*** FOR PUBLICATION ***

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I

vs.

JOHN DOE, Defendant-Appellant

and

JANE DOE, Defendant-Appellee

On appeal, the father argues that (1) the Hawai`i Uniform Parentage Act (HUPA), Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 584, is unconstitutional because it violates the father's rights to privacy and equal protection under the Hawai`i Constitution and the United States Constitution (a) by violating the father's right to procreational autonomy and (b) by creating an improper gender-based classification; and (2) insofar as the father is an unemployed student, the family court violated the father's right to be free from compulsory service when it ordered him to pay child support in the amount of fifty dollars per month, because the father would be forced to get a part-time job.

Each of the father's arguments is manifestly and palpably without merit. First, the father failed to raise the question of equal protection at trial or in his pretrial legal memoranda; consequently, the issue is waived. Second, the father is entitled only to a "rational basis" review of HUPA because: (1) HUPA does not implicate the father's fundamental privacy right to procreational autonomy, but rather his economic interest in not supporting his child; and (2) even if the father hadn't waived his equal protection argument, his standing to raise the challenge would be based on a non-suspect classification, i.e., the biological relationship of fathers to their children. Because HUPA bears a rational relation to the public welfare, it survives our rational-basis review, and the father's procreational autonomy arguments (as well as his waived equal protection arguments) fail. Finally, an obligation to financially support one's child and to become employed if necessary to meet the obligation is in no way comparable to peonage or slavery. It is well-settled that child support is an obligation that may be compelled, even by imprisonment, without violating the right to be free from involuntary servitude; ipso facto, the family court did not exceed its authority by ordering the father to pay the minimum amount of child support allowed by the then-applicable guidelines.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the family court's order, findings of fact, and conclusions of law. We also notify the parties that the appeal was frivolous and request briefing with regard to damages and costs to be awarded to CSEA as authorized by Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 38.

I.     BACKGROUND

A.     Factual Background ⁽¹⁾

The mother and father met while they were both in high school; they dated intermittently for approximately fourteen months. During the course of their relationship, the couple agreed to always engage in "safe sex" and did not intend to procreate. The trial court found that it was reasonably foreseeable by both parties that an unwanted pregnancy could occur if the parties relied on the use of condoms as a method of birth control.

The mother became pregnant due to a failure in either the construction or use of a condom; this pregnancy was not planned. After the mother became pregnant, the prospective parents discussed and considered the possibility that the mother might undergo an abortion or seek an adoptive placement for the child with the father's consent and cooperation. However, the trial court found that the parties never entered into an express agreement that the mother would have an abortion or place the child up for adoption. Ultimately, after discussing the pregnancy with her family and despite the child's father's objection, the mother decided to raise the child with her family's help. The father strongly opposed the mother's decision to keep the child because he believed that he and the mother were unable to support a child emotionally or financially and because he believed that they were too young to care for a child. The parents' sexual relationship continued through the sixth month of the pregnancy.

The mother gave birth to the child at issue in these proceedings (hereinafter "child") on March 22, 2000. The Department of Human Services (DHS) paid $878.13 for medical expenses related to the birth of the child. At the time of the trial, DHS had paid $6,203 in cash assistance to the mother for the benefit of the child.

B.     Procedural History

On July 10, 2000, the Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) filed an amended complaint for establishment of paternity pursuant to HRS § 584-6. ⁽²⁾ In connection with that complaint, the mother and father stipulated to genetic testing. The test results indicated a 99.99% probability that the party referred to here as "the father" is the biological father of the child. In light of the test results, the father did not contest that he is the biological father of the child, but nevertheless objected to being named as the child's legal father and to being ordered to provide any past or future support for the minor child. Pursuant to HRS § 346-37.1, ⁽³⁾ DHS, through CSEA, sought, inter alia, reimbursement of certain public assistance monies paid for the benefit of the child and such other relief as might be appropriate. Specifically, CSEA sought ongoing child support payments, child support arrearages, and $439.07 for birth-related expenses from the father. ⁽⁴⁾

