Another Paternity Fraud case.(30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.)

Patrick McCarthy was floored to learn after his divorce that his 14-year-old daughter had been fathered by another man. He was even more stunned to find out that he would still have to pay $280 a month in child support.

"You have to be a stone not to react emotionally to something like that," said McCarthy, 41, a delivery service driver from Hillsborough, N.J. "The thing I found more disturbing was the way they treat you in court."

In New Jersey, as in most other states, children born during a marriage are the legal responsibility of the husband - even if he isn't the biological father.

Now some of these "duped dads," as they call themselves, are waging state-by-state battles to institute "paternity fraud" laws. Fueled by anger and raw emotion, they are forming grassroots groups and pressing for the right to use DNA evidence in court to be free of making support payments for children they didn't father.

New Jersey Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, which McCarthy founded, recently paid $50,000 for nine billboards along highways (and other ads) that show a pregnant woman and read "Is It Yours? If Not, You Still Have to Pay!"

"Why does a man who is not the father have to bear the financial responsibility for fraud?" asked New Jersey Assemblyman Neil Cohen (D., Union), who sponsored legislation allowing men to use DNA tests to disprove paternity and end financial support. The bill recently came out of committee and faces a vote from the Assembly.

But women's groups and child advocates are alarmed by a trend that they say could harm children.

"It's not as simple as, 'This isn't fair, I have to pay for somebody else's kid,' " said Valerie Ackerman, staff lawyer at the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif. "Families are much more than biology."

It is not known how many men would try to disprove paternity in court, even if they could. An American Association of Blood Bank survey in 2000 of 30,626 paternity tests showed that 30 percent of those taking the tests were not the real fathers.

What is clear is that the law is not on their side. Most states require nonbiological fathers to keep paying child support even if they were deceived by their spouses, based on the 500-year-old legal presumption that any child born during a marriage is the husband's.

For unmarried fathers, if the paternity is not challenged at birth, they generally do not get a second chance to raise the issue.

But more and more states are reshaping these laws. Men have won the right by legislation or case law to use genetic testing to disprove paternity in 12 states. Three more, including New Jersey, have pending legislation that let nonbiological fathers off the hook.

Since 1999, Pennsylvania lawmakers twice turned down similar legislation, introduced after a Reading man, Gerald Miscovich, sought relief from the $537 a month he was paying for a child who was not his. He lost the case and ended all contact with the then-4-year-old boy. Sen. Michael A. O'Pake (D., Reading) plans to reintroduce the bill next month.

Carnell Smith of Decatur, Ga., is one of two men who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after lower courts ruled against them. Smith is trying to recoup more than $40,000 from his ex-girlfriend after learning three years ago that her 13-year-old girl is not his. But the Supreme Court declined to hear his case, meaning he must continue to pay $750 a month in child support.

"It's not a gender war from my perspective. It's about truth," said Smith, who founded U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. His group - whose slogan is "If the genes don't fit, you must acquit" - lobbied for the law that Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes signed in May.

Others have not been swayed. In October, California Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a paternity fraud bill, saying the measure would only delay child support collection and let some biological fathers wriggle out of parental responsibility.

Child advocates agree. They worry that children will be traumatized by losing the emotional and financial support of the person they know as "Dad."

"I would think if there's a close parent-child relationship, then the matter of whose DNA the child is carrying wouldn't matter that much," said Laura Morgan, chairwoman of the American Bar Association's Child Support Committee. "It's too easily reducing parentage to dollars and DNA."

In many cases, a man suspects a child is not his and chooses to raise the child anyway, said Paula Roberts, a lawyer at the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington. But after a divorce "he has a new wife and she's saying, 'Why are we paying for this kid?' Now he wants out," she said.

"What kind of damage have we done to the kids if the person they know as their father wants out?"

Some of the new statutes give fathers two years to contest paternity. Men say such deadlines are unfair because women can sue to establish paternity at any time in a child's life.

But Ackerman, with the youth law center, said "you give a person unlimited time to establish paternity, it leaves a child in limbo their entire lives."

Those pressing for the new laws say they do not anticipate wide-scale child abandonment. Cohen, a lawyer who has represented both men and women in these types of cases, said that "when [fathers] have a relationship with their son or daughter, they don't necessarily walk away from the child. They just don't want to have the financial responsibility."

