In his findings, the judge hearing the paternity case stated that the mother represented that the provisions in the agreement for child support ($50 per week) were added at the insistence of the judge hearing the divorce and that neither party expected support payments to be made. The mother has not sought child support payments from the husband and no support payments have been made by him. He has cooperated with the wife in this action and has filed an affidavit in support of the petition for paternity. At the mother's request, the husband has not seen the child during the pendency of this litigation, although he regularly speaks to the child on the telephone.
While claim preclusion would bar the husband from attacking the determination of paternity, Anderson v. Anderson, at 258-259, the "minor plaintiff should not be foreclosed by the prior judgment from presenting [her] own case for support (and perhaps to establish other rights)," such as the right to inherit from her biological father. See Department of Rev. v. Jarvenpaa, 404 Mass. 177 , 184 & n.8 (1989). See also Knox v. Remick, 371 Mass. 433 , 437 (1976) (parents may not bargain away the rights of their children to support). Although the Jarvenpaa case was based on a legislative provision, its reasoning in favor of preserving the rights of a minor child is persuasive and, we think, applicable here. The child should not be held to have lost her rights by reason of divorce proceedings between the husband and the mother where her father, unlike the Jarvenpaa case, was not even a party. The result is in no way unfair to the father who has never litigated the matter, and as a biological parent, has the primary obligation to support his child. See A.R. v. C.R., 411 Mass. at 575. Courts elsewhere have held that a minor child is not bound by a divorce adjudication that the child was issue of the marriage. See, e.g., Adoption of Stroope, 232 Cal. App. 2d 581, 584-585 (1965); Simcox v. Simcox, 131 Ill. 2d 491, 497 (1989); In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 592 (1989), affirming In re Marriage of Ross, 13 Kan. App. 402, 408, on this point; Baker v. Williams, 503 So. 2d 249, 254 (Miss. 1987); Gipson v. Enright, 753 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988); Shelton v. An Infant, 12 Va. App. 859 (1991). Cf. Wiese v. Wiese, 699 P.2d. 700 (Utah 1985). See also Annot., 78 A.L.R. 3d 846, 854-856 (1977), and cases cited. Some cases suggest or require the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the child in paternity actions against the alleged biological father. See, e.g., Baker v. Williams, supra at 253; Cleo v. Gene, 438 S.E.2d 886, 889 (W. Va. 1993).
The mother in her own right is barred from bringing the action by claim preclusion. While she should, perhaps, have brought this action in the name of the child, but see G. L. c. 209C, Section 5(a), "the real party in interest in this case is the plaintiff's child, whether [s]he is formally made a litigant or treated as being represented by [her] mother." McDonald v. Bellotti, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 988 , 991 (1990). Without further action, see Geraghty v. Mott's Shop-Rite, Inc., 377 Mass. 911 , 912 (1979), we treat the pleadings as including a claim on behalf of the child. She is not bound by the prior divorce litigation. See McDonald v. Bellotti, 29 Mass. App. Ct. at 991. The judge was correct in ruling that the divorce action was not a bar to the present petition.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.