On December 21, 2000, a pretrial conference was held before the Honorable John C. Bryant. Following this conference, a judgment of paternity was entered. Sole physical and legal custody of the child was awarded to the mother. The court reserved judgment with respect to allocation of birth expenses, child support, and arrearages. A hearing on the reserved issues was set for February 7, 2001. On February 5, 2001, the father filed a pre-hearing legal memorandum in which he alleged that the mother had promised he would not be subject to financial responsibility for the child and asserted that his fundamental right to decide whether to have a child would be violated if he were required to accept financial responsibility for the child:

The Roe case, of course, specifically dealt with a woman's right to procreate. However, the Supreme Court in Roe also recognized that the state has an interest in regulating decisions (such as abortion) if such an interest is "compelling." Roe[v. Wade], 410 U.S. at 155. If the State has such an interest, surely the natural father also has an interest.

Simply put, if a woman has a Constitutional right to procreate, so should a man. It is completely unfair and unjust for a woman to force a man to have a child against his will and then force him to provide financial and other support for that child. That is exactly what happened in the instant case.

. . . .

Obviously, [the father] could not force [the mother] to have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. That would violate her Constitutional rights. However, [the mother] should not be allowed to force [the father] to take up a role and responsibilities he clearly did not want and which she promised him he would not have to bear. That would violate his Constitutional rights.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that involuntary servitude shall not exist in the United States and gives Congress the power to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. In 1867, Congress enacted the Antipeonage Act . . . .

In interpreting this Act, the United States Supreme Court has held that "Congress has put it beyond debate that no indebtedness warrants a right to be free from suspension of compulsory service." Imposing even a minimum financial requirement on [the father] in this case would be violative of his right to be free from compulsory service and therefore tantamount to involuntary servitude.

It was [the mother's] choice to have this child. She chose to do so over [the father's] objections and while assuring him that she (and her parents) would raise the child themselves with no help of any kind from him. [The mother] broke her agreement with [the father] and, as a result, the State of Hawai`i is now attempting to require [the father] to accept financial responsibility for the child. This is unfair, unjust, and unconstitutional.

The father timely appealed. The father also moved for a stay of the trial court's order and findings of fact and conclusions of law pending appeal, on the grounds that:

[The father had] raised an issue of first impression in Hawai`i. For this reason, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of his success on the merits (although [the father] firmly believes that he will be successful on appeal). However, it is clear that irreparable injury to [the father] will result if he is forced to meet his court ordered obligations. [The father] is a student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa majoring in Hawaiian studies and minoring in Business. When [the father] is not in school or studying, he assists community organizations on several community service projects.

. . . .

[Because] "no indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service[,]" [i]mposing a minimum financial requirement on [the father] would be violative of his right to be free from compulsory service. If the stay is not granted and [the father] prevails on appeal, the State would have already violated [the father's] constitutional rights by forcing him to enter the work force in order to meet his support obligations . . . .

Moreover, a stay doesn't impose a hardship on [the mother]. Currently, [the father's] child support obligation for the subject child is $50.00 per month. Because this amount is nominal the impact on the subject child's standard of living will not be affected. In fact, [the mother] is employed and earns $502.00 per month. . . .

However, if a stay is not granted and [the father] prevails on appeal, he will suffer a great hardship. As noted above, [the mother] and the State would have forced [the father] to enter the work force in order to meet his support obligations to the subject child thereby violating his constitutional right to be free from compulsory service. In addition, forcing [the father] to enter the work force will impede his educational goals and delay his career. As such, [the father] will suffer unnecessary and irreparable harm.

During the spring of 2003, the mother and father agreed to various settlement terms, contingent upon the dismissal of the instant appeal. Among other things, the father agreed to pay the mother $25,000 upon the adoption of the child by the mother's present husband. On April 16, 2003, the father filed a motion to dismiss the instant appeal. In an affidavit filed with the motion, father's counsel noted, among other things, that "[t]he litigation over the Minor Child has drained both parties financially, emotionally, and psychologically. While the effect on the Minor Child has been difficult to measure, to be sure, it had [sic] not been positive."