But he has also seen men who were "so angry and upset over being lied to, they walk away," he said.

These non-dads, who network via e-mail and compare hard-luck stories, say the issue goes beyond monthly child support checks.

"To not allow DNA testing is not allowing the truth to come forward," said McCarthy, who would like to see every child's DNA tested at birth to prevent mix-ups. "My contention is every child has a right to know who their biological parents are."

Even though McCarthy's daughter looked nothing like him, he never suspected she was not his until his ex-wife blurted it out during an argument, he said. He used a home DNA kit and a cheek swab to confirm there was virtually no chance the girl was his.

With no legal standing, he continued supporting her and began lobbying for a change in the law. Though their relationship is strained, the girl, now 19, still calls him "Dad," said McCarthy, who lives with his second wife and their two children.

What really galls these men "is the fact that you have to pay support to an ex-wife who lied to you and deceived you," McCarthy said. (Like some other men in the movement, he declined to provide information about his ex-wife.)

One man who would greatly benefit from the new laws is Morgan Wise, of Big Spring, Texas. A train engineer, he was married for 13 years to a woman who had four children. The youngest had cystic fibrosis. After he divorced in 1996, he said, he took a test to see which cystic fibrosis gene he carried.

No such gene was found. DNA testing showed that three of the four children were not his.

His wife, Wanda Scroggins, said that he knew "there was a possibility" the children weren't his. She said they both had affairs during their marriage and he agreed to raise the children as his own.

They also agreed to keep the truth to themselves, but Wise told the children one day while they were at school. It cost him visitation rights for two years.

In another blow, a Texas court ruled that he still had to pay $1,100 a month in child support. In January, the U.S Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal.

Recently, Wise began spending time again with the children, but the relationship is rocky.

"If it's your kid, no matter who the biological father is, how does that matter?" Scroggins asked. "He was there when they were born, he changed their diapers, saw their first steps, kissed their boo-boos. How do you just stop that?"

Legally, the courts will side the way of your argument.

Well, that's where I think that you are hearing a little more "me me me" than is actually going on here. The courts do not side with "my" side of the argument. As is illustrated above, they force the faithful man to subsidize his unfaithful wife. I could be wrong, but I believe that is what has ETH outraged.

After all -- Charity is a Moral Good;
...but Forced Charity is neither charity, nor a moral good.

No, I'm of Caucasian descent. I'm colorblind to race though, but not political blind. Anyone who is a conservative who believes in working hard, keeping what they earn for themselves and helping out their neighbor (and strangers) is a brother of mine.

I guess I could be a lady killer (my female friends tell me this) but I am pretty turned off by the rather fussy (polite word for another term used to describe women) women of the Atlanta metro area.

I know that you and I have agreed to disagree, but...

Legally, the courts will side the way of your argument.

But they haven't been! That is our problem!

The law currently makes the husband responsible for any child conceived during the marriage, regardless of paternity as determined by DNA testing. We want those laws changed, that is our whole point.

Morally, nothing will have changed. If it wasn't for these boneheaded laws turning men into nothing more than a welfare check dispenser, maybe more men would be willing to step up, and do the right thing with these children.

I think we agree, on the morals of this issue. The question is, what should the LAW be?

A man should not be forced to pay for a child that is not biologically his, so the law should be changed.

But the law should not be changed to require mandatory DNA tests because that is wrong. This is a society of "innocent until proven guilty" and to go against that is bucking that ideology.

If the father suspects the child may not be his, he should be allowed to request a DNA test--and as far as I know, one is allowed to do this, at least in my state. My husband did it to me.

This was back about five years ago, before we were married. He cheated on me and then left me for his ex. A week after he left, I discovered I was pregnant. At first, he didn't believe me. Then, he decided (upon prompting from his ex) that he didn't care. I gave birth to our firstborn son without him there. He didn't even see his own son until he was two months old.

His ex pressured him into making me take a DNA test. This really hurt me, and to this day, I have not gotten over it. I loved him with all my heart, and he stomped on that when he cheated and left me alone and pregnant. The worst part about it was that he would think I would have cheated myself--but, as is often the case, the real cheaters are the ones doing the accusing.

