Ann. § 13.42(a) (Vernon Supp.1990) (emphasis added). The case turns on our interpretation of the emphasized language. If the Court ignores all but the final sentence and interprets the language to mean that the courts are prohibited from awarding retroactive child support for any time earlier than the filing of the petition, then the Court would be interpreting the statute in such a way that illegitimate children are denied benefits that are not denied to legitimate children. In short, the Court would be interpreting the statute to deny benefits to children based upon the status of their parents’ relationship at birth. This construction would give section 13.42(a) an unconstitutional interpretation. See Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 539, 93 S.Ct. 872, 875, 35 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973) (<HOLDING>). In Adams v. Stotts, 667 S.W.2d 798, 800
holding that the fathers statements denying responsibility for abuse on his stepdaughter were further evidence to support the trial courts conclusion that the father posed a risk of potential harm to his natural children holding evidence insufficient to terminate mothers parental rights under section c because mother made arrangements for adequate support of children evidence showed mother left children with father who maintained steady employment and adequately supported children mother knew that father would provide adequate support and mother left children pursuant to agreed divorce decree holding that the natural father must have established a substantial relationship with the child to merit constitutional protection holding that an illegitimate child is guaranteed a right of support from his father holding that once a state posits a judicially enforceable right on behalf of children to needed support from their natural fathers there is no constitutionally sufficient justification for denying such an essential right to a child simply because its natural father has not married his mother