If a man, once presented with a claim that he is the father of a child, objects and seeks to prove that he is not the father, the results of DNA testing should control his liability for support. However, if the man assumes paternity and treats the child as his own, he should be estopped from denying it at a later, opportune, time. Give each man a fair shot to challenge paternity if he wishes. If he doesn’t challenge it, he should live with the future risk that he may be shown not to be the biological father, but the “true” and financially supportive, father.
Lots of ‘should’ in your response, which is valid insofar as ‘should’ goes. Unfortunately, in many situations paternity is legally established without the opportunity for challenge.
Two of those situations are:
- Ex parte judgement, which occurs in various circumstances ranging from ‘guy tries to avoid his responsibility’ to ‘guy is serving overseas and has no idea he’s being hit for a 20-year monetary obligation.’ Nice way to treat our soldiers.
- Wedlock: all children born in wedlock are legally the husband’s, even if those children’s true parentage are the cause of the divorce.
There are other circumstances in which there is no due cause. However your “should” stands well on its own. If the system were amended so that no support order was established without first definitively establishing true paternity, this whole problem wouldn’t occur. DNA testing is routine in cases of uncertain paternity and it ought to be conducted 100% of the time.
I think any man who seeks a paternity test, without any visible reason to suspect a child is not his, just to avoid paying child support is scum. But what about the man who goes along for years assuming the child is his, only to have mom throw the fact that he is not the father in his face during a divorce? While I woulh hope he would still want to continue the relationship, in that case I don’t think the state should be able to require it.