Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Johnson v. Turner
No. 94-5919 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 1997) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52208
Description
Fathers and Putative Fathers Lacked Standing to Challenge Tennessee’s Paternity and Child Support Statutes
Abstract
Finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims, the
Sixth Circuit has affirmed the district court’s judgment
dismissing their challenge to Tennessee’s paternity and child
support statutes. In these consolidated actions, plaintiffs,
fathers and putative fathers of children born out of wedlock,
alleged that the paternity statute violates their Fourth Amendment
rights because it authorizes arrests in purely civil matters
without a showing of an effective service of process and a finding
of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. Plaintiffs also
claimed that the paternity statute violates the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment because it authorizes prejudgment
seizure of a putative father’s assets before a final judgment
as to paternity has been entered. Finally, plaintiffs alleged that
Tennessee’s attachment statute violates the Fourth Amendment
because it authorizes the arrest of parents delinquent in child
support payments without a finding of probable cause. The district
court held that defendant judicial officials were entitled to
immunity from plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and
injunctive and monetary relief and abstained from considering the
merits of plaintiffs’ underlying constitutional claims.
Affirming, the court of appeals held that, because none of the
plaintiffs was incarcerated or involved in a pending paternity,
support, or contempt proceeding at the time these actions were
filed, their claims were moot.
