Paternity case law

The_Minister

Could anyone reccomend me some paternity cases to read? A question just hit me last night

McCrack

In what context? Are you referring to unmarried father's rights or what?

The_Minister

Cases where the man turned out not to be the father.

And, no, its nothing personal, I just want to see what the law says.

McCrack

Nothing springs to mind on that, it's still a bit general. Whats your question? It will focus peoples minds.

The_Minister

McCrack wrote: »

Nothing springs to mind on that, it's still a bit general. Whats your question? It will focus peoples minds.

Scenario (hypothetical):
Man and woman divorce after short (few years) marraige.
Man pays paternity for another few years for their one child (sex is up to you)
Father runs a DNA test, and discovers that the child is not his.
Can he:
(a) Stop paying paternity
(b) Claim back the paternity he payed
(c) Sue her for fraud/damages?

And how does the situation change if the father only married the mother because she told him she was pregnant with his child?

Surely thats fraud? Not to mention hugely damaging to him.

McCrack

There is a presumption in law (which can be rebutted) that the child of a married couple is the husbands ie he fathered it.

My understanding is he can stop paying maintenance (obviously with the courts consent) and he cannot claim any back-payments in the absence of fraud on the mothers part.

Whether he can sue for fraud would depend on the facts which I would think would be very difficult to show/prove.

Now the above is my understanding, I havent researched this, maybe others might give a more authoritive answer. Ive no caselaw on this off the top of my head.

Interesting scenario by the way.

The_Minister

Inspired by a thread in PI btw;)

Victor

I heard of a case in the USA, where the judge basicly said "If you act as the father, you are responsible".

metrovelvet

Victor-

In the US paternity fraud is a very serious offence for which you can face prison. No judgement like that has a leg to stand on in law. But with fraud- you have to prove intent. Some states will demand in law that the husband is still responsible for the child whether s/he is biologically his or not.

Its not just damaging to the man, it's damaging to the child.

iptba

Sorry for bringing up an old thread but I thought this case, from the US, was interesting:

The Supreme Court of Iowa has recognized a cause of action for paternity fraud by unmarried men. Read about it here (Des Moines Register, 6/1/12).

Although the article isn’t clear, here’s what appears to have happened: Joseph Dier and Cassandra Peters had a relationship in about 2008. They were never married, but she had a son in 2009 and Dier paid her child support, believing the boy was his. At some point, Dier decided the child would be better off with him and moved for custody. Peters, suspecting the boy had not been fathered by Dier, asked the family court for genetic testing that proved Dier was not the father.

I suppose Peters was pleased with that outcome since it meant Dier was out of the custody picture. What she didn’t count on was his lawsuit against her for paternity fraud claiming all monies he’d paid her in child support plus the cost of litigation. The trial court dismissed his suit, ruling correctly that, under Iowa law, she’d done nothing wrong.

But the Supreme Court disagreed, establishing a new civil cause of action for damages, saying Dier can sue Peters.

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/06/04/iowa-supreme-court-duped-man-may-sue-for-paternity-fraud

I particularly found interesting the argument that a mother doesn't generally get out of paying fines because she is a mother, so why should she be inoculated from being sued in a case like this.

dermot_sheehan

have a read of the status of children act 1987, it outlines the presumptions and the ability to get a declaration of parentage.