[goldstategop]

As I said, there is an exception in a case like that because the harm would be greater to the child than to the deceived adult. The child can't understand and doesn't care where he comes from. All he or she sees is a parent. But the exception doesn't make it right for the state to aid and abet fraud on behalf of the mother.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[HitmanLV]

As I said, there is an exception in a case like that because the harm would be greater to the child than to the deceived adult. The child can't understand and doesn't care where he comes from. All he or she sees is a parent.

I agree 100%

But the exception doesn't make it right for the state to aid and abet fraud on behalf of the mother.

The money is going to help support the child. The child didn't commit any fraud.

Also fraud includes intent. The woman who has another man's baby maybe had no intent to deceive her husband as to the paternity of the child. She may simply be wrong. 'Fraud' is a legal concept and this dynamic doesn't necessarily mean fraud.