Why men should be able to sue women who lie about who's the daddy

JWR ^ | Nov. 27 , 2002 / 22 Kislev, 5763 | Dan Abrams

[Balto_Boy]

On Friday, Nebraska's highest court ruled that a man whose ex-wife may have lied to him about being the father of their child cannot sue the woman for fraud and emotional distress. Why not?

IN ANY other realm of the law this would be a classic case of fraud. Robert Day had already been divorced from his wife for six years when he realized he was out of town when she conceived. A DNA test proved with 100 percent certainty that Adam wasn't his. Well Robert Day alleged that mom lied about her due date to fool him.

He had paid child support, medical expenses and even half of his wife's employment-related daycare costs after their divorce. She's since remarried. The court cited a number of psychological studies about the importance of parents bonding with children and held "In effect Robert is saying he's not my son. I want my money back" and that the lawsuit "Has the effect of saying I wish you'd never been born to a child."

No, it says "You lied to me, I want my money back," and the lawsuit has the effect of saying "I wish you hadn't lied and now hope you'll go after the real father for the money you snookered me from me." Look, these cases are difficult and different. If the result would be that the child would suddenly go hungry or lose his home, those special circumstances should matter, but that should be the exception.

The court's opinion focuses solely on public policy. How is it good public policy to encourage a philandering woman to lie? Why shouldn't she at least have to seek out the real father to make him pay?

[jondalar]

So genetics is all?
seems that way..in new york you can raise a step-child
their entire life, but if you divorce their mom..
you have absolutely NO standing to request visitation...
family court wont even accept the petition

Pathetic, man, pathetic.
yes it is...very sad

I thank you for clarifying your
position that a baby one
might raise from birth is actually
no more than a pair of shoes to you.
It goes both ways
~~jondalar

[homeschool mama]

I don't know where you hang out...but the ladies I know, are indeed ladies. Perhaps you should change your surroundings.

[Savage Beast]

Look, these cases are neither difficult nor different. The law should force the woman to name the child's father; he and she should be forced to return all money spent on account of their fraud to the fraud victim; they are responsible for the support of their child. The fraud victim should be legally absolved of all financial obligations concerning their child. Period. It's quite simple.

[Savage Beast]

Wrong. Any statute of limitations fairly begins at the time of discovery of the fraud.

[Savage Beast]

"It's not that hard to do."

You're right; it's not. But the law cannot rightly allow anyone to perpetrate such a fraud. Any such woman must be held accountable to the victim of her fraud. She and the biological father are solely responsible for the child's support. Certainly not the fraud victim!

[RGSpincich]

The paternity test is part the discovery.

Family Law in each state has time periods during, before and after childbirth, that paternity can be questioned. After that time period, paternity cannot be easily challenged.