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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLEVF COURT
FOR 11
TURT