Court Opinion

ID: 9669894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:10:37.810046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:00.965500
License: Public Domain

HAWTHORNE, Justice
(dissenting).
In the instant case the defendant is charged under Article 74 of the Louisiana Criminal Code, R.S. 14:74, with having unlawfully, wilfully, and without just cause neglected to provide for the support of his minor child.
Our Constitution in Article VII, Section 96, provides that the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Orleans “ * * * shall also have jurisdiction of all cases of desertion or non-support of children by either parent * * * ”. To my mind this constitutional provision is plain, and its meaning is clear. It means exactly what it says: That the Juvenile Court shall have jurisdiction of all cases of non-support of children by either parent. I then ask:' What is an illegitimate child if he is not a child ? Certainly no distinction is drawn in the provision of the Constitution between a legitimate and an illegitimate child. The majority here, however, is rewriting the constitutional provision to mean that the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Orleans shall have jurisdiction of all cases of non-support of legitimate children by either parent, and of non-support of illegitimate children by either parent only when the relationship of parent and child shall have been first established in some other court.
The majority opinion says: “* * * Of necessity, the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Orleans is without power or authority to entertain any action to establish t'~e paternity of an illegitimate child * *.” The majority is proceeding from an incorrect premise. This is not an “action to establish the paternity of an illegitimate child”. It is a criminal proceeding, brought by the State under R.S. 14:74, to try the defendant for the offense of non-support of *175his minor child. The question of whether he is the parent of that child is only a question of proof of one of the elements of the offense charged, and this question of proof or evidence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.
The Legislature has attempted on three different occasions to make the offense denounced by the statute here under consideration a crime. See Act 164 of 1950, Act 368 of 1952, and Act 298 of 1954, all amending Article 74 of the Criminal Code. The majority of this court rendered the .1950 and 1952 acts ineffective insofar as unacknowledged illegitimate children are concerned. See State v. Jones, 220 La. 381, 56 So.2d 724; State v. Sims, 220 La. 532, 57 So.2d 177; State v. Love, 220 La. 562, 57 So.2d 187; State v. Mack, 224 La. 886, 71 So.2d 315. The 1954 act is now meeting the same fate under the decision of the majority in the instant case.
I respectfully dissent.