Case Name: Constance Jane OGBORN, on behalf of the Minor Kelly Ann Ogborn v. James BUSH
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1971-10-06
Citations: 255 So. 2d 199
Docket Number: No. 4552
Parties: Constance Jane OGBORN, on behalf of the Minor Kelly Ann Ogborn v. James BUSH.
Judges: Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BOUTALL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 255
Pages: 199–206

Head Matter:
Constance Jane OGBORN, on behalf of the Minor Kelly Ann Ogborn v. James BUSH.
No. 4552.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 6, 1971.
On Rehearing Dec. 8, 1971.
Writ Refused Jan. 17, 1972.
Henri Loridans, Bossier City, for plaintiff-appellant.
C. Monk Simons, III, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BOUTALL, JJ.

Opinion:
REDMANN, Judge.
An infant, through its tutrix, appeals from the rejection of its demand for alimony from its alleged natural father.
The ultimate question is whether defendant may be declared to be the father, obliged to support the child. The key issue is whether C.C. art. 209 subd. l's proof criterion is met by a maternity home application in which, defendant admits, he personally wrote his own education, occupation, height and weight in blanks headed "INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATURAL FATHER", after the mother had filled in other items in that part of the form to fit his description.
Defendant, 22 years old at the time, admits coitus with the child's mother, then 18 years old, "maybe eight or nine times", over a period of a month and a half or two months during which he saw her two or three times a week. That period would include the time of conception. He dated her "infrequently" at the time she discovered she was pregnant; he would "sometimes" take her home.
"Q. How did she advise you she was pregnant? Did she call you up and tell you? A. Yes.
"Q. Did she call you at your apartment? A. Oh, I guess, yes.
"Q. Well, at the time, you had no reason to doubt it was your child, did you ? A. Well, I assumed by that time it could have been somebody else's.
"Q. You assumed, but you had no reason to doubt— A. No."
Describing the circumstances of his filling in some "Information about the natural father", defendant testified:
"Well Connie called me up one day and asked me to come to her apartment to fill out this form. I asked her 'Why should I fill it out?' you know, why should I. She said T don't know.' She said 'Well, come on over.' I went over there and she put it in front of me. It was this maternity thing. She wanted me to fill it out. I don't see any point to it, you know, you could have put anybody in the thing."
Defendant did not think filling out. the application was an admission of paternity. "I thought anybody could have put their weight and height in there. I told her specifically I wasn't going to sign anything or put my name on anything."
The mother denied coitus with anyone else, testifying the child could not be the child of anyone except defendant. There is, however, testimony by two friends of defendant of coitus with plaintiff. Presumably the trial judge believed at least one of these witnesses, and we are not able to say he erred in doing so.
The pertinent law is found in the Civil Code.
"Illegitimate children, who have not been legally acknowledged, may be allowed to prove their paternal descent." C.C. art. 208.
"In the case where the proof of paternal descent is authorized by the pre ceding article, the proof may be made in either of the following ways:
"1. By all kinds of private writings, in which the father may have acknowledged the bastard as his child, or may have called him so;
"2. When the father, either in public or in private, has acknowledged him as his child, or has called him so in conversation, or has caused him to be educated as such;
"3. When the mother of the child was known as living in a state of concubinage with the father, and resided as such in his house at the time when the child was conceived." Art. 209.
"The oath of the mother, supported by proof of the cohabitation of the reputed father with her, out of his house, is not sufficient to establish natural paternal descent, if the mother be known as a woman of dissolute manners, or as having had an unlawful connection with one or more men (other than the man whom she declares to be the father of the child) either before or since the birth of the child." Art. 210.
Art. 211, treating the case of rape, has no relevance here.