The motion to dismiss was supported by the mother but opposed by CSEA, the Plaintiff-Appellee. CSEA noted that its reasons for opposing dismissal included the agency's "strong and vested interest" in resolving a constitutional challenge to the HUPA. In the instant case, in which briefing had been complete for nearly a year when the father filed the motion to dismiss, CSEA asserted that its attorney's fees and costs in defending the appeal exceeded the money due CSEA under the order from which this appeal was taken; if the challenge to the HUPA was not resolved in this appeal, CSEA would be forced to duplicate its efforts in a subsequent case. Further, CSEA asserted that "to dismiss this appeal would be rewarding Mr. Doe for misleading this court and the appellees, by the filing of an apparently frivolous appeal and subjecting both appellees to usage of time and resources without allowing the case to come to its natural conclusion."

In an order dated May 19, 2003, we denied the motion to dismiss. ⁽⁵⁾

II.     STANDARD OF REVIEW

The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review under the right/wrong standard. State v. Lee, 75 Haw. 80, 90, 856 P.2d 1246, 1253 (1993). "[W]e have long held that: (1) legislative enactments are 'presumptively constitutional;' (2) 'a party challenging a statutory scheme has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt;' and (3) the constitutional defect must be 'clear, manifest, and unmistakable.'" Convention Ctr. Auth. v. Anzai, 78 Hawai`i 157, 162, 890 P.2d 1197, 1202 (1995) (quoting Pray v. Judicial Selection Comm'n, 75 Haw. 333, 340, 861 P.2d 723, 727 (1993) (quoting Sifagaloa v. Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement Sys., 74 Haw. 181, 191, 840 P.2d 367, 371 (1992) (quoting Blair v. Cayetano, 73 Haw. 536, 542, 836 P.2d 1066, 1069) (brackets in original and citations omitted))). However, this presumption of statutory constitutionality does not apply to laws which classify on the basis of suspect categories or impinge on fundamental rights expressly or impliedly granted by the constitution. Nelson v. Miwa, 56 Haw. 601, 605, 546 P.2d 1005, 1008, n.4 (1976). Such laws are presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state shows compelling state interests which justify such classifications, and that the laws are narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights. Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 571-72, 852 P.2d 44, 63-64 (1993). See also San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 60-61 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring).

III.     DISCUSSION

The father did not raise the issue of equal protection at trial or in his pre-hearing legal memorandum. An issue which was not raised in the lower court will not be considered on appeal. Kernan v. Tanaka, 75 Haw. 1, 35, 856 P.2d 1207, 1224 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1119 (1994).

The father argues that he preserved the question of equal protection by stating, in the context of a hearing in which he argued that HUPA violated the father's rights to procreational autonomy and to be free from involuntary servitude, "[f]irst, I'd like to say with respect to the laws and statutes of the State of Hawai`i cited by [counsel for CSEA] we concede that those are the existing statutes, but our argument and position is that they are fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional if you will." This argument is palpably without merit. The father's general assertion is not sufficient to preserve the father's equal protection arguments. Where a litigant changes to a new theory on appeal that falls under the same general category as an argument presented at trial or presents a theory that was raised in a vague and ambiguous way, the theory will not be considered. Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 721-22 (10th Cir. 1993).

There are sound reasons for the rule. It is unfair to the trial court to reverse on a ground that no one even suggested might be error. It is unfair to the opposing party, who might have met the argument not made below. Finally, it does not comport with the concept of an orderly and efficient method of administration of justice.

Although we have held that we will not hear a question regarding the constitutionality of a statute unless it is raised in the trial court, we have made exceptions in cases where the constitutionality of the statute raised a question of great public import and justice required that we consider the issue. State v. Ildefonso, 72 Haw. 573, 584-85, 827 P.2d 648, 655 (1992).

