Court Opinion

ID: 9598927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:13:09.921542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:43.431679
License: Public Domain

GILLETTE, P. J.,
dissenting.
Because the majority opinion recognizes the pertinent considerations in this case, but then unaccountably misapplies them, I dissent.
The question specifically before us is whether Oregon’s (then) six-year statute of limitations on cases of this kind denied equal protection of the laws. I find the case upon which the majority relies to be against, not for, the majority’s position. In Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 US 91, 102 S Ct 1549, 71 L Ed 2d 770 (1982), the Supreme Court, while striking down a one-year Texas statute of limitations, nonetheless specifically and repeatedly acknowledged that some statute of limitations was permissible:
“The fact that Texas must provide illegitimate children with a bona fide opportunity to obtain paternal support does not mean, however, that it must adopt procedures for illegitimate children that are coterminous with those accorded legitimate children. Paternal support suits on behalf of illegitimate children contain an element that such suits for legitimate children do not contain: proof of paternity. Such proof is often sketchy and strongly contested, frequently turning on conflicting testimony for only two witnesses. * * *
“Therefore, in support suits by illegitimate children more than in support suits for legitimate children, the State has an interest in preventing the prosecution of stale or fraudulent claims, and may impose greater restrictions on the former than it imposes on the latter. * * * The State’s interest in avoiding the litigation of stale or *673fraudulent claims will justify those periods of limitation that are sufficiently long to present a real threat of loss or diminution of evidence, or an increased vulnerability to fraudulent claims.” 456 US at 98-99. (Footnotes and citations omitted.)
I do not know how anything could be clearer. Our sole function in this case is, or ought to be, answering one question: Does six years give those with an interest in illegitimate children a sufficently long time to provide a reasonable opportunity to make a claim? The answer is yes. No further inquiry is necessary.
I would reverse the trial court and remand the case for entry of judgment for defendant.