It is important to point out in the present case, where there is evidence of coitus by the mother with two others, that art. 210 does not purport to apply to any of the three cases of art. 209. The fact of being "known" for unlawful connection with another merely makes insufficient the mother's oath supported by proof of cohabitation with the reputed father "out of his house." Art. 210 implies that that oath and proof of cohabitation outside (as opposed to "in his house," art. 209, subd. 3) would suffice (see Rousseau v. Bartell, 1954, 224 La. 601, 70 So.2d 394), unless the woman be known as dissolute or as having had other coitus. Except for the maternity home form, art. 210 would control here to either allow or defeat the filiation claim.
But where there is a suitable private writing, or verbal acknowledgment or education of the child as his, or concubinage in the alleged father's home at conception, the proof of paternity "may be made", art. 209, by showing any of those circumstances. In any of those cases, the proof is greater than the mere oath of the mother and proof of outside cohabitation; and art. 210 only declares insufficient that lesser proof.
We therefore consider whether the filling in the blanks of the maternity home form is included within "all kinds of private writings, in which the father may have acknowledged the bastard as his child, or may have called him so;" art. 209, subd. 1.
The Code Napoleon, art. 340, prohibited establishment of paternity except in case of rape. Planiol, Civil Law Treatise (La. Law Inst.Trans.), I, § 1522, observes that article
" brought about a great many discussions throughout the XIX century . It was one of the worst provisions of the Civil Code. The absolute irresponsibility of the natural father put a premium on debauchery and libertinage. It was the principal cause of the growing number of natural children. It is but proper that the natural father should be subjected to the heavy sacrifices that legitimate parents impose upon themselves for the education of their children. Men of letters, philosophers, economists, of all shades of opinion have one after the other assumed the defense of natural children not acknowledged by their father. All this agitation finally carried public opinion with it. "
The result was the November 16, 1912 amendment of art. 340, authorizing establishment of paternity in five cases (Planiol, I, § 1519), including a written avowal of paternity (Ibid., § 1526-3).
Louisiana has allowed such proof at least since the Digest of 1808, p. 50, art. 31, using the language now found in C.C. art. 209, subd. 1. Nevertheless, because the balance of our Civil Code is largely identical, the French view is pertinent and instructive.
Planiol writes, citing authorities, at § 1526-3:
"The father's avowal is a direct proof. When however it is not adduced in the form of an acknowledgment, its effect is left to the court's discretion. Art. 340, § 3 provides that avowal serves solely as a basis for judicial acknowledgment of paternity. It may be contained in a letter or other private writing emanating from the father. Such writing must be produced in evidence . It makes no difference whether the writing is or is not addressed to the mother herself or to somebody else, or whether it is signed or not, provided it is written by the father
We conclude that defendant's writing on the maternity home form is a private writing by him in which he acknowledges the child as his own or calls him so, within the meaning of C.C. art. 209, subd. 1.
Defendant admits he described himself in placing his own education, employment, height and weight in spaces for "information about the natural father", when the mother had already filled in his age, race, and color of eyes and hair. ("Well, I guess my weight, I guess she would have a tough time guessing that and my height.")
Despite defendant's testimony (supported by the otherwise unsatisfactory testimony of a friend who was present) that at the time of filling in the form he told the mother that "as far as I was concerned" he was not the father and "wasn't going to sign anything", we believe as did the Supreme Court in an analogous situation in Rousseau, supra, that "a man placed in the circumstances of this defendant would hardly be expected" to take action implying himself to be the father unless he believed he was. Since he testified earlier he had no reason at the time of the pregnancy to doubt his paternity, although he "assumed" someone else could have been the father, we are satisfied his describing himself as the father was in his belief accurate and in that sense deliberate. If he intended it merely as an accommodation to the mother, a man who has completed three years of college and who "didn't see any point to it, you could have put anybody," could have accommodated her over the telephone with "anybody's" description and not his own, and had the mother rather than himself fill in the form. It may well be that defendant wished to escape responsibility, and therefore, in his words, "wasn't going to sign anything"; but he did in writing describe himself as the father, and his signature to the writing is not required by C.C. art. 209, subd. 1.
