Opinion ID: 1349983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: castillo as a necessary party

Text: In Nebraska, ``Indispensable parties to a suit are those who not only have an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also have an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting their interests, or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience....'' Helter v. Williamson, 239 Neb. 741, 743, 478 N.W.2d 6, 7 (1991), quoting Koch v. Koch, 226 Neb. 305, 411 N.W.2d 319 (1987). When the determination of a controversy is impossible without the presence of other parties, the district court must order them brought in. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-323 (Reissue 1989). Therefore, if Castillo is an indispensable party to this suit, the trial court committed reversible error in denying the defendant's motion to join him. The defendant argues that our decision in Helter requires a holding in this case that Castillo is a necessary party. Helter involved a custody suit in which the plaintiff Helter claimed to be the biological father of a child conceived and born during the marriage of Margaret and Tracy Williamson. Though Margaret Williamson did not deny the plaintiff's assertion that he fathered the child, she was awarded custody. This court reversed and remanded with directions to join Tracy Williamson as an indispensable party. The court based its decision on the ancient presumption that children born during a marriage are legitimate, noting that [t]he presumption prevents nonparents from arriving on the scene, either during or after the marriage, and staking claims, parental visitation rights, and responsibilities without the knowledge or consent of the true parent. Helter, 239 Neb. at 743, 478 N.W.2d at 8. The defendant's reliance on Helter is misplaced. There, the plaintiff sought a determination of paternity for the purpose of establishing his parental right to custody of the child. Because awarding custody to the plaintiff would dramatically affect the presumed father's legal interest in custody, we held that it was necessary to join the presumed father to adequately protect this important interest. In this case, however, the State seeks a determination of paternity for the sole purpose of obtaining support payments from the defendant. The State's interest is primarily financial, in that it is attempting to recoup moneys paid out of public coffers to support the child from the party morally responsible for that support. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-512.07 (Supp.1991) (acceptance of aid to dependent children payments by a parent constitutes an assignment of the right to support payments to the Department of Social Services up to the amount paid). An order obligating the defendant to make periodic support payments in no way prejudices Castillo's legal interests. As noted in the plurality opinion by Justice Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court in Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 126, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 2343, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989): [W]hat is at issue here is not entitlement to a state pronouncement that Victoria was begotten by Michael. It is no conceivable denial of constitutional right for a State to decline to declare facts unless some legal consequence hinges upon the requested declaration. What Michael asserts here is a right to have himself declared the natural father and thereby to obtain parental prerogatives. (Emphasis in original.) Though asserted in a slightly different context, Justice Scalia's reasoning is directly applicable here. The opportunity to contest the paternity of a child is only meaningful as it relates to the legal consequences which flow from such a determination. In Helter, the presumed father had a vital interest in contesting the issue of paternity only because determination of that issue could have substantially affected his parental prerogative of child custody. Here, however, Castillo's parental prerogatives are not at stake. No rights of visitation or custody are at issue, and an award of the relief sought in no way alters Castillo's obligation to support the child. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-705(1) (Reissue 1989) (making it a crime to abandon or neglect a dependent stepchild, even if the child was born out of wedlock). Not only is there no effect on Castillo's interests from a finding of paternity in this case, but such a finding does not preclude him from relitigating the issue in a future lawsuit which does affect his interests. In Com. of Public Welfare v. Koehler, 284 N.Y. 260, 30 N.E.2d 587 (1940), the New York Court of Appeals held that neither the child nor the husband of the mother is a necessary party to a paternity proceeding. In so doing, the court reasoned that [t]he order made in such a proceeding does not constitute an adjudication binding on them or persons claiming through or under them that the child is or is not the legitimate offspring of married parents. An order adjudging that some person other than the mother's husband is the father of the child and ordering him to provide for its support is, it is plain, not a binding adjudication of illegitimacy. It does not establish the status of the child nor would it be competent evidence to establish illegitimacy in any proceeding to which others are parties. Id. at 267, 30 N.E.2d at 590-91. This reasoning clearly applies in Nebraska as well. In Nebraska, the doctrine of collateral estoppel only applies if four conditions are met: (1) The identical issue was decided in a prior action, (2) there was a judgment on the merits which was final, (3) the party against whom the rule is applied was a party or in privity with a party to the prior action, and (4) there was an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue in the prior action. In re Applications of Nebraska P.P. Dist., 215 Neb. 8, 337 N.W.2d 107 (1983). Therefore, a finding in this case that the defendant fathered the child could not be asserted against Castillo in a subsequent suit in which his legal interests hinged on a finding of paternity. For example, should J.R. later die intestate, the finding made in this case would not prevent Castillo from asserting a claim for a share of the estate and relitigating the issue of paternity. The same is true should Castillo wish to assert rights of visitation or custody based on the allegation that he fathered the child. To be sure, the defendant could have admitted paternity, willingly accepted his support obligation, and sought rights of visitation, custody, or a change of the child's surname. See, Cox v. Hendricks, 208 Neb. 23, 302 N.W.2d 35 (1981) (in a paternity suit issues of custody and visitation fall within the general equity jurisdiction of the district court); Lancaster v. Brenneis, 227 Neb. 371, 417 N.W.2d 767 (1988) (a court exercising jurisdiction in a filiation proceeding has the discretion to change the child's surname from that of the mother to that of the natural father). Such a case would present an altogether different question as to the necessity of joining Castillo. Though the trial court denied the defendant's motion to join Castillo as an indispensable party, it did order that the State serve him with notice of the pendency of the suit. Though he at all times retained the right to intervene, he did not do so. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-328 (Reissue 1989). His failure to do so is further indication that his legal interests are simply unaffected by this lawsuit. He and P.C. already knew that he did not father the child; they admitted as much at trial. As discussed above, no rights regarding custody, visitation, or the name of the child are at issue hereonly the financial obligation of the defendant to contribute to the child's support. Because the imposition of such an obligation could in no way prejudice Castillo, he is not a necessary party to this suit. The defendant's second assignment of error is without merit.