I will never forget the humiliation. Opening my mouth for the cotton swab, then helping the nurse swab my son.

It was a bad bit of business, but it did have a happy ending. We eventually worked out our problems, got married, and have a new beautiful baby girl. He was present for THAT birth. And there was no DNA test--there was no need for one.

Not all women do awful things like lying about the paternity of their children. It is wrong to punish the majority of women that KNOW who the father of their children is. For men to suggest that mandatory DNA testing should be practiced means they are thinking with their emotions (which is a thing I have seen many people opposed to on this thread).

For men to suggest that mandatory DNA testing should be practiced means they are thinking with their emotions (which is a thing I have seen many people opposed to on this thread).

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins.... H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

A man should not be forced to pay for a child that is not biologically his, so the law should be changed.

Thank you, Morrigan.

If the father suspects the child may not be his, he should be allowed to request a DNA test--and as far as I know, one is allowed to do this, at least in my state. My husband did it to me.

The reason your (now) husband could insist on a DNA test is because you were not married at the time. In most states, if you had requested public assistance, the state would have insisted that you name someone as the father so that they could try to re-coup the costs associated with prenatal care, labor & delivery, and aid to dependant children (welfare). If he challenged paternity, the state would have ordered a DNA test.

But the law should not be changed to require mandatory DNA tests

I agree, for a number of reasons.

DNA testing at birth is the way to go. Just mandate it, so the guy doesn't have to be the jerk to ask.

Paternity testing is not cheap. A quick google search found prices ranging from $240 to $500. As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for this for others, and I don't want to be forced into paying for this when I have no reason to doubt my wife.

Goes to show just how far we've fallen as a society. 40 years ago a woman was shunned for having a child out of wedlock. It was unheard of to force good fathers out of the lives of their children.

Now single mothers are applauded and fully supported. Fathers are routinely thrown out of their children's lives. Look at our society, the reasons for the problems we face is quite obvious. Destroy the family, destroy society.

This happens to be about the size of one month's welfare check as well. You are paying and paying for the real father not being produced at birth. Especially for people on public assistance, this is important. If they want subsidized medical care when giving birth, they need to give up the father's name, in case the dear boy actually does get a job in the future, and can help support the lad or lass instead of the state.

This $250 per child, will save more money than it costs.

I agree with you to an extent, but many men nowadays are irresponsible and immature, so they leave the women they impregnate to fend for themselves and their children. I think that women that DO provide for themselves and their kids on their own should be applauded...after all, I was prepared to do it. I could have gotten an abortion, but I am totally against that. I decided that, come hell or high water, whether my son's father was there or not, I was going to provide for us and give him the home he deserved...and I don't really see anything wrong with that.

And the money for the DNA test actually came out of Daddy's pocket--since he was the one that wanted it. As far as I know, the state and taxpayers only pick up the tab when welfare is involved....otherwise the cost of the paternity test is on the parents.

I know of no state that does not pick up the tab for paternity testing when the mother goes through the state to collect child support. Going through a private attorney is probably different. Still, I fully understand why a man would demand a DNA test when faced with support papers. After all, look how many men find out years later (and these are married men) that the child they though was theres is not.

As for irresponsibility, I find a woman who has sex with a man out-of-wedlock and then becomes pregnant is just as irresponsible as the man. Children fair much worse without the stability of a two parent family. To give them less then that is irresponsible.

Simply put, being prepared to care for a child is not the same as being prepared to have a child in a stable, secure marriage where the child has two parents to look up to and grow up with. I do not support or applaud women who get pregnant out of wedlock as they do a disservice to the child. I am thankful that there are many who make that irresponsible decision and do not expect the tax-payers to pay for their decision. I just find their actions to be selfish, self-serving and damaging to society in general.

Good point, but it does take two to tango...:)

I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with women that are deserted and raise their children right on their own. One cannot see the future. I had no inkling my son's father was going to leave me. I expected that we would be married....which we were, eventually. I was on birth control when I got pregnant, so it isn't like I did it on purpose:) Sometimes accidents happen, and people need to be prepared to deal with them.

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.