Defendant's Answer to Paternity Action

Back to Family Law Legal Forms

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BRAXTON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Petitioner,

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-D-50

JOHNNY APPLESEED,

Respondent.

ANSWER

Comes now the Respondent, JOHNNY APPLESEED, APPEARING SPECIALLY, by his attorney, James Wilson Douglas, and in and for his Answer to Petitioner's URESA Petition, heretofore regularly filed, does hereby assert the following affirmative defenses, and does aver, depose and say:

FIRST DEFENSE

That said Petition fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by this Court.

SECOND DEFENSE

That the Petitioner is barred from maintaining its Petition by the equitable Doctrine of Estoppel, which is imputed to its Co-Petitioner.

THIRD DEFENSE

That the Petitioner is precluded from maintaining its Petition by the equitable Doctrine of Unclean Hands, which is attributable to its Co-Petitioner.

FOURTH DEFENSE

That both Petitioners are prevented from maintaining their Petition by the equitable Doctrine of Laches.

FIFTH DEFENSE

That no court decree has fixed either a legal duty or an obligation of support upon the Respondent; therefore, the subrogee, the Department of Health and Human Resources, hereinafter identified as "Department", one of the Petitioners herein, cannot be a valid assignee under West Virginia Code 9-3-4, in that, an Order or Decree awarding support and maintenance for the child born to the individual Petitioner herein, is a prerequisite for such assignment; therefore, in the absence of creating an "obligation" attributable to the Respondent, the Petitioner Department is without standing to participate in this action. West Virginia Code 48A-1-3(13)(B) and (16) and 48A-5-1(b)(4).

SIXTH DEFENSE

That Petitioners are not entitled to retroactive support and/or reimbursement absent an Order by a Court of competent jurisdiction adjudicating paternity and establishing a support obligation. See West Virginia Code 48A-1-3(13)(B) and (16).

SEVENTH DEFENSE

That Respondent does hereby assert affirmatively that he is not the biological father of Mary Poppins, the subject infant.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

That said Petition is intended and brought solely as a means of harassment by the Child Advocate, and therefore, is an abuse of process.

REPLY

I

Respondent admits Paragraphs 3. and 4. of Petitioners' Petition.

II

Respondent denies Paragraphs 5., 6., 7. and 8. of Petitioners' Petition, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.

III

Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of Paragraph 1. and 2. of Petitioners' Petition, and therefore, Respondent can neither admit nor deny the same.

IV

Respondent denies each and every paragraph of Plaintiffs' Petition, and each and every allegation therein contained, not herein specifically admitted, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that Plaintiffs' Petition be dismissed; that the relief prayed for therein be denied; that he be awarded his Court costs and attorney fees in this behalf expended; and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem equitable, proper and just, he will ever pray, etc.

JOHNNY APPLESEED

By Counsel

_______________________________
JAMES WILSON DOUGLAS
Attorney at Law
100 North Hill Road
Post Office Box 425
Sutton, West Virginia 26601