PHILADELPHIA - A father is not entitled to a settlement from a wrongful death case stemming from his son’s drowning, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled.
On Aug. 20, a three-judge panel for the court affirmed a ruling from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that sided with the late child’s mother and against his father, Carl Griggs, who had been incarcerated for 10 months at the time of the child's death.
Judge Deborah A. Kunselman wrote the opinion. President Judge Jack A. Panella and Senior Judge John L. Musmanno concurred.
The child, Nahyer Johnson, 4, drowned at Neshaminy Shore Picnic Park. His mother, Janelle Johnson, sued the park; the parties eventually came to a global settlement. She then sued to remove Griggs from the settlement, saying he had not been a part of Nahyer's life since he had been born. Among other things, Griggs saw the boy only once in the year before his death, and that was a jail visit.
The Court of Common Pleas found in favor of Janelle Johnson and removed Griggs from the settlement. He appealed to the Superior Court.
Griggs first accused the lower court of incorrectly applying 20 Pa.C.S. section 2106(b) “which requires an intent to permanently abandon, and by interpreting the forfeiture statute to exclude any consideration of noneconomic support,” according to the lawsuit.
That law, however, was amended in February 2001. Griggs argued the lower court should have applied the first version of the law, which said is appropriate only when a parent “willingly and completely failed to perform the duty to support the child.” Griggs said if this version were to be applied, it would prove that he’s not eligible for forfeiture because he didn’t willfully abandon his child.
The lower court disagreed, saying the updated law removed "willingly" from its text, and held that a parent simply has to fail to provide support for forfeiture to be applied. The reason why the support lacked is irrelevant. The Superior Court concurred.
In his second argument, Griggs said he didn’t have a responsibility to support the child because he only earned $700 a month in Social Security disability benefits. Plus, those benefits were put on hold during his time in jail. He added that if he did have access to his benefits, he would not have owed them since his monthly income is under the Self-Support Range of $931 (a monthly amount one has to keep after paying child support).
The lower court again disagreed. It said Griggs confused his duty to support and his ability to support.
“An inability to perform a duty is not the same as having no duty at all,” the court ruled.
It also disagreed with Griggs’ argument that being in jail revoked his responsibility to support the child. Griggs "still could have provided some form of emotional or physical support,” it said.