court ignored fact that record did not indicate that civil support action was reinstated
How later courts described this case
- court ignored fact that record did not indicate that civil support action was reinstated
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BROSKY,
Judge, concurring:
For the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Williams v. Wolfe, 297 Pa.Super. 270 , 443 A.2d 831 (1982), (Brosky, J. Concurring Opinion), I believe that to subject a child born out of wedlock to a limitation period, however reasonable, is to limit that child’s unqualified right to receive support from his father. As other jurisdictions have held, such limitation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. See: State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. West, 378 So.2d 1220 (Fla.1979); State of Montana, Department of Revenue, Department of Social Rehabilitative Services v. *435 Wilson, 634 P.2d 172 (Mont 1981); Stringer v. Dudoich, 92 N.M. 98 , 583 P.2d 462 (1978); County of Lenoir ex rel. Cogdell v. Johnson, 46 N.C.App. 182 , 264 S.E.2d 816 (1980). However, since I agree with the majority that appellant’s civil action for support is not barred, I agree with the majority’s decision to reverse and remand.