Watt v. Office of Child Support Enforcement

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed an order establishing William Watt as the biological father of Lakesha Lemon and requiring him to pay child-support arrearages. The court upheld the authority to order paternity testing, found that the Office of Child Support Enforcement had standing, and concluded that the award of support beginning at the mother's death was not clearly erroneous. The court declined to consider undeveloped constitutional and laches arguments.

Holdings

1. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-10-108(a)(2)(A) expressly requires the trial court, upon motion in a paternity action, to order the putative father and child to submit to scientific testing when the mother is deceased or unavailable; the circuit court therefore properly ordered the testing.
2. When the mother is deceased, corroborating testimony concerning the conception, birth, and history of the child, together with paternity-test results establishing at least a ninety-five-percent probability of biological paternity, constitutes a prima facie case and shifts the burden to the putative father to rebut it. The evidence supported the finding that Watt was the father as a matter of law.
3. The Office of Child Support Enforcement had statutory authority to bring the paternity action, and any challenge to Sara Smith's individual standing was irrelevant because OCSE, not Smith, was the plaintiff identified in the pleadings.
4. The circuit court's decision to award support beginning on the date of the mother's death was not clearly erroneous.
5. The Supreme Court would not consider Watt's laches defense because he failed to plead laches in the trial court and raised it for the first time on appeal.
6. The court declined to address the merits of Watt's Fourth Amendment challenge because the argument was not developed at the trial-court level and was unsupported by legal authority in his appellate brief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court had authority to order Watt and the child to submit to scientific paternity testing when the child's mother was deceased.
2. Whether the corroborating testimony concerning conception, birth, and the child's history was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of paternity under Arkansas law.
3. Whether the Office of Child Support Enforcement had authority to initiate the paternity action.
4. Whether the award of child support arrearages beginning on the date of the mother's death was clearly erroneous.
5. Whether Watt preserved and established laches as an affirmative defense.
6. Whether Watt's constitutional challenge to the paternity testing was preserved and adequately developed for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed