Court Opinion

ID: 9701458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:20:06.685027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:24.038021
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I concur only because of the previous opinions of this court in Johnson v. Johnson, D.C.Mun.App., 183 A.2d 916 (1962), and Drew v. Drew, D.C.Mun.App., 185 A.2d 728 (1962). In both cases I dissented. The Johnson case was affirmed in 117 U.S.App.D.C. 6, 324 F.2d 884 (1963), but in affirming the United States Court of Appeals stated:
Our decision today holds that in cases where the natural father acknowledges paternity illegitimate children are entitled to the civil remedies for support available in the Domestic Relations Branch of the Court of General Sessions. * * * (Emphasis added.) 117 U.S.App.D.C. at 11, 324 F.2d at 889.
I seriously doubt that failure to answer a complaint such as filed here constitutes an “acknowledgment” of paternity. In the Juvenile Court acknowledgment must be “in open court”. D.C.Code 1967, § 16-2349. The effect of today’s decision is that the trial court acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter because appellee defaulted in answering. To me this is a strange ruling, but it is in accord with the decision in Drew and.I am compelled to concur.