Title: State Ex Rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer
Citation: 252 Kan. 646, 847 P.2d 1273
Docket Number: 67,978
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: March 5, 1993

252 Kan. 646 (1993)
847 P.2d 1273
STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel., COLLEEN HERMESMANN, Appellee,
v.
SHANE SEYER, a minor, and DAN and MARY SEYER, his parents, Appellants.
No. 67,978

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 5, 1993.
Ronald P. Pope, of Eugene B. Ralston &amp; Associates, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellants.
*647 David N. Sutton, chief of litigation, Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HOLMES, C.J.:
Shane Seyer et al., appeal from an order of the district court granting the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) judgment for amounts paid for the birth and support of Seyer's daughter and ordering Seyer to pay monthly child support reimbursement to SRS.
The facts, as best we can determine them from an inadequate record, do not appear to be seriously in dispute.
Colleen Hermesmann routinely provided care for Shane Seyer as a baby sitter or day care provider during 1987 and 1988. The two began a sexual relationship at a time when Colleen was 16 years old and Shane was only 12. The relationship continued over a period of several months and the parties engaged in sexual intercourse on an average of a couple of times a week. As a result, a daughter, Melanie, was born to Colleen on May 30, 1989. At the time of the conception of the child, Shane was 13 years old and Colleen was 17. Colleen applied for and received financial assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (ADC) from SRS.
On January 15, 1991, the district attorney's office of Shawnee County filed a petition requesting that Colleen Hermesmann be adjudicated as a juvenile offender for engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16, Shanandoah (Shane) Seyer, to whom she was not married, in violation of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3503. Thereafter, Colleen Hermesmann entered into a plea agreement with the district attorney's office, wherein she agreed to stipulate to the lesser offense of contributing to a child's misconduct, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3612. On September 11, 1991, the juvenile court accepted the stipulation, and adjudicated Colleen Hermesmann to be a juvenile offender.
On March 8, 1991, SRS filed a petition on behalf of Colleen Hermesmann, alleging that Shane Seyer was the father of Colleen's minor daughter, Melanic. The petition also alleged that SRS had provided benefits through the ADC program to Colleen on behalf of the child and that Colleen had assigned support *648 rights due herself and her child to SRS. The petition requested that the court determine paternity and order Shane to reimburse SRS for all assistance expended by SRS on Melanie's behalf. On December 17, 1991, an administrative hearing officer found Shane was Melanie's biological father. The hearing officer further determined that Shane was not required to pay the birth expenses or any of the child support expenses up to the date of the hearing on December 17, 1991, but that Shane had a duty to support the child from the date of the hearing forward.
Shane requested judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer, contending that the hearing officer "should have found a failure of consent would terminate rights." SRS sought review, asserting that the hearing officer correctly ruled that the issue of consent was irrelevant, but erred in allowing Shane to present evidence pertaining to the defense of consent. SRS also alleged that the hearing officer's denial of reimbursement to the State for funds already paid was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the mandates of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 39-718b.
The district judge, upon judicial review of the hearing officer's order, determined that Shane was the father of Melanie Hermesmann and owed a duty to support his child, stating:
The court found that the issue of Shane's consent was irrelevant and ordered Shane to pay child support of $50 per month. The court also granted SRS a joint and several judgment against Shane and Colleen in the amount of $7,068, for assistance provided by *649 the ADC program on behalf of Melanie through February 1992. The judgment included medical and other birthing expenses as well as assistance paid after Melanie's birth. Shane appeals the judgment rendered and the order for continuing support but does not contest the trial court's paternity finding. SRS has not cross-appealed from any of the orders or judgment of the district court.
This case was transferred from the Court of Appeals by this court's own motion. K.S.A. 20-3018(c).
Shane has designated three issues on appeal, which he states as follows:
Shane's argument on appeal is based on three basic premises. (1) Shane Seyer, as a minor under the age of 16, was unable to consent to sexual intercourse. (2) Because he was unable to consent to sexual intercourse, he cannot be held responsible for the birth of his child. (3) Because he cannot be held responsible for the birth, he cannot be held jointly and severally liable for the child's support.
Shane asserts as his first issue that, because he was a minor under the age of 16 at the time of conception, he was legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse and therefore cannot be held legally responsible for the birth of his child. Shane cites no case law to directly support this proposition. Instead, he argues that Colleen Hermesmann sexually assaulted him, that he was the victim of the crime of statutory rape, and that the criminal statute of indecent liberties with a child should be applied to hold him incapable of consenting to the act.
What used to be commonly called "statutory rape" is now included in the statutory crime of indecent liberties with a child. The statute, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3503, reads in pertinent part:
*650 (a) Sexual intercourse."
