Posted on 09/07/2005 1:51:51 PM PDT by MRMEAN
On Aug. 31, a small but precedent-setting case was decided in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The plaintiff discovered he was not the biological father of his eldest 'son', now in his 30s. The court affirmed the duped dad's legal right to sue the natural father for the cost of raising the 'child' and removed some limitations imposed by a lower court.
The precedent: for the first time, New Jersey has extended a clear statutory deadline for filing on paternity cases. For the first time, a biological parent may be forced to pay child support for an offspring emancipated over 15 years ago.
The significance: family courts are beginning to reflect a growing impatience with paternity fraud; perhaps this is in reaction to a shift in societal attitudes.
Predictably, the pathbreaking New Jersey decision raises more questions. For example, if a deliberate fraud was perpetrated for 30 years by both the biological mother and father, why is only the father held liable?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Fraud on this magnitude deserves jail time. Taking a third of a persons paycheck for a couple decades should be illegal (OK, so the IRS does it, and that should be illegal too.)
Ohh, the bitches from NOW will be screaming about this one...lol
I read of a case a few years ago where a guy found he wasn
t the real father of a kid. The judge ruled that since he had assumed responsibility for the first say 15 years, he was still responsible.
I heard about that too. I wonder if the judge would like some bimbo to falsely accuse him of paternity and take a chunk of his income for 18 yrs? What a dope.
This is as far as it will ever go. The courts will never go after women for family court related fraud. Will never happen.
It was worse that that. Kids were very young, I believe.
Happened in Big Spring, Texas, right by me.
The judge also ordered the "father" to not tell the kids he was not "dad."
My understanding is that this is old, old law, going back to English Common Law if not to Roman law. Basically, any child born to a married woman is legally the child of the husband.
* * *
Here, not only defendant but also B.E.C., the mother of the child, concealed the true facts of D.C.'s parentage from plaintiff. The duplicity was enhanced by defendant's agreement to serve as godfather for the child. When he moved from the state soon after the child's birth, concealment of the child's parentage was furthered. We must also recognize that plaintiff and B.E.C. divorced when D.C. was ten years old. Although plaintiff maintained a relationship with D.C., he did not live with the child. Plaintiff did not live proximate to the child's mother, particularly after he moved to Florida and had limited contact with her. These circumstances singly and cumulatively enhanced the ability of B.E.C. and defendant to conceal the parentage of D.C. Moreover, even after D.C.'s mother disclosed his parentage and D.C. met with defendant, the ruse was furthered for another three years.
* * *
Our Heart Balm Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23-1 to -7, abolished causes of action for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, and breach of contract to marry. The Legislature declared that it "shall be liberally construed to effectuate the objects and purposes thereof and the public policy of the state as hereby declared." N.J.S.A. 2A:23-6; Magierowski v. Buckley, 39 N.J. Super. 534, 547-58 (App. Div. 1956). Although plaintiff argues that he is not seeking to recover for interference with his marital relationship, but for the emotional pain he endured upon learning that the true paternity of his child was hidden from him, the underlying conduct is the same. His claim as asserted is, in essence, a claim that another man slept with his wife behind his back. Although he alleges that adultery is not the basis for his cause of action, that does not seem to be the case at all.
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6130-02.opn.html
Pennsylvania says if you are married to the woman that delivers, the baby is yours even if it is not.
I think paternity fraud is terrible. However, this case smells like the "Dad" wanted to hurt the kid more than anything else.
I entirely disagree. A marriage is a contract with a sexual component. It limits your "absolute right to have sex together" with someone who isn't your spouse and since marriages are granted by the government, entering into one should make who you have sex with the government's business. A spouse that commits adultery may be exposing their partner not simply to extramarital children (which can economic implications on either partner) but also STDs (some incurable) and AIDS. At the very least, adultery is a breech of contract unless your spouse knows about it and consents to it.
Our son, just today, was told by SC DSS that he must pay child support on a 18 month old that is not his. He wanted to marry the mother and agreed to give the baby his name at birth. He also signed a paternity waiver at that time (he did not pay attention to what he was signing.) Anyway, the bi--h left him and filed for support. She won and our son is really down and out today.
Today's DNA tests can blow these female cheaters out of the water but the feminists want to keep a lid on it. They don't care about justice. They care only about what the woman wants and can get via fraud.
He better get a lawyer and go to court pronto. He better go while the child is young or he'll kick himself for years.
He should sue for custody then. He may not win, but he can make it clear to her that he will keep her in court for the rest of her natural life, and demand to see his "son" every week. After all, he's going to be paying for him for the next 18 years.
That's just a sick situation. There should be legal recourse for that kind of thing. One more reason to be terrified of modern american women.
With a decent lawyer, your son shouldn't have much problem ditching that case. If they were never married AND DNA proves he isn't the father, then a good lawyer shouldn't have a problem popping holes in the case.
If your son knows who the bio dad is, you can request that the court properly reassign paternity. If you don't, the trick is to stay consistent. Put together a war chest and make it clear to the mother that you're going to make her life a legal hell. Sue her in civil courts for fraud too...if he signed under the impression that they were to be married, you can make the argument that she deceived him into signing a legal contract under false pretenses. Either way, the goal is to make sure her legal bills exceed her child support payment, which will eventually force her to give it up.
Don't be afraid to sling mud. Hell, rent a bulldozer for it. I had a friend who's wife slept around on him and got knocked up by another guy. He hired two PI's and collected so much garbage on her that by the time the courts were through she'd not only lost her support case, but the court stripped her of custody of her two older children from a previous marriage. He completely destroyed her life (and that's a good thing...she was a b*#$%).
Even if she is the town whore?
Sounds fair to me.
What doe=s old English law have to say about an insulted husband killing his wife and paramour with say cruel and heinous acts?
I understand that kids especially boys follow their little heads but you should have hit him upside his big head with a two by four.
Not demeaning you because it happens all the time. Your boy is stuck for the next twenty years regardless.
If he makes advacnes in salary and position she will then go back to court to increase whatever he already is hustled for.
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.