In the instant case, the analysis is similar to the due process analysis this court must perform in conjunction with the procreational autonomy claim, the issues have been fully briefed, disposition of the issue may lessen the burden imposed on families, taxpayers, and the courts by future frivolous constitutional challenges to chapter 584, and, though the answer is so obvious as to suggest bad faith on the part of the pleader, the question is of substantial public importance. Consequently, we offer our equal protection analysis in section III.B.2, infra.

B.         HUPA does not violate the father's rights to privacy and equal protection.

The father argues that HUPA violates his right to avoid procreation, which is an element of his fundamental right to privacy. However, no state action impaired the father's exercise of his right not to beget a child. Rather, the state, under the authority of HUPA, verified the empirical fact that the father failed to exercise his right not to beget; having verified the father's relationship to the child, the state, acting under authority of HUPA, imposed certain legal obligations resulting from that relationship. Because the father's alleged injury is not to his fundamental right to privacy but rather to his economic interests, he is entitled only to a rational-basis review of HUPA.

To state a claim under the fourteenth amendment, a litigant must assert that some state action has deprived the litigant of a constitutionally protected "liberty" or "property" interest. See, e.g., State v. Guidry, 105 Hawai`i 222, 227, 96 P.3d 242, 247 (2004); State v. Bowe, 77 Hawai`i 51, 59, 881 P.2d 538, 546 (1994). "In determining whether a statute conflicts with the Due Process Clause, we have applied two tests. If a fundamental right is implicated, the statute is subject to strict scrutiny. If, however, a fundamental right is not implicated, the statute is subject to the rational basis test." State v. Mallan, 86 Hawai`i 440, 451, 950 P.2d 178, 189 (1998).

Under rational-basis review, a statute must "rationally further a legitimate state interest." Id. A state interest is "legitimate" if it involves the public health, safety, or welfare. Mallan, 86 Hawai`i at 451-52, 950 P.2d at 189-90. In other words, under minimum-rationality due process analysis, a statute must be rationally related to the public health, safety, or welfare. Mallan, 86 Hawai`i at 452, 950 P.2d at 190. In applying the rational-basis test, courts in modern times have given great deference to legislative enactments. Id. Statutes are subject to a presumption of constitutionality and the burden of demonstrating that the statute lacks any rational basis lies with the challenger. Id.

The father complains that state actions taken under the statutes that permit the establishment of paternity and the imposition and enforcement of child support obligations violated his fundamental constitutional right to avoid procreation. However, he fails to identify any state action that impacted in any way his choice to father a child. He does not argue that the state required him to engage in the sexual activity that resulted in the conception of his child. Nor has he identified any means by which the state interfered in any way with his choice to use or not to use adequate contraceptive methods during sexual activity to avoid his sexual partner's resulting pregnancy.

"While it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception." Ince v. Bates, 558 P.2d 1253, 1254 (Or.App. 1977)(noting that the choice vests in the woman because she must carry the child and undergo the risks attendant to childbirth or abortion, and holding that a child support obligation could constitutionally be imposed on a father who requested that the mother obtain an abortion or place the child up for adoption)(citing Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976)), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 434 U.S. 806 (1977). The father elected a course of conduct inconsistent with the exercise of his right not to beget a child. The reproductive consequences of his actions were imposed by the operation of nature, not statute.

Insofar as HUPA does not implicate the father's right to procreational autonomy, the sole "liberty" or "property" interest at issue implicating state action is his de minimis child support obligation. A "putative father has no legitimate right and certainly no liberty interest in avoiding financial obligations to his natural child that are validly imposed by state law." Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 580 (1987). In other words, HUPA does not implicate the father's fundamental rights, but rather the father's economic interest. Where economic interests are concerned, the rational-basis test is the proper standard. Maeda v. Amemiya, 60 Haw. 662, 669, 594 P.2d 136, 141 (1979).

2.    The father's only tenable equal protection challenge to chapter 584 is based on a non- suspect classification,            i.e. the biological relationship of fathers to their children.

