Document: 409 U.S. 535 93 S.Ct. 872 35 L.Ed.2d 56 Linda GOMEZ, Individually and as Next Friend of Zoraida Gomez, Appellant,v.Francisco Ocasio PEREZ. No. 71-575. Argued Dec. 6, 1972. Decided Jan. 17, 1973. Stanley Dalton Wright, Houston, Tex., for appellant. Joseph Jaworski, amicus curiae, in support the judgment below. PER CURIAM. 1 The issue presented by this appeal is whether laws Texas may constitutionally grant legitimate children a judicially enforceable right to from their natural fathers at same time deny that illegitimate children. 2 In 1969, appellant filed petition District Court seeking appellee on behalf her minor child. After hearing, state trial judge found 'the biological father' child, child 'needs maintenance father,' but concluded because was 'there no legal obligation Plaintiff take nothing.' Civil Appeals affirmed ruling over objection being denied equal protection law. 466 S.W.2d 41. Supreme refused application writ error, finding 'reversible error.' We noted probable jurisdiction. 408 920, 92 2479, 33 331. 3 Texas, both common law under statutes State, father has continuing primary duty his See Lane v . Phillips, 69 Tex. 240, 243, 6 S.W. 610, 611 (1887); Tex.Fam.Code § 4.02 (1970) (husband's duty).1 That extends even beyond dissolution marriage, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat., Art. 4639a (Supp.1972—1973); Hooten v. Hooten, 15 141 (Tex.Civ.App.1929), child's civil proceedings and, further, subject criminal sanctions. Penal Code 602. exists despite fact not have custody supra. held case nowhere elaborate statutory scheme does State recognize any part that, absent support, controlling common-law rule children, unlike fathers. also Home Holy Infancy Kaska, 397 208 (Tex.1965); supra, S.W., 611; Bjorgo Bjorgo, 391 528 (Tex.Civ.App.1965). It true set up illegitimacy defense prosecutions nonsupport Curtin 155 Tex.Cr.R. 625, 238 187 (1950); Beaver 96 179, 256 929 (1923). 4 context appellant's claim, daughter been unmistakably presented. Indeed, argument here, attorney appearing conceded she would be entitled Texas.2 5 Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment create action favor wrongful death parent exclude benefit such right. Levy Louisiana, 68, 88 1509, 20 436 (1968). Similarly, we excluded sharing equally with other recovery workmen's compensation benefits parent. Weber Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 164, 1400, 31 768 (1972).3 Under these decisions, invidiously discriminate against denying them substantial accorded generally. therefore hold once posits needed there sufficient justification an essential simply its married mother. For do so 'illogical unjust.' Id., 175, S.Ct., 1406. lurking problems respect proof paternity. Those are lightly brushed aside, neither can they made into impenetrable barrier works shield otherwise invidious discrimination. Illinois, 405 645, 656—657, 1208, 1215—1216, 551 (1972); Carrington Rash, 380 89, 85 775, 13 675 (1965). reversed remanded further inconsistent opinion. 7 ordered. 8 Reversed remanded. 9 Mr. Justice STEWART, whom REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. 10 This came here appeal, representation courts had sustained constitutionality Family Articles 602 602—A Code, challenge those Amendment. jurisdiction, 331, consider alleged discrimination between terms obligations fathers, principles 768; Glona American Guarantee Liability Insurance 73, 1515, 441; 436. 11 Upon submission briefs oral argument, it became clear statute actual litigation Texas. Hence, properly 28 U.S.C. 1257(2). I would, therefore, dismiss want treat papers whereon taken' certiorari. 2103. 12 parties were prepared submit one challenging treatment illegitimates failed provide understanding matters custodial versus noncustodial obligations, legitimation, effect statute, which after begun. With issues vaguely drawn discriminations imprecise, certiorari improvidently granted. Section effective commencement suit, provision identical (except punctuation) predecessor, Tex.Civ.Stat., Husband Wife, 4614, n. Tex.Laws, c. 309, p. 736 (60th Legislature, Reg.Sess.1967). enacted codification family Tr. Oral Arg. 24. There some question relating paternal courts. circumstances case, need resolve question. First, asserts prejudice apparent failure explicitly draw attention individual make so-called regarding On contrary, asserted meet constitutional attack merits. 28. Second, our cases, unrestricted notation jurisdiction understood writ' 'nonappealable' case. Mishkin New York, 383 502, 512, 86 958, 965, 16 (1966). Appellant's federal rejected courts, is, before us event. Davis Richardson, 342 F.Supp. 588 (Conn.), aff'd, 1069, 678, 34 659 Griffin 346 1226 (Md.), 689, 660 (1972).

Category: 1