Both the administrative hearing officer and the district court determined that whether Shane consented to sexual intercourse was not a relevant issue in a civil paternity and child support proceeding.
SRS maintains that Shane was not the victim of the crime of statutory rape. SRS points out that while Colleen was originally charged in juvenile proceedings with a violation of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3503, she later stipulated to a lesser charge of contributing to a child's misconduct, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3612. While SRS is technically correct in asserting that Colleen was never found guilty of violating 21-3503, its entire case is based upon the fact that Shane is the father of the child. As it is undisputed that Shane was under the age of 16 when conception occurred, and throughout the entire time the sexual relationship continued, the argument of SRS is specious at best. The admitted facts established, without doubt, all of the elements necessary to prove a crime under K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3503(1)(a), and the fact that Colleen was able to plea bargain for a lesser offense does not preclude Shane from alleging he was a "victim" of statutory rape.
Although the issue of whether an underage alleged "victim" of a sex crime can be held liable for support of a child born as a result of such crime is one of first impression in Kansas, other jurisdictions have addressed the question.
In In re Paternity of J.L.H., 149 Wis.2d 349, 441 N.W.2d 273 (1989), J.J.G. appealed from a summary judgment in a paternity proceeding determining that he was the father of J.L.H. and ordering him to pay child support equal to 17 percent of his gross income. J.J.G. was 15 years old when the child was conceived. On appeal, he asserted that the child's mother, L.H., sexually assaulted him, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.225(2)(e) (1979) (the Wisconsin statutory rape statute in effect at the time), and that, as a minor, he was incapable of consent under the sexual assault law. The court rejected this argument and stated:
(a) a person who is 15 to 17 years of age....'
....
The court then goes on to state:
Although the question of whether the intercourse with Colleen was "voluntary," as the term is usually understood, is not specifically before us, it was brought out in oral argument before this court that the sexual relationship between Shane and his baby sitter, Colleen, started when he was only 12 years old and lasted over a period of several months. At no time did Shane register any complaint to his parents about the sexual liaison with Colleen.
In Schierenbeck v. Minor, 148 Colo. 582, 367 P.2d 333 (1961), Schierenbeck, a 16-year-old boy, appealed the adjudication in a dependency proceeding that he was the father of a child born to a 20-year-old woman. On appeal, Schierenbeck cited a Colorado criminal statute which defined rape in the third degree by a female of a male person under the age of 18 years. In discussing the relevance of the criminal statute, the court stated:
The trial court decision was reversed on other grounds not pertinent to the facts of our case and remanded for further proceedings.
The Kansas Parentage Act, K.S.A. 38-1110 et seq., specifically contemplates minors as fathers and makes no exception for minor parents regarding their duty to support and educate their child. K.S.A. 38-1117 provides, in part:
K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 38-1121(c) provides, in part:
If the legislature had wanted to exclude minor parents from responsibility for support, it could easily have done so.
As previously stated, Shane does not contest that he is the biological father of the child. As a father, he has a common-law duty, as well as a statutory duty, to support his minor child. Keller v. Guernsey, 227 Kan. 480, 486, 608 P.2d 896 (1980); Strecker v. Wilkinson, 220 Kan. 292, 298, 552 P.2d 979 (1976); Grimes v. Grimes, 179 Kan. 340, 343, 295 P.2d 646 (1956). This duty applies equally to parents of children born out of wedlock. Huss v. DeMott, 215 Kan. 450, 524 P.2d 743 (1974); Doughty v. Engler, 112 Kan. 583, 585, 211 Pac. 619 (1923).
Under the statutory and common law of this state, Shane owes a duty to support his minor child. K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3503 *653 does not apply to a civil proceeding and cannot serve to relieve Shane of his legal responsibilities towards his child. Shane relies upon six cases to support his position: State v. Fike, 243 Kan. 365, 757 P.2d 724 (1988); State v. Hutchcraft, 242 Kan. 55, 744 P.2d 849 (1987); State v. Lilley, 231 Kan. 694, 647 P.2d 1323 (1982); State v. Price, 215 Kan. 718, 529 P.2d 85 (1974); State v. Eberline, 47 Kan. 155, 27 Pac. 839 (1891); State v. Fulcher, 12 Kan. App.2d 169, 737 P.2d 61 (1987). Each of these cases involves the age of consent issue under the Kansas statutory rape law and its present equivalent. We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity. Consequently, Shane's reliance on the foregoing criminal cases is misplaced.