As we explained in State v. Miller:

"Whenever a denial of equal protection of the laws is alleged, as a rule our initial inquiry has been whether the legislation in question should be subjected to 'strict scrutiny' or to a 'rational basis' test." Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 571, 852 P.2d 44, 63 (1993) (quotations and citations omitted). We have applied strict-scrutiny analysis to laws classifying on the basis of suspect categories or impinging upon fundamental rights expressly or impliedly granted by the constitution, in which case the laws are presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state shows compelling state interests which justify such classifications, and that the laws are narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights. Baehr, 74 Haw. at 571-72, 852 P.2d at 63-64 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

By contrast, where suspect classifications or fundamental rights are not at issue, this court has traditionally employed the rational-basis test. Baehr, 74 Haw. at 572, 852 P.2d at 64 ("Under the rational basis test, we inquire as to whether a statute rationally furthers a legitimate state interest. Our inquiry seeks only to determine whether any reasonable justification can be found for the legislative enactment." (Citations and quotation marks omitted.))

HRS chapter 584, Hawai`i's Uniform Parentage Act, provides for a variety of procedures relating to the establishment of the parent-child relationship and the enforcement of duties resulting from that relationship. Chapter 584 applies to both mothers and fathers but recognizes that different procedures may be required to establish fatherhood than are required to establish motherhood. ⁽¹⁰⁾ Certain sections of Chapter 584 differentiate between mothers and fathers. To the extent that these differences are related to fundamental differences in the way fathers and mothers are situated with respect to proof of parenthood, it is beyond doubt that these sections pass constitutional muster. As the United States Supreme Court observed in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. I.N.S.:

In the case of the father, the uncontestable fact is that he need not be present at the birth. If he is present, furthermore, that circumstance is not incontrovertible proof of fatherhood. Fathers and mothers are not similarly situated with regard to the proof of biological parenthood. The imposition of a different set of rules for making that legal determination with respect to fathers and mothers is neither surprising nor troublesome from a constitutional perspective."

Tuan Anh Nguyen v. I.N.S., 533 U.S. 53, 62-63 (2001) (rejecting an equal protection challenge to a statute providing different procedures for establishing a father-child relationship than for the mother-child relationship); see also Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (same).

We may not read statutory language out of context. As this court explained in State v. Savitz:

HRS § 584-15 is one of a series of sections (§ 584-6 through § 584-20) that provide procedures to be followed in an action to determine the father and child relationship. The section immediately following this series, § 584-21, titled "Action to declare mother and child relationship," provides that: "Any interested party may bring an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of a mother and child relationship. Insofar as practicable, the provisions of this chapter applicable to the father and child relationship shall apply."

When thus understood in the context of the broader statutory scheme, the language cited by the father does not create an improper gender-based classification. Rather, the legislature has ensured that mothers will be subject to the same enforcement procedures and statutory privileges applied to fathers. The equal protection clause requires no more than that "[i]nsofar as practicable, the provisions . . . applicable to" a man apply when the same kind of action is brought against a woman.

To the extent that the father has alleged an equal protection injury, it flows not from any gender-based distinction, but rather from the statute's classification of parties as fathers based on their biological relationship to their children. ⁽¹²⁾ Insofar as "[c]ourts have never found that legal classifications based on [the] biological relationship of fathers and their children were subject to a high level of scrutiny," N.E. v. Hedges, 391 F.3d 832, 835 (6th Cir. 2004)(citing Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S. 347, 355-57 (1979)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 17, 2005) (emphasis added), our equal protection inquiry seeks only to determine whether any reasonable justification can be found for chapter 584.

3.     Chapter 584 rationally furthers a legitimate state interest.

Under this [rational-basis] standard, to prevail, a party challenging the constitutionality of a statutory classification on equal protection grounds has the burden of showing, with convincing clarity that the classification is not rationally related to the statutory purpose, or that the challenged classification does not rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, and is therefore not arbitrary and capricious.

C.     The family court did not violate the father's right to be free from compulsory service.

The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, and gave congress the authority to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation. ⁽¹⁴⁾ The Antipeonage Act of 1867, 42 United States Code (USC) § 1994, was enacted under this authority. ⁽¹⁵⁾

Under some circumstances, the amendment and the aforementioned act prohibit imprisonment for failure to pay a debt. See, e.g., Pollock v. Williams, 322 U.S. 4 (1944).

