Well it is possible that a state does not defacto view a child born during a marriage as the husband’s child. I can’t fathom a state not having such a law, and if it has changed from that standard, I’d say its something that’s happened in the last 20-30 years.
I’ve been out of law school nearly 20 years, but in my domestic law class I seem to recall that some states had an irrebuttable presumption of paternity in the spouse, and others had a rebuttable presumption. This was in the days before the kinds of DNA analysis that exists today.
I have never cared for most legal fictions, and one like this, that the husband is always the father, is particularly troubling because it intrudes on very important family relationships and duties. In these cases truth should be paramount. Might it harm a child to find out that the husband of his mother is not his father? Perhaps, but tragic occurrences happen often, without legal remedy. Husbands should not be made to suffer twice (actually continually for 18 years or more) due to the infidelity of their wives.
If “the best interests of the child” is the deciding factor, then the courts should consider interviewing a number of men, perhaps summoned as potential jurors are, and determine who is most able to provide support for a child whose biological father cannot be determined, or whose mother refuses to disclose his identity.
In case anyone missed my previous posts on this thread, in situations where a husband has, knowingly or not, voluntarily assumed the role of father of the child, having had an opportunity to challenge paternity, that man should be compelled to continue the support he has begun. But where a man questions his paternity from early on (how early to be determined) he should have the right to a fair determination before having to assume a lifelong obligation.