"Roe v Wade for Men" Dismissed by Sixth Circuit

On July 17, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Dubay v Wells et al., stating:

“According to the pleadings, Dubay commenced a personal relationship with defendant Lauren Wells, dated her, engaged in intimate sexual relations, impregnated her, terminated his relationship, and sued her for bearing his child. If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.”

The lawsuit, often described as "Roe v Wade for Men," was filed by Matthew Dubay in the United States District Court at Bay City, Michigan. Dubay claimed that Michigan's paternity law is unconstitutional because the father is compelled to pay child support even if he did not want the child to be born.

Dubay argued that he could choose not to pay child support because he told the mother of the child while they were dating that he did not want a child. He claimed that she told him that she was on birth control or was otherwise infertile. When the Saginaw County Prosecutor filed a paternity action, Dubay filed a lawsuit against him seeking to avoid his enforcement of the Paternity Act. The mother of the child was also named as a defendant. Michigan’s Attorney General, Mike Cox, intervened in the case to uphold the Paternity Act.

In the District Court, Dubay's suit was ruled frivolous and attorney fees were ordered.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the State did not violate a constitutionally protected right to privacy that had been the underlying basis of Dubay’s claim. The Court stated that "[t]he fundamental flaw in Dubay's claim is that he fails to see that the State played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child." The Court relied upon N.E. v Hedges, 391 F3d 832 (6th Cir 2004), a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case that rejected the notion that some sense of fairness ought to allow biological fathers to avoid the financial responsibility of supporting a child as a proxy for the loss of control of the events that naturally flow from sexual activity. Dubay's claims against all of the defendants were dismissed.

The court agreed with the Attorney General that Dubay’s case was frivolous, holding that the action was "frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation and seeks to advance a theory that is foreign to the legal principles on which it is ostensibly based." The Attorney General is to submit a claim for his office's attorney fees.

Dubay v Wells (District Court Opinion & Order) is here. Download Dubay_v_Wells_Opinion_Order ED Mich

The 6th Circuit Court upheld the equal protection opinion of the District Court. Download Dubay_v_Well, 6th Circuit Court Opinion The Attorney General was awarded sanctions in the 6th Circuit Case.

Parentage issues have long been of special interest to Jeanne Hannah. To contact Jeanne Hannah with your questions or to view her Family Law website, click here.

Comments

[Darrell]

While I see the court's reason behind ruling against this guy, for the life of me I cannot understand how or why so many men stand idly by while our rights are trampled on. At least this guy took the initiative to attempt to pry open the closed minds of so many in the family court system who see a man as simply a wallet. Why are women allowed solely to make such a life-altering decision as to have a child? While it is a violation of federal law for anyone to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion, what rights does the father of that child have in the decision making process? None. Why are women allowed to abandon a child up to 72 hours after giving birth with no penalty? Why are women allowed to adopt a child out to anyone of her choosing without even trying to contact the father or establish paternity? When I asked my attorney these direct questions, her response was that when I took off my pants, I gave up all of my legal rights and that the only right I have is to adhere to the support order issued by the court. Seems awfully Draconian to me. I would love to find an attorney who would look at the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and see that not everyone in this country is allowed due process and fair and equal treatment under the law! Men are not second class citizens, but it appears that most states are trying to lesgislate that very thing! Thank you for your time.