VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
_____________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
III. PARTIES
IV. ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
V. ALLEGATIONS OF LAW
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Wayne S. Stillman, Pro Se, and for his Complaint
states the following.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil rights action, under state and federal law, challenging
prior and newly-enacted Colorado statutes which compel the State's judiciary to
make awards of child support within the context of dissolution of marriage
actions and post-decree of dissolution of marriage actions concerning children.
This action is brought by the above-named individual to obtain a declaratory
judgment that the challenged statute, in both its present and legislatively
enacted prospective form, violates well-recognized rights, including the right
to due process of law; the right to equal protection of the law; the right to
self-determination of and privacy in the care, custody, control, companionship
and nurture of one's offspring embodied in the fundamental liberty interest in
family; the right to the integrity of one's property; and the right to be free
of the threat of imprisonment for debt; which rights are variously secured by
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by Art. II, §§
3, 12, 14, 15 and 25 of the Colorado Constitution. Plaintiff also seeks
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant, and
persons acting in concert with it, from enforcing the challenged statute in a
manner inconsistent with the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. For the relief that Plaintiff seeks, this Court is the appropriate court
of general jurisdiction, according to the Colorado Constitution, Art. 6, § 9.
3. The District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado, is the
appropriate venue for this action.
4. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly the
Fourteenth Amendment. This case also arises under state law, particularly the
Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, C.R.S. § 13-51-101, et seq., and the
Colorado Constitution, particularly Article II, §§ 3, 12, 14, 15 and 25.
5. This Court has jurisdiction to hear and grant:
a. Plaintiff's prayer for declaratory relief under C.R.S. §13-51-101, et
seq., the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act;
b. Plaintiff's prayer for relief on his substantive federal constitutional
rights claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, of the Constitution of
the United States, which jurisdiction is concurrent with the federal courts;
c. Plaintiff's prayer for injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Colorado
Rules of Civil Procedure; and,
d. Plaintiff's prayer for relief on his substantive state constitutional
rights claims under the Colorado Constitution, Article II, §§ 3, 12, 14, 15
and 25.
III. PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Wayne S. Stillman is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of Colorado.
7. Defendant State of Colorado is a sovereign governmental entity existing
under the laws and the Constitution of the United States and of the State of
Colorado. It was the exercise of legislative power by the State of Colorado, in
the enactment of § 14-10-115 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and amendments
thereto, which led to the filing of the instant action. Defendant State of
Colorado, through its Judicial Department, is the governmental body responsible
for the enforcement of said state statute.
IV. ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
8. Plaintiff is the natural father of two young children who are the issue of
his marriage, which was dissolved by Decree and Judgment of the Jefferson County
District Court in 1998. Said Decree and Judgment provided for shared legal,
physical and residential custody of the minor children by each natural parent.
9. Prior to dissolution of Plaintiff's marriage, Plaintiff was a
fully-involved and fulltime father to the two minor children of the marriage,
having been engaged in the plenary spectrum of parental activities from their
birth onward, at all times except during times he was at work.
10. Plaintiff continues to engage in said full spectrum of parenting
activities.
11. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 14-10-115, the district court entered orders for
child support in the amount of $837 per month as against the Plaintiff herein at
the time of dissolution of Plaintiff's marriage.
V. ALLEGATIONS OF LAW
12. Each and all of the acts of the Defendant, its officers, agents and
employees, as alleged herein, were done or are threatened to be done by the
Defendant, its officers, agents and employees, not as individuals, but under the
color and pretense of the statutes, regulations, customs and uses of the State
of Colorado.
13. Plaintiff is suffering irreparable injury from the deprivation of rights
pursuant to enforcement of C.R.S. § 14-10-115.
14. Unless and until the unjust and unequal treatment of Plaintiff as a
natural parent, which has arisen by reason of the enactment and enforcement of
§ 14-10-115, is lifted, Plaintiff will continue to suffer immediate and
irreparable injury.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW
15. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-14, supra, and incorporates them herein
as if fully set forth.
16. Section 14-10-115 violates the right of Plaintiff to equal protection of
the laws, a right guaranteed implicitly by the Colorado Constitution, Art. II,
§ 25, and by the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec. 1, in that the
statute subjects Plaintiff to burdens different from, and in excess of, those
imposed on persons who are parents in an intact marriage.
17. While the legal relation between a husband and wife is altered by the
entry of a decree of dissolution of marriage, the legal relation between each
parent individually and the child is not so altered. A parent stands in the same
relation to his or her child after dissolution as he or she did prior to
dissolution. In the situation of an intact marriage, the state lacks any
interest sufficiently compelling to permit it to enact laws that would dictate a
sum certain to be used for or directed to the benefit of a child. That decision
lies strictly within the discretion of the parents, assuming that the level of
support is sufficient to maintain the child healthy and safe -- that the support
is "reasonable,'' in other words under the standard set forth in 14-6-101,
C.R.S.
18. Section 14-10-115 violates the right of Plaintiff to equal protection of
the laws in that the egregiously different burdens and benefits placed on
persons similarly situated with respect to their respective children -- i.e.,
parents with the obligation to support their children and the same means for
doing so as when they were married but with different expense structures -- but
who are now divorced suffer the imposition of a sum certain to be expended for
the child.
