TAREK MOUSSALLEM, Petitioner, v. ANITA PUAH and HON. E. S. KOROMA,

Judge Presiding by Assignment over the August Term, 1971, of the Third Judicial Circuit, Sinoe County, Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION. Decided September 29, 1971. 1. When support of a child has been ordered, an announcement of an appeal from the ruling will not stay the enforcement of such order, whether the proceedings giving rise to the order of support be in filiation proceedings or an action for maintenance and support. In an action of maintenance and support against the petitioner as the putative father of a child, he was ordered to pay such support. An appeal was announced from the ruling and the lower court thereupon ordered the ruling enforced. The father applied for a writ of prohibition, contending primarily that the ruling could not be enforced until the appeal was determined. Petition denied. C. 0. Tuning for petitioner. Nelson Broderick and Willis Duncan for respondents. PIERRE, C. J., presiding in chambers. In an action of maintenance and support filed by Miss Anita Puah against petitioner, Tarek Moussallem, a Lebanese national, for the support of a minor child, an appeal was taken from the judgment rendered in the Third Judicial Circuit Court against the said Lebanese father of the child. Notwithstanding the announcement of this appeal, E. S. Koroma, then presiding over the August Term, 1971, in that circuit, ordered enforcement of his ruling that the defendant pay the monthly sum of 684 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 685 $5o.00 for the support of the child. The defendant, alleged father of the child, feeling that the enforcement ordered of the ruling was illegal in face of his appeal, has applied for a writ of prohibition on jurisdictional grounds : ( ) that the judge could not enforce the ruling in face of the announced appeal, since he had lost jurisdiction over the case upon the said announcement; and (2) that the petitioner had raised the question of the circuit court not having jurisdiction over the subject matter of maintenance and support, but that he had been overruled. Respondents filed returns in which they disputed several of the issues raised in the petition. In count one they called attention to the labeling of the lower court proceedings as filiation proceedings, whereas it was an action for maintenance and support of a minor. We have not been able to understand why the petitioner’s counsel has sought to change the title of the case he defended in the lower court. But this is not the only irregularity, for the affidavit attached to the petition – was sworn to by his client, as well as by himself. Besides being irregular in prohibition proceedings, which require the petitioner to verify the petition, 1956 Code, 6:1221, the procedure was attacked by the respondents in count three of their returns, in which they alleged that the petitioner could not have sworn to the affidavit on September 15, 1971, because he was not in Sinoe County on this date. His signature appearing on the affidavit, therefore, must have been forged by someone unknown to them, or must have been added after they had attacked the illegality of the verification by counsel. Confronted with these allegations, counsellor Clarence 0. Tuning admitted that he had verified the petition for his client, and that he had no knowledge that petitioner’s signature had also been added. As far as I am concerned, the fact that petitioner and his counsel both verified the petition does not invalidate the petition. But 686 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS what is disturbing is the apparent addition of petitioner’s signature after its omission became obvious to counsel. I am not taking any action against what seems to be unethical practice on counsellor Tuning’s part, because he explained at our hearing that he had sent the petition and other documents from Sinoe to his client in Monrovia for them to be filed, so it is possible that the client, without knowing the import of what he did, added his name after a copy had been served on the adversary. The order for enforcement issuing after announcement of the appeal has been the cause of much of the argument. Since the proceedings involved maintenance and support of a child, our Domestic Relations Law is applicable. “Every legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child under the age of twenty-one years . . . shall be maintained, supported, and educated by his father as provided in sections 40, 41, and 66 of this Title.” 1956 Code, io :61. Sections 40 and 41 refer to duties of the husband, and who the members of the husband’s family are, respectively. But section 66, also referred to above, deals with illegitimate children. As to the enforcement of a decree in these cases, it is clear no delay is contemplated. “An appeal shall lie from every final decree of a court in any action brought under this section, but the appealed decree shall be enforced immediately and shall continue in force pending the decision of the appellate court.” Id., � 42(3). Should appeal in such cases serve as a supersedeas, what would happen to the minor child shown to be neglected by the parent while the appeal was pending and before a final decision of the appellate court was given? Whose responsibility would this neglected child’s support be? Certainly not the mother’s, in light of section 6r. I am of the opinion that whether or not the action in the circuit court in Sinoe was one in filiation proceedings, LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 687 or one for maintenance and support, both come under the Domestic Relations Law which provides for the support of a minor child, alleged to be neglected by the putative father. As such the judge was acting correctly under the Domestic Relations Law, when he sought to enforce his ruling for the child’s support, pending the hearing and determination of the matter by the Supreme Court on appeal. In view of the foregoing, it is our order that the Clerk of this Court will inform the judge in the Third Judicial Circuit in Sinoe County, that the petition for prohibition prayed for is denied. That he is to resume jurisdiction over the case of maintenance and support now pending before him, and enforce his ruling for the child’s support. This ruling is given without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to appeal from the said ruling, if he so desires. Costs are ruled against the petitioner. Petition denied.