Posted on 07/18/2007 11:46:12 AM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
A former Morris County man who learned 30 years after his son was born that the child was not his cannot recoup $110,000 spent in child support from the biological father, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
The 7-0 decision overturned an appellate court ruling in 2005 and found there is no exception in the New Jersey Parentage Act to extend the deadline in a paternity case beyond the child's 23rd birthday.
"The Legislature evidently knew what has been known since time immemorial -- that children would be born of adulterous relationships and that the true identity of the father might not be known for more than 23 years," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote.
The 28-page ruling lets the biological father, who had been a close family friend and the child's godfather, off the hook for the cost of raising him. Albin noted the biological father had not engaged in "overt trickery" and at worst simply kept quiet about the possibility he fathered the child.
"The decision makes clear the paramour has no duty to intrude into the family relationship," said Melvyn Bergstein, the biological father's attorney. "It says if you don't say anything, we're not going to sock it to you after the statute of limitations runs out."
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
It must be hard for the child to find out that his mother is a whore.
Not right, not right at all.
Oh, yeah, no overt trickery involved here, simply don't tell and you can get away with screwing someone over and never have to pay a dime for raising your child./SAR Our courts are truely unbelievable when it comes to paternity suits.
Perhaps this is an issue of widespread concern in New Jersey.
How about being able to declare this as a long term capital loss on your income taxes. That would be fair.
Maybe she was raped, or taken advantage of when incapacitated, etc.
He’s a man, so he’s screwed.
Now here is the interesting part, who estate does the child inherit?
Seems to me the duped man’s estate has no claim for the child to have.
The sex partner on the other hand....
How about going after the woman for fraud?
With the statement below from the article I highly doubt she was tricked, raped or drugged.
The 28-page ruling lets the biological father, who had been a close family friend and the child's godfather
I’d be tempted to go Jon Lovitz on the guy, just for general principles. Tempted, but I wouldn’t do it.
And that your real father is an adultering slime.
I think the legal issue was the 23 year statute of limitations. It seems that if you find out after ten years that the mother should be a guest on Maury Povich or Jerry Springer and lied to you about paternity, you CAN in fact get a refund.
Wait, does this imply that if he had found out when the child was under 23, he’d have legal standing and could go after the biological father and/or mother for repayment?
The way I read it, it did not decided on weather it was the boys father or not but that the time limit of 23 years had passed and the limitation statute took over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.