In Ballek, the Ninth Circuit addressed a thirteenth amendment challenge to the Child Support Recovery Act, noting that not all forced employment is constitutionally prohibited and concluding that enforcement of child-support awards, which had been enforced by imprisonment prior to the adoption of the thirteenth amendment, is constitutionally permissible. ⁽¹⁶⁾ 170 F.3d at 871, 874. This analysis is in accord with that of the California Supreme Court. See Moss v. Superior Court, 950 P.2d 59 (Cal. 1998).

In Moss, the court noted that "[t]he obligation of a parent to support a child . . . is among the most fundamental obligations recognized by modern society" ⁽¹⁷⁾ and "to become employed if that is necessary to meet the obligation, is in no way comparable or akin to peonage or slavery." Id. at 67. The court distinguished the child support obligation from involuntary servitude on the grounds that the obligee is free to choose his employment and employer:

Id. at 72. The court held that the obligation to comply with a child support order and to work if necessary to do so does not constitute involuntary servitude. Moss, 950 P.2d at 73.

Other courts that have addressed thirteenth amendment challenges to court-imposed family support obligations have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., McKenna v. Steen, 422 So.2d 615 (La.App. 1982)(allegations that child support order imposed on a law student amounted to an imposition of involuntary servitude by forcing him to continue in his previous occupation "so ludicrous that they hardly dignify a response"); Hicks v. Hicks, 387 So.2d 207 (Ala.Civ.App. 1980)(holding that an alimony order does not impose involuntary servitude); and Freeman v. Freeman, 397 A.2d 554 (D.C. 1979)(party's contention that child support order directing him to seek gainful employment violated thirteenth amendment held to be without merit). In light of the unanimous weight of well-settled precedent contrary to the father's contention, we conclude that the father has not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that HUPA suffers from a clear, manifest, and unmistakable constitutional defect. The family court did not violate the father's right to be free from involuntary servitude by ordering him to pay $50 per month to support his child, despite the father's preference to remain unemployed.

Insofar as the father has not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that HUPA is unconstitutional, and insofar as the father's rights to privacy, equal protection, and involuntary servitude have not been violated, we affirm the family court's order, findings of fact, and conclusions of law.

Pursuant to HRAP Rule 38 (2004), "[i]f a Hawai`i appellate court determines that an appeal decided by it was frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the appellate court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, to the appellee." This court has explained that:

In Rhoads, we articulated the standard by which we determine whether an appeal is frivolous:

For an assignment of error to be frivolous it must be manifestly and palpably without merit. This court has defined a frivolous claim as one so manifestly and palpably without merit as to indicate bad faith on the pleader's part such that argument to the court was not required. HRAP Rule 38 sanctions have been imposed in past cases where the appellant has engaged in a pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation or where appellant has continued to acknowledge controlling authority contrary to her assertions.

The father argued that HUPA is unconstitutional because it violates his rights to privacy, equal protection, and his right to be free from compulsory service. Each of these contentions has been demonstrated to be palpably without merit and long ago put to rest by well-settled precedent. Furthermore, each of these contentions has been determined to be frivolous or manifestly without merit by other courts. See, e.g., Hedges, 391 F.3d at 836 ⁽¹⁸⁾ (upholding an award of attorney's fees for frivolous 'procreational autonomy' and equal protection challenge to child support order); Steen, 422 So.2d at 618 (allegation that child support order amounts to involuntary servitude "so ludicrous that [it] hardly dignif[ies] a response"); Knight v. Mercer Island, 70 Fed.Appx. 413, 415 (9th. Cir. 2003) (unpublished; on appeal from an unsuccessful involuntary servitude challenge to a child support order, affirming the district court's entry of a litigation bar preventing appellant from filing any further frivolous filings); Freeman, 397 A.2d at 557 (involuntary servitude challenge to child support order so lacking in merit as to be addressed in a conclusory fashion in a footnote). The father also attempted to advance arguments on appeal that were not raised in the trial court, without providing any nonfrivolous basis as to why this court should nevertheless consider them.

