Full text
Jeremy Don Baker v. Krystle Jean Lowe
STATE OF LOUISIANA
JEREMY DON BAKER NO. 2024 CW 0145 VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2
KRYSTLE JEAN LOWE
In Re: Krystle Jean Lowe, applying for supervisory writs,
20th Judicial District Court, Parish of East
Feliciana, No. 47611. BEFORE: McCLENDON, RESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.
WRIT DENIED. The trial court may consider whether the
appointment of an attorney for the minor child would be in the best interest of the child. See La. R. S. 9: 345.
CHH
Miller, J., concurs. The relator, Krystle Jean Lowe, signed the acknowledgment of paternity attesting to the
respondent' s, Jeremy Don Baker' s, paternity of the minor child. As such, Mr. Baker has asserted Ms. Lowe has unclean hands and
should be precluded from seeking to annul the acknowledgment.
See Wetta v. Wetta, 2021- 92 ( La. App. 3d Cir. 6/ 2/ 21), 322 So. 3d 365, 371, writ denied, 2021- 00940 ( La. 10/ 19/ 21), 326 So. 3d 255. 1 also note, pursuant to La. Civ. Code art. 131, the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration when
determining custody, and considering that neither parent in this matter made a genetic contribution to the child, to sever the
parental ties based entirely on genetics would not serve the child' s best interest. I believe the appointment of an attorney to represent the child' s best interests in this matter would be prudent.
McClendon, J., dissents. In his petition for custody and child support, Jeremy Don, Baker alleges he was never married to
Ms. Lowe, the mother of the minor child at issue in this matter, and he is not the biological father of the minor child although his name is listed as the child' s father on the child' s birth
certificate. I find these allegations are insufficient to demonstrate Mr. Baker has a right of action for custody under La. Civ. Code art. 132. See La. Code Civ. art. 196; Morgan v. Foster, 20- 363 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 4/ 7/ 21), 347 So. 3d 963, 969.
Additionally, I find the " Acknowledgment of Paternity Affidavit" Mr. Baker Ms. Lowe, which was not admitted into signed by and
evidence at the January 8, 2024 hearing on the exceptions, does not provide Mr. Baker with a right of action to seek custody of the child under La. Civ. Code art. 132. See McKinley v.
McKinley, 631 So. 2d 45 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 1994); State ex rel. A. L., 2009- 1565 ( La. App. 3d Cir. 4/ 7/ 10), 34 So. 3d 416, writ denied, 2010- 1017 ( La. 5/ 28/ 10), 36 So. 3d 256. Accordingly, I would vacate the portion of the trial court' s January 22, 2024
judgment sustaining the partial exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action filed by Mr. Baker, reverse the portion of the judgment overruling the exception of no right of action
Lowe, sustain Ms. Lowe' s exception of no right of filed by Ms.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2024 CW 0145
PAGE 2 OF 2
action, and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to allow Mr. Baker an opportunity to amend his
petition, if he can, to allege facts showing he is entitled to Civ. Code art. 133. custody of the minor child pursuant to La. Furthermore, given the exceptional circumstances in this case,
the trial court should consider whether an attorney should be appointed to protect the best interests of the minor child, which is always of paramount concern. Finally, I note that the
facts of this case highlight the need for legislation addressing this and similar situations.