Court Opinion

ID: 9718039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:15:42.536268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:12.667970
License: Public Domain

Rogosheske, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the result but would point out that the proceedings are governed by the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act and that the fatal defect is the failure of the district court of Minnesota, as the responding state, to make a finding based upon the evidence presented that defendant owed a duty to support a minor child, who, under his *133claim of nonfatherhood, would not be an “obligee” as defined by Minn. St. 518.42, subd. 9. Section 518.48, subd. 5, expressly requires such a finding by the court of the responding state before a duty to support can be enforced.
Mr. Justice Peterson, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.