There is a logical fallacy to your argument. You calim that you don't want to see a child lose the relationship he/she has with the only father he/she has ever known. But no law can ever force a someone to have a loving relationship with another person. So if a man finds out the child he thoought was his was fathered by another man, no law can prevent him from choosing to end the contact with the child. The only thing that the law can do is force him to pay money. So the law does not protect the child emotionally at all - it just protects the lying mother financially.
Sorry, they abolished slavery about 150 years agon in this county.
...and, in fact, I'm not aware of any states that will enforce visitation rights as they enforce support. If the best interests of the child were the issue, they would enforce visitation also. That they do not, suggests it's about the money.
That support will be enforced in the case of a fraud such as this, but visitation won't be, may actually even be denied...suggests to me it's not about the bond, it's about the bucks.
Not a fallacy, really. I can;t make a person love their child, but we can make them part of their lives. I seek to avoid them ‘checking out’ on that relationship based on exaggerated self pity and a desire to punish the mother.
I think that’s a legitimate goal of the law, though of course you are right and there’s no way to make him a good daddy. But of course, there’s no way to make a man a good daddy in any circumstance - that factor is on each side of any equation on this matter, so it cancels itself out.