For Shane's next issue, he asserts that it is not sound public policy for a court to order a youth to pay child support for a child conceived during the crime of indecent liberties with a child when the victim was unable to consent to the sexual intercourse. He claims that while the Kansas Parentage Act creates a State interest in the welfare of dependent relatives, the policy behind the Parentage Act is not to force a minor, who is unable to consent to sexual intercourse, to support a child born from the criminal act.
Shane provides no case law specifically on point, but once again relies upon the Kansas cases involving statutory rape. He also refers the court to K.S.A. 39-718a, which authorized the Secretary of SRS to collect child support from an absent parent. Shane suggests that underlying K.S.A. 39-718a is the presumption that a parent consented to the conception, and argues that the proper remedy for SRS in this case is to seek support exclusively from Colleen Hermesmann, as she was the only parent legally able to consent to the conception of the child. What Shane has failed to recognize, however, is that K.S.A. 39-718a was repealed by the legislature in 1988. L. 1988, ch. 218, § 6. Any argument based upon a statute which was repealed five years ago is obviously without merit.
However, the argument of two allegedly conflicting public policies of this state does merit consideration. Other jurisdictions have recognized the conflict between a State's interest in protecting *654 juveniles and a State's interest in requiring parental support of children. In In re Parentage of J.S., 193 Ill. App.3d 563, 550 N.E.2d 257 (1990), the trial court ordered a minor father to pay child support for his illegitimate son. The minor father appealed the order, but did not contest the trial court's paternity finding. In affirming the trial court's decision ordering support, the court stated:
In Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 387 Mass. 678, 442 N.E.2d 1155 (1982), a 16-year-old father was ordered to pay child support of $8 a week toward the support of his child born out of wedlock. The minor father admitted his paternity, but appealed the support order. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment of the lower court and said:
This State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrides the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent. Considering the three persons directly involved, Shane, Colleen, and Melanie, *655 the interests of Melanie are superior, as a matter of public policy, to those of either or both of her parents. This minor child, the only truly innocent party, is entitled to support from both her parents regardless of their ages.
As his third issue, Shane asserts that the district court erred in finding he and Colleen were jointly and severally liable for the child support. He argues that, as Colleen was the perpetrator of the crime of statutory rape, she alone should be held responsible for the consequences of the act, and he requests this court to remand the case to the district court with instructions to order Colleen solely responsible for the support pursuant to K.S.A. 39-718a. He states that K.S.A. 39-701 et seq. does not require a judgment ordering joint and several liability for child support.
Once again, Shane's reliance upon K.S.A. 39-718a is improper. This statute was repealed in 1988. L. 1988, ch. 218, § 6. The controlling statute, as SRS points out, is K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 39-718b, which explicitly requires a court to order joint and several liability, with some exceptions not applicable here, when more than one person is legally obligated to support the child. SRS correctly notes that the mother's conduct has no bearing upon the parties' respective obligations to support their child. Other courts have so held. In Weinberg v. Omar E., 106 App. Div.2d 448, 448, 482 N.Y.S.2d 540 (1984), the court held:
SRS also notes that Shane cites no authority in support of his contention. Nowhere does the law in this state suggest that the mother's "wrongdoing" can operate as a setoff or bar to a father's liability for child support. Under the facts as presented to this court, the district court properly held that Shane owes a duty of support to Melanie and properly ordered that Shane and Colleen were jointly and severally liable for the monies previously paid by SRS.
While the foregoing disposes of the issues on appeal, we would be remiss if we did not comment upon various other facets of *656 this appeal. This court was not supplied with any meaningful record in this case. The only record supplied by counsel was a portion of the pleadings in the district court. No transcript or other evidence of the proceedings before the hearing officer was included in the record, and the facts, while apparently not disputed, have been gleaned from the pleadings, briefs, arguments before this court, and a transcript of the arguments before the district judge which this court felt compelled to obtain. The appellants' brief does refer to two exhibits, allegedly attached to their brief, in support of some of their statements of fact. However, such exhibits were not made part of the record on appeal, nor were they attached as exhibits to the brief. Neither parties brief could be considered adequate, let alone a model, for appellate procedure.
Additionally, counsel for SRS joined the parents of Shane as parties defendant, although no relief was sought against those defendants. At oral argument, appellate counsel had no explanation for joining Shane's parents, but it appears trial counsel may have done so under some mistaken idea that it was necessary to obtain valid service on Shane.
Finally, we call attention to the fact that no issue was raised as to the propriety of the judgment against a youngster who was still a full-time student when these proceedings were commenced. When questioned in oral argument about the policy of SRS in seeking a judgment in excess of $7,000, counsel replied with the surprising statement that SRS had no intention of ever attempting to collect its judgment. Under such circumstances, the reason for seeking that portion of the judgment still eludes us.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.