(Download) "Harrison v. District Columbia" by District of Columbia Court of Appeals. * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Harrison v. District Columbia
- Author : District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
- Release Date : January 20, 1953
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
HOOD, Associate Judge. Appellant was charged in the Juvenile Court with being the father of an illegitimate child. 1 A
jury found against him and after denial of a new trial judgment was entered on September 17, 1952, and the case continued
to September 25 for entry of an order of support. On that date an order was made requiring appellant to pay $520 annually
for support of the child. The government questions the jurisdiction of this court to hear the appeal. Its contention is that the judgment of September
17 and the order of September 25 are each separate and appealable, that the appeal taken is directed at the judgment, and
that notice of appeal, although timely as to the order, was not timely with respect to the judgment. With this contention
we do not agree. We think the judgment and order together constitute the final and appealable judgment. The record does not
disclose the form of judgment entered. All that is shown is 'Judgment entered. Continued to 9/25/52 for entry of order.' Whatever
the form of judgment, its obvious effect could be nothing more than an adjudication that appellant is the father of the child.
Such an adjudication was not the final and ultimate purpose of the proceeding. We find no authority for the Juvenile Court
to entertain a proceeding merely to determine the paternity of an illegitimate child. The statute confers jurisdiction on
that court of 'Proceedings to establish paternity and provide for the support of a child born out of wedlock.' Such a proceeding
is not a criminal one intended to punish the father. Its ultimate object is to provide support for the child. 2 Before
a man can be ordered to support a child either he must acknowledge his paternity or there must be an adjudication of his paternity.
The adjudication that appellant was the father of the child was a necessary step to the order for support, but it did not
accomplish the final aim of the proceeding. Our Conclusion is that the appeal was timely taken.
 "Harrison v. District Columbia" by District of Columbia Court of Appeals. * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}