## Facts

- A mother filed a Texas action on behalf of her minor child seeking support from the child’s biological father.
- The Texas trial court found the defendant was the child’s biological father and that the child needed paternal support.
- The trial court nevertheless denied relief because the child was born out of wedlock and, under Texas law as applied, the father had no enforceable support obligation to the child.
- Texas law imposed a continuing duty on fathers to support legitimate children, enforceable through civil proceedings and criminal sanctions.
- The Texas Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that illegitimate children had no legally enforceable right to paternal support absent a statute; the Texas Supreme Court denied further review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and reviewed the equal protection challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether the Equal Protection Clause permits a state to grant legitimate children a judicially enforceable right to support from their natural fathers while denying that right to illegitimate children.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that Texas’s denial of an enforceable right to paternal support for illegitimate children, while providing such a right for legitimate children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court recognized that a state may regulate procedures for determining paternity and enforcing support, but may not categorically withhold the underlying right to seek paternal support based solely on birth status.

## Legal Principles

- When a state recognizes a general duty of paternal support enforceable by legitimate children, it may not deny illegitimate children an enforceable support remedy solely because of illegitimacy.
- Classifications that impose legal disabilities on children due to their status of birth are subject to equal protection constraints and are invalid absent adequate justification.
- States may impose reasonable procedural and evidentiary requirements in paternity and support proceedings, but equal protection bars an absolute exclusion of illegitimate children from support remedies.

## Conclusion

The Court required equal treatment in access to a paternal support remedy: Texas could not maintain a system that enforced fathers’ support duties for legitimate children while denying any enforceable support right to children born out of wedlock, though the state retained discretion to design fair procedures for proving paternity and enforcing obligations.


Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)