Jones v. Chandler Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1991 592 So.2d 966.
I. Facts.
Velma Hodges and Anthony Jones (the defendant, “D”) dated for 8 months while cohabitating in Mississippi as students at Jackson University. Hodges gave birth to Desmond Chandler (the plaintiff, “P”) after the relationship ended. Jones denied paternity and refused to support P. P sued D, claiming financial support and maintenance. The Chancery Court of Monroe County found for P, ordering D to provide support and maintenance for P. D appealed, asserting that he is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Mississippi.
II. Issue.
Whether a State is able to have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident in regards to child support.
III. Reasoning.
A. Rules.
1. A.R.B. v. G.L.P., 180 Colo. 439, 442, 507 P.2d 468, 469 (1973)
- Both the begetting act and the subsequent neglecting act with Mississippi effects render the putative father subject suit here.
2. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 159, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)
- After commitment of a tortious act, Subsequent flight across the state line does not produce any federal constitutional shield from suit here
3. Miss. Code Ann. § 13-3-57 (Supp. 1990)
- A father who begets a child is deemed to be under a quasi-contractual obligation to support the child. A refusal to do so constitutes a tort.
4. Poindexter v. Willis, 87 Ill. App.2d 213, 217-18, 231 N.E.2d 1, 3 (1967);
- “tortious” includes any act committed in a state which involves a breach of duty to another...
5. Petters v. Petters, 560 So.2d 722, 723-24, 727 (Miss. 1990).
- The personal jurisdiction inquiry proceeds wholly apart from any thought of the (de)merits of the plaintiff's claim.
B. Application
The use of Rule 1 and 2 support that despite D was not married with P when begetting act happened in Mississippi, and the subsequent neglecting act committed by failure to support his putative child, making him amenable to suit in Mississippi. Whether neglecting act should be considered as tortious act or not is defined below.
Those rules mentioned in Rule 3 and 4, provide successful reasoning, explaining why D is amenable to suit in Mississippi despite being a resident of Memphis, Tennessee. As a father of a child, leaving his child without support is regarded to be committing a tortious act and the definition and its extent are well established in Rule 4, Poindexter (1967). Moreover, whether D has committed tortious act or not, Rule 5 supports that D is still amenable to suit in Mississippi as long as he inflicts some damage on a resident within Mississippi.
However, this concept is applicable only when D is found out to be actual biological father of the child. P filed a motion for blood test, but D did not submit to the test. People may regard D’s attitude towards this test as suspicious and may doubt that D is the biological father. Yet, no results have been established to evidence and confirm that hypothesis.
IV. Holding.
The judgment is affirmed. D is wholly amenable to suit in Mississippi.