Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
U.S. Supreme Court
MILLS v. HABLUETZEL, 456 U.S. 91 (1982)
456 U.S. 91
MILLS v. HABLUETZEL
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF TEXAS, THIRTEENTH SUPREME JUDICIAL
DISTRICT
No. 80-6298.
The fact that Texas must provide illegitimate children with a bona fide opportunity
to obtain paternal support does not mean, however, that it must adopt procedures
for illegitimate children that are coterminous with those accorded legitimate
children. Paternal support suits on behalf of illegitimate children contain
an element that such suits for legitimate children do not contain: proof of
paternity. Such proof is often sketchy and strongly contested, frequently turning
upon conflicting testimony from only two witnesses. Indeed, the problems of
proving paternity have been recognized repeatedly by this Court. Parham v. Hughes,
[456 U.S. 91, 98] 441 U.S. 347, 357, 361 (1979); Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259,
269 (1978); Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 772 (1977); Gomez v. Perez, 409
U.S., at 538.4
Therefore, in support suits by illegitimate children more than in support
suits by legitimate children, the State has an interest in preventing the prosecution
of stale or fraudulent [456 U.S. 91, 99] claims, and may impose greater restrictions
on the former than it imposes on the latter. Such restrictions will survive
equal protection scrutiny to the extent they are substantially related to a
legitimate state interest. See Lalli v. Lalli, supra, at 265; Trimble v. Gordon,
supra, at 767; Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 510 (1976).5 The State's interest
in avoiding the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims will justify those
periods of limitation that are sufficiently long to present a real threat of
loss or diminution of evidence, or an increased vulnerability to fraudulent
claims.
