{
  "id": 8718112,
  "name": "Charles STAIN v. Linda STAIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stain v. Stain",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-28",
  "docket_number": "85-62",
  "first_page": "140",
  "last_page": "143",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "286 Ark. 140"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "689 S.W.2d 566"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 656",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616711
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0656-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 Ark. 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1705691
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/227/0572-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 290,
    "char_count": 4696,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.922,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.775657798002858e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7127438703955327
    },
    "sha256": "12fe3889cba11c6061d13090e33b329d58612746d2827e5aa4e641042820d277",
    "simhash": "1:46179c39242d5794",
    "word_count": 745
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:09.553890+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles STAIN v. Linda STAIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThis appeal challenges the validity of a child support order in which the chancellor found the appellant to be the father of a child born to the appellee prior to the parties\u2019 marriage. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 29(1) (a) as we are being asked to interpret the Arkansas Constitution.\nThe child, Brian Christopher Wheeler, was born July 24, 1981. Appellant and appellee, the child\u2019s mother, were married November 21, 1981. In September, 1982, appellee sued and appellant countersued for divorce. In her complaint for divorce, the appellee alleged that the appellant was Brian\u2019s father and requested child support. The appellant initially denied that he was Brian\u2019s father but later admitted paternity and challenged the chancellor\u2019s jurisdiction to decide a paternity issue. The chancellor granted the appellee a divorce, and in a separate proceeding held that he had jurisdiction, found the appellant to be the father of Brian and ordered the appellant to pay $12.50 per week as child support. It is from the finding of paternity that this appeal is brought. We reverse.\nArticle 7, \u00a7 28, of the Arkansas Constitution provides:\nCounty courts \u2014 Jurisdiction \u2014 Single Judge holding court. \u2014 The county courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to . . . bastardy,. . . (emphasis added).\nWe were confronted with similar situations in Higgs v. Higgs, 227 Ark. 572, 299 S.W.2d 837 (1957) and in Rapp v. Kizer, Chancellor, 260 Ark. 656, 543 S.W.2d 458 (1976), and in both instances found the county court had exclusive jurisdiction of a matter relating to bastardy pursuant to the constitution.\nIn Higgs an action was filed in chancery court to compel the alleged father of an illegitimate child to support the child. The father contended that the county court had exclusive jurisdiction of such a proceeding. This court defined a bastardy proceeding as \u201ca proceeding of a civil nature to compel a bastard\u2019s father to support him,\u201d and found that to be exactly the kind of proceeding involved in the case under consideration. The court stated:\n\u201cThe common law affords no remedy to compel a putative father to contribute to the support of his illegitimate offspring. Statutes now exist in most jurisdictions, however, providing for judicial proceedings, usually called filiation or bastardy proceedings, to establish the paternity of a bastard child and to compel the father to contribute to its support.\u201d 7 American Jurisprudence 679. . . .Perhaps the reason for placing jurisdiction in bastardy matters in the county court no longer exists, but nevertheless, the Constitution has not been changed, and the county court still has exclusive, original jurisdiction in such matters.\nIn Rapp it was the putative father who filed a petition in chancery court in which he sought visitation rights and a determination of child support. The child\u2019s mother questioned the chancellor\u2019s jurisdiction to entertain the petition. This court quoted art. 7, \u00a7 28 of the constitution and held:\nWebster\u2019s New International Dictionary, 2nd Edition, defines bastardy as:\n\u201c1. State or quality of being a bastard; illegitimacy.\n2. The procreation of a bastard child.\u201d\nThe term \u201crelating to\u201d has generally been defined as meaning \u201cin respect to; in reference to; in regard to,\u201d . . . Can it be said that the action instituted in the chancery court by the putative father is not a \u201cmatter relating to. . . bastardy?\u201d To ask the question is but to answer the question for the issues presented for determination obviously flow from and are involved only with the procreation of a bastard or illegitimate child. . . .\nOur Constitution . . . does not limit the original jurisdiction of the county court to \u201cbastardy proceedings\u201d but specifically gives the county court \u201cexclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to . . . bastardy . . .\u201d\nIt cannot be disputed that under the rationale of these cases the instant case also involved a matter relating to bastardy.\nAs we noted in Higgs and Rapp we are restrained by the provisions of the constitution even though the reason for placing jurisdiction in the county court no longer exists. Until and unless that document is changed, we have to live within its confines. The constitution vests original and exclusive jurisdiction of cases such as these in the county courts. Accordingly, the chancellor erred by taking jurisdiction of the paternity issue.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David J. Manley, Legal Services of Arkansas, for appellant.",
      "Judith C. Lansky, UALR Law School Legal Clinic, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles STAIN v. Linda STAIN\n85-62\n689 S.W.2d 566\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 28, 1985\nDavid J. Manley, Legal Services of Arkansas, for appellant.\nJudith C. Lansky, UALR Law School Legal Clinic, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0140-02",
  "first_page_order": 166,
  "last_page_order": 169
}