Defendant's testimony of seeing the mother two or three (she said three or four) times a week over a month and a half to two months at conception time, even allowing his somewhat inconsistent estimate of "maybe eight or nine" instances of coitus, would have supported a belief by him that he was the father. We judge from all the testimony that defendant did not know, at the time of filling out the maternity form, of any other person having sexual intercourse with the mother. He "assumed" that one of his fraternity brothers had, prior to his own relationship, but testified that the latter had not at that time told him he had had relations with the mother. The second friend's testimony is that he revealed his alleged single act of intercourse (occurring subsequent to defendant's relationship) to defendant after defendant had mentioned, casually, in a bar, that the mother was " 'trying to hit me [defendant] with a paternity suit.' "
This evidence does not suggest to us that defendant is not the father, but only that, had defendant known of this alleged other coitus, defendant might have had some reason to doubt his paternity and, if he had on -that account declined to fill in the maternity form, might have defeated the claim under art. 210.
We judge the theory of art. 210's rigid rejection of oath-plus-cohabitation proof, where the mother is "known as having had" any other coitus, even after the birth, is that the possibility is more real that coitus with others might also have occurred at .conception time. But where, as here, the cohabitation with the alleged father is of such frequency and character as to satisfy him that he is the father, so much so that he in any kind of writing describes himself as the father, art. 209 subd. 1 provides that the paternity is sufficiently established for civil liability for alimony to attach. The circumstance of coitus with others becomes immaterial. If the alleged father's intimate knowledge of the circumstances is good enough for him, it is good enough for the courts.
In the case of a man knowingly marrying a pregnant woman, the law considers the groom the father, C.C. art. 190, despite the possibility he may have mistakenly believed the child his. It appears to us the same is true in art. 209 cases; the fact that the art. 209 acknowledgment could be mistaken does not (at least in the absence of fraud) alter that article's provision that the "proof of paternal descent may be made" by a showing like that present here.
We factually distinguish Damman v. Viada, 216 La. 1087, 45 So.2d 632 (1950). There defendant's letters "gave advice concerning her pregnancy. However, there is nothing in these letters to indicate that the defendant recognized or acknowledged that he was the father of the child." Our defendant's writing described himself as the father. The proof required by C.C. art. 209, subd. 1, has been supplied.
Defendant admits trust income of over $22,000 a year, and he co-owns and manages a 12-apartment complex from which he doubtless derives additional income. Plaintiff testified her gross income was $150 a week, and that the infant's food costs $80 a month, clothes $40, and babysitter $120. (The latter is a factor in the child's needs where the mother must work; Ferguson v. Cascio, La.App.1963, 158 So.2d 471.) She had not had any medical expenses for the child. She said her rent was $150, but did not attribute any specific part of that to the child. There was no other evidence as to the needs of the child. We make a rough estimate of $40 as a reasonable allowance for the child's necessary rent and conclude its total need is $280.
Because the obligation is equally father's and mother's, C.C. art. 240, where as here the mother is able to contribute half of the child's present needs, we conclude the father should pay only half, or $140 a month (subject to future modification by the trial court as necessary; Rousseau, supra).
The judgment appealed from is reversed and it is now adjudged that defendant, James Bush, is the father of plaintiff infant, Kelly Ann Ogborn; and there is further judgment ordering defendant to pay alimony for the support of the minor to plaintiff tutrix, Constance Jane Ogborn, at the rate of $140.00 a month, the first payment to be made one week after the date of this judgment. Defendant is to pay all costs.
. The judicial declaration of paternity was considered a "forced acknowledgment"; Planiol, I, § 1506.
. The friend's other testimony was that "Connie asked Jamie to fill a portion of this out and sign this Connie said she just needed someone to put a name down so that she could get into the home. I believe that is the way it was done." On cross he repeated this definitely. But as then pointed out, the form had space neither for the father's signature nor even for his name.