19. Section 14-10-115, while facially content-neutral and generally
applicable, is neither, in that it regularly and routinely results in unequal
treatment of similarly situated persons. The statute is not supported by nor
narrowly tailored to serve a valid governmental interest, as its application
inevitably results in imposition of an order against one parent to pay an
arbitrary sum certain for his child when the state cannot and does not impose
such a burden on a parent situated identically in relation to that parent's
child.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the declaratory
and injunctive relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
20. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-19, supra, and incorporates them herein
as if fully set forth.
21. The United States' Constitution provides that no state may ``deprive any
person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' U.S.
Constitution, Am. 5, Am. 14, section 1. The Constitution of the State of
Colorado contains an almost identical guarantee at Co. Const., Art. II, section
25. Protection from arbitrary state action is the very essence of substantive
due process.
22. The statute violates Plaintiff's right to due process in that it imposes
a sum certain "payment'' ostensibly in support of children when the state
has no ability to dictate a sum certain in married families. The state's actions
under this statute are therefore arbitrary and constitute a capricious exercise
of governmental power.
23. The statute further violates Plaintiff's right to due process in that it
imposes an arbitrary burden on Plaintiff to "support'' his children which
bears no rational relation to the actual cost of supporting children.
24. Section 14-10-115 is an irrational and unreasonable statute, which
imposes irrational and unjustifiable restrictions on the pristine exercise of
protected constitutional rights. Because it is irrational and unreasonable, its
application violates the due process clause of the Colorado Constitution, Art.
II, § 25.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the declaratory
and injunctive relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF PRIVACY
25. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-24, supra, and incorporates them herein
as if fully set forth.
26. While the source of the right to privacy has been held to originate in
varying constitutional provisions, it has been long recognized to apply to
"family'' concerns whether the family exists within the confines of
marriage or not.
27. The statute violates Plaintiff's right to privacy in that it requires
Plaintiff to pay an amount in excess of that required to meet the children's
basic needs, and therefore the statute impermissibly interferes with parental
decisions regarding financial expenditures on children.
28. Moreover, the statute violates Plaintiff's right to privacy in that it
requires a sum certain in support of children when there is a less intrusive law
extant in Colorado which provides for felony conviction and punishment for
failure "to provide reasonable support and maintenance ... for his children
under eighteen years of age...'' (Section 14-6-101, C.R.S.) Section 14-10-115
interferes with a divorced parent's constitutional right to raise one's children
without "unnecessary'' government interference.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the declaratory
and injunctive relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF PROPERTY
29. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-28, supra, and incorporates them herein
as if fully set forth.
30. Section 14-10-115 is unconstitutional per se and as applied in that it
constitutes an illegal taking in violation of the Constitution of Colorado, Art.
2, Sec. 15, because the statute imposes an award under the guidelines within it
against Plaintiff for the purpose of the state continuing to receive federal
funds under 45 CFR 302.56 and related federal code. This constitutes a taking of
private property for public use without just compensation.
31. The statute is also unconstitutional per se and as applied in that it
constitutes an illegal taking in violation of the Constitution of Colorado, Art.
2, Sec. 14, because the statute imposes an award under the guidelines within it
against Plaintiff for the purpose of transference to the other parent for her
discretionary use. This constitutes a private taking for a private use.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the declaratory
and injunctive relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION THREAT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
32. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-31, supra, and incorporates them herein
as if fully set forth.
33. The statute is unconstitutional per se and as applied in that it
constitutes an ongoing threat by the state of imprisonment for debt in violation
of the Colorado Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 12. The statute denominates the
support duty as an obligation. Inherent in that obligation is that money is due
and payable, which is the definition of debt. If Plaintiff opposes the sum
certain ordered for child support, believing that his children would be
adequately cared for for less, he subjects himself to the certainty of
imprisonment. While the courts denominate this action as "contempt of
court,'' the outcome is indistinguishable from imprisonment for debt.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the declaratory
and injunctive relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court:
a. Declare that § 14-10-115, C.R.S., as amended, is unconstitutional on its
face because it violates the rights to equal protection, due process, privacy
and property, all of which are guaranteed to the Plaintiff under the
Constitution of the United States;
b. Declare that § 14-10-115, C.R.S., as amended, is unconstitutional on its
face because it violates the rights to equal protection, due process, privacy
and property, all guaranteed to the Plaintiff under the Colorado Constitution;
c. Declare that § 14-10-115, C.R.S., as amended, is unconstitutional as
threatened to be applied Plaintiff, as described in the Fifth Cause of Action of
the Verified Complaint, because it violates the right to not be imprisoned for
debt, guaranteed to the Plaintiff under the Constitution of Colorado;
d. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendant, its agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys, and those in active concert with them, from enforcing
the provisions of § 14-10-115, C.R.S., as amended, as against the Plaintiff;
e. Grant to Plaintiff an award of his costs of litigation, including
reasonable expenses; and,
f. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper in
the premises.
DATED: May 6, 2002
Respectfully submitted, WAYNE S. STILLMAN, PRO SE
Wayne Stillman Center for Children's Justice Denver, CO 80203
