Originally Posted by
washcloth2
No I was never maried to her, I never signed the birth certificate or any other documment. The child support was ordered because she receives help from the state
Thus I assume you were ordered to pay CS by default.
CHAPTER 209C
CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK
Section 5
Persons entitled to maintain actions or execute voluntary acknowledgment of parentage; parties
(d) The IV-D agency as set forth in chapter 119A on behalf of the department of transitional assistance, the department of children and families, the division of medical assistance or any other public assistance program may not file complaints solely for custody or visitation, but shall be permitted to file actions for paternity or support; provided, however, that said IV-D agency shall be permitted to maintain an action for paternity or support even if issues related to custody or visitation are raised.
In Re Paternity of Cheryl, a baby was born in 1993. The mother was receiving public assistance and was required to cooperate in establishing paternity and pursuing support.83 She named the father, and the state child support agency contacted him. He was offered pre-paid genetic tests, but instead, he signed a voluntary paternity acknowledgment. Based on the acknowledgment, a paternity judgment was entered and a support order issued. He paid support and formed a close
Relationship with the child. In 1999, the child support agency sought an increase in support, and he countered with a Rule 60(B) motion requesting genetic testing and to have the paternity order set aside. This motion was denied. The father then had the child tested (during visitation and without the mother’s consent) and the results established that he was not the biological father. Armed with the test results, he filed a second Rule 60(B)
Motion. This time, the court ordered tests and granted relief.
On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts noted that to prevail under any one of the first three sections of Rule 60(B), the father would have had to move for relief within one year of the judgment. Since he had not done so, he could not use any one of these three provisions. However, had he filed in a timely fashion, he might have
Been successful. The Court then discussed whether Rules 60(B)(5) or 60 (B)(6) might be applicable since they are not limited by a specific time frame, but only require that the motion be filed within a “reasonable time.” To prevail under these provisions, the
Father would have had to act with reasonable speed after discovering that he might not be the child’s father. On the facts of the case, the court determined that this father had not done so. At least three and one-half years elapsed between the time the father had reason to suspect he might not be the biological father and the time he acted. During this time he had continued his relationship with the child, had enjoyed her love and companionship and she had come to “know and rely on him as her father.” Under these circumstances, his motion was not timely.