This court is not obliged to "suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. . . . The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of 'adjudicating' this meritless appeal." Rhoads, 98 Hawai`i at 414, 49 P.3d at 380 (quoting Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984)). The father's arguments are "manifestly and palpably without merit" and thus his appeal is "frivolous" in the context of HRAP 38.

This court has articulated the policies behind awarding attorney's fees:

Awards of attorneys' fees induce people to reconsider and ensure that refusals to surrender do not burden the innocent. They also protect the courts--and derivatively parties in other cases--from impositions on their time.... The court has an interest in the orderly conduct of business, an interest independent of the [opposing party]....

IV.     CONCLUSION

On the briefs:

Rosemary McShane and
Trina Yamada, Deputies
Corporation Counsel,
for plaintiff-appellee
Child Support Enforcement
Agency, State of Hawai`i

1.     The mother and father stipulated to facts for the April 4, 2001 trial precedent to the order from which this appeal is taken. Except as otherwise indicated, the factual background is drawn directly from the stipulated facts, as modified and expanded by the trial court's findings of fact in the order from which this appeal is taken.

2.     HRS § 584-6 (1993) provides in relevant part: "[T]he child support enforcement agency may bring an action for declaring the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship . . . ."

3.     HRS § 346-37.1 (Supp. 2000) provides in relevant part: "Any payment of public assistance money made to or for the benefit of any dependent child creates a debt due and owing to [DHS] by the natural or adoptive parent or parents . . . ."

4.     Because the father was a student at the time these proceedings were initiated, no income was imputed to him in calculating his child support obligation. Consequently, his obligation amounted to $50 per month under the guidelines then in effect.

5.     We note that our decision is not advisory; rather, it pertains to an actual, justiciable controversy. The father did not argue that settlement of related disputes between the defendant-appellant father and defendant-appellee mother would render the instant appeal moot, nor did he subsequently file any evidence regarding payment of the contemplated settlement amount to the mother, successful adoption of the child by the mother's present husband, or payment of the past-due child support and other amounts payable to CSEA under the family court's order. Nevertheless, we discuss the motion to dismiss and related circumstances in some detail because they factor into our analysis with respect to whether the instant appeal was frivolous.

6.     Article I, section 5 of the Hawai`i Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of the person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of race, religion, sex or ancestry."

7.     Article I, section 6 of the Hawai`i Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest. The legislature shall take affirmative steps to implement this right."

8.     The fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part:

[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

9.     As noted above, this argument is deemed to be waived.

10.   HRS § 584-3, in its entirety, reads:

How parent and child relationship established.

The parent and child relationship between a child and:

(1)     The natural mother may be established by proof of her having given birth to the child, or under this chapter;

(2)     The natural father may be established under this chapter;

11.     HRS § 584-15 provides in relevant part:

§ 584-15 Judgment or order.

. . . .

12.     As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit noted in N.E. v. Hedges, in which the court addressed similar procreational autonomy and equal protection arguments:

[T]here are no judicial decisions recognizing a constitutional right of a man to terminate his duties of support under state law for a child that he has fathered, no matter how removed he may be emotionally from the child. Child support has long been a tax fathers have had to pay in Western civilization. For reasons of child welfare and social utility, if not for moral reasons, the biological relationship between a father and his offspring--even if unwanted and unacknowledged--remains constitutionally sufficient to support paternity tests and child support requirements. . . . Reproduction and child support requirements occur without regard to the male's wishes or his emotional attachment to his offspring.

391 F.3d 832, 836 (2004) (internal citations omitted).

13.     In the instant case, the obligation alleged to be the moral equivalent of human bondage amounts to $50 per month.

14.     The thirteenth amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in its entirety:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

16.     The Ballek court offered further analysis:

Ballek, 170 F.3d at 874-75 (some citations omitted).

Hedges, 391 F.3d at 836