Lynda/WA
04-27-2001, 02:28 PM
RCT's post reminded me of a paternity case I heard of this last week. I think it takes place in boston. A man was named as a child's father 7 years ago. It sounded like the mother stated he was the father and put his name on the birth certificate. I got the impression he beleived he was the only one that could be the father since they were involved at that time and the mother said he was. They weren't ever married. He paid child support from the time she was born on. When the little girl was 5 he found out he may no be the father and had a paternity test done. Turns out he wasn't. He went to court to get child support payments stopped. The judge said it didn't matter if he wasn't the biological father he still had to pay child support. But since he wasn't the biological father the judge said the courts wouldn't enforce visitation either! The talk show host suggested the mother should be charged with fraud. She possibly was the only one that knew there was another man that could be the father. What about the biological father? He may not even know he is a father and hasn't had the oppurtunity to see her for the last 7 years.
A similar case happened in Oregon awhile back. The man said he couldn't be the father but the mother put his name on the birth certificate. He had to fight a long legal battle to prove (with DNA) that he wasn't the father. Even then social services went after him for child support and maintained files on him naming him as the father. He was told it didn't matter if he wasn't the biological father even though he had fought paternity from pregnancy on. Even when the girl was grown up she was given his name by social services as being her father even though the paternity test back then excluded him as being the father. She (and social services) were going to court to get another test done.
Another case took place in Oregon. The mother and father had broken up (never married). Even though they lived in different cities he questioned her friends and her about a possible pregnancy. She hid her pregnancy and did drugs. When she gave birth she fled because there were outstanding arrest warrants (in addition to taking drugs while pregant). Her friend convinced her to name him as the father on the birth certificate then the friend called him and told him his newborn daughter was in the hospital. The hospital refused to give him any information. The courts took custody of the little girl and told him he had no rights even if his name was on the birth certificate and if he could prove DNA. He was told the courts goal was to reunite the girl with the mother (regardless if her arrest warrants). She eventually was caught and went to prison. He didn't get custody until the girl was over a year old and needed alot of financial donations to fight the government in court. He even had to prove he was a fit parent but the courts were willing to give the baby over to a drug taking mother with arrest warrants.
Now I see a number of problems here. Should DNA matter in paternity cases? If no - what about the men named as fathers that say they never even slept with the mother (like in the second case)? What about men that never realized the woman had more than one partner? If yes - what about the men that don't even know they are fathers until years later? If a mother names a man as father should she be able to go after him for child support for a child he didn't know existed until years later? Is it right to say a man should pay for a child that isn't his but that visitation isn't?
A similar case happened in Oregon awhile back. The man said he couldn't be the father but the mother put his name on the birth certificate. He had to fight a long legal battle to prove (with DNA) that he wasn't the father. Even then social services went after him for child support and maintained files on him naming him as the father. He was told it didn't matter if he wasn't the biological father even though he had fought paternity from pregnancy on. Even when the girl was grown up she was given his name by social services as being her father even though the paternity test back then excluded him as being the father. She (and social services) were going to court to get another test done.
Another case took place in Oregon. The mother and father had broken up (never married). Even though they lived in different cities he questioned her friends and her about a possible pregnancy. She hid her pregnancy and did drugs. When she gave birth she fled because there were outstanding arrest warrants (in addition to taking drugs while pregant). Her friend convinced her to name him as the father on the birth certificate then the friend called him and told him his newborn daughter was in the hospital. The hospital refused to give him any information. The courts took custody of the little girl and told him he had no rights even if his name was on the birth certificate and if he could prove DNA. He was told the courts goal was to reunite the girl with the mother (regardless if her arrest warrants). She eventually was caught and went to prison. He didn't get custody until the girl was over a year old and needed alot of financial donations to fight the government in court. He even had to prove he was a fit parent but the courts were willing to give the baby over to a drug taking mother with arrest warrants.
Now I see a number of problems here. Should DNA matter in paternity cases? If no - what about the men named as fathers that say they never even slept with the mother (like in the second case)? What about men that never realized the woman had more than one partner? If yes - what about the men that don't even know they are fathers until years later? If a mother names a man as father should she be able to go after him for child support for a child he didn't know existed until years later? Is it right to say a man should pay for a child that isn't his but that visitation isn't?