Dubay v. Wells

Dubay v. Wells, 506 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2007). A Michigan paternity statute that requires the parents of a child born out of wedlock to support the child does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because: (1) the statute serves the purpose of ensuring children are provided with support and education and (2) the means the law uses to achieve this end are rationally related to that purpose. The plaintiff, Matthew Dubay, fathered a child out of wedlock. The Defendants include the child's mother, the County Prosecuting Attorney, and the Michigan Attorney General. The County brought a paternity complaint against the father under the Michigan Paternity Act, which imposes support on the parents and requires the court to enter a declaration of paternity if it determines the defendant is the father of the child. Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 722.712(1), 722.717(1). The father brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it denied fathers the right to disclaim parenthood-the same right mothers had through abortions-and made it easier for mothers to place children in adoption or other social service agencies. In determining what level of constitutional scrutiny to use, the court held that strict scrutiny should not apply because the right of a parent to sever his or her parental financial responsibilities after the child is born does not constitute a fundamental right. N.E. v. Hedges, 391 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2004). It further held that intermediate scrutiny is inapplicable because the Act does not discriminate on the basis of gender. When imposing parental obligations, the statute refers to "the parents," a gender-neutral designation. Furthermore, although the provision determining paternity refers specifically to the father, the entire statutory scheme also requires identification of the mother at birth and establishes a judicial remedy to ensure that the mother is also providing adequate support to the child. Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.2822 and 722.721(1). Because neither strict nor intermediate scrutiny apply, the Act must meet only the rational basis test: it must bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose. Here, the court held that the statute serves the legitimate purpose of ensuring minor children born outside of wedlock are provided with support and education. Furthermore, the means that the statute uses to achieve this end-requiring support from legal parents and determining legal fatherhood based on biological fatherhood-is rationally related to that purpose. Because the statute meets both prongs of the rational basis test, the court upheld the statute's constitutionality. Additionally, the court held that the lower court's grant of attorneys' fees to the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 did not violate due process. In doing so, the court recognized that the father was given ample opportunity to respond to the defendants' separate motions for attorneys' fees and did, in fact, respond. Finally, the court declined to exercise its discretion to honor the defendants' request for costs and attorneys' fees because the father's appeal was not frivolous. (Casey Schach)