Opinion ID: 1691937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Avowal Action

Text: Louisiana Law provides a presumption of paternity to the husband of the mother when a child is born during the marriage. LSA-C.C. art. 185. [3] While Louisiana's Civil Code previously provided that this presumption could be rebutted by the husband pursuant to LSA-C.C. arts. 187, [4] there was no statutory means provided for a purported biological father to recognize his illegitimate child prior to the enactment of LSA-C.C. art. 191 in 2004. As a result of this absence of statutory authority, Louisiana courts established the avowal action. This judicially recognized cause of action enabled biological fathers to establish their paternity of their illegitimate children. T.D. v. M.M.M ., XXXX-XXXX (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 [citing Peyton v. Peyton, 92-107 (La.App. 3rd Cir.2/3/93), 614 So.2d 185; Geen v. Geen, 95-984 (La. App. 3rd Cir.12/27/95), 666 So.2d 1192, 1195, writ den. 96-0201 (La.3/22/96); 669 So.2d 1224; Putnam v. Mayeaux, 93-1251 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/10/94), 645 So.2d 1223; Chandler v. Grass, 600 So.2d 852 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1992)]. Thus, a biological father could assert an avowal action despite the presumption of LSA-C.C. art. 184 that the mother's husband is the father of all children born or conceived during the marriage. This created the potential of dual paternity, whereby the mother's husband is the child's legal father, but the biological father may also assert some parental rights. In T.D. v. M.M.M., supra , this Court explained the rationale behind the dual paternity doctrine by noting policy factors which favored allowing a biological father to avow his child where such action will result in dual paternity. First, the Court observed that a biological father is susceptible to suit for child support. Secondly, a child may seek to filiate to his biological father in order to receive wrongful death benefits or inheritance rights. Thus, this Court reasoned that [i]t seems only fair, in light of the obligations to which a biological father is susceptible and the multitude of benefits available to the biological child due to the biological line, that the biological father should be afforded at least an opportunity to prove his worthiness to participate in the child's life. T.D., 730 So.2d at 876. However, this Court also recognized that an avowal action must be asserted in a timely manner, and that a biological father who cannot meet the best interest of the child standard, retains his obligation of support, but cannot claim the privilege of parental rights. Id. When W.R.M.'s Petition to Establish Filation was filed, there was no statutory time limitation for filing an avowal action. An action for avowal was a judicially-recognized action only, which was required to be filed within a reasonable period of time. On June 25, 2004, while W.R.M.'s action was pending before the trial court, 2004 La. Acts 530, which enacted LSA-C.C. art. 191, became effective. [5] This article generally provided for a two-year peremptive period for bringing an avowal action. On June 29, 2005, while W.R.M.'s appeal was pending in the Third Circuit, 2005 La. Acts. No. 192, which enacted LSA-C.C. art. 198, became effective. [6] This article reduced the peremptive time period for bringing an avowal action from two years to one year. On March 1, 2006, well after the effective date of Act 192, the court of appeal rendered its decision in this case, and concluded that retroactive application of LSA-C.C. art. 191 is an unconstitutional abridgement of a right to due process. [7] In my view, the legislature clearly established its intent that Article 191 should be applied both prospectively and retroactively. Thus, LSA-C.C. art. 191 applies to W.R.M.'s avowal action unless retroactive application would violate the constitutional prohibitions against impairment of contractual or vested rights.