Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sam9176 Do I Have Any Rights If I Been Fooled For 7 Yrs As A Father And Then Come To Find Out That I Am Not The Father Through A Dna Test? |
WHERE A SUPPOSED PARENT PAYS CHILD SUPPORT AND LATER FINDS THAT THEY ARE NOT THE BIOLOGICAL PARENT, THEY DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST THE TRUE BIOLOGICAL PARENT by Judge Susan L. Dobrich
FONSTAD V. TEAL, (#254051, Unpublished) Michigan Court of Appeals, July 21, 2005
This case addresses the situation in which the plaintiff believed he was the father of the minor child, held himself in relations and conduct as the father and paid child support for the minor child. The circumstance which then arose was that defendant was actually shown to be the biological father of minor child. Plaintiff brought an unjust enrichment action against defendant which was granted summary disposition by the trial court. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
While plaintiff did support minor child for over 11 years, his payment does not justify unjust enrichment. Plaintiff asserted that the defendant was unjustly enriched due to the fact that plaintiff paid child support that defendant was obligated to pay. In the instance that defendant had known of his parentage then he would have been legally obligated to pay child support. In this case though, plaintiff believed himself to be the father and defendant was unaware of his status as father. Plaintiff made payments voluntarily for benefit of minor child and did not expect reimbursement. Plaintiff’s actions are analogous to a gift to minor child and restitution is unavailable through unjust enrichment because any benefit to defendant was incidental and involuntary. Summary disposition was proper in this claim and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The New York Court of Appeals has held that:
[A] man who has mistakenly represented himself as a child's father may be estopped from denying paternity, and made to pay child support, when the child justifiably relied on the man's representation of paternity, to the child's detriment. We reach this conclusion based on the best interests of the child as set forth by the Legislature.
The case is Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D.
the glaring problem I see with this decision -- it encourages a defrauding mother to do the best job she can to make sure the defrauded man has NO doubts that the child is his. It's almost as if this decision encourages sublimely executed deception -- if you trick him thoroughly, the jurists seem to say, we'll guarantee that you get your child support payments for the next 18 years.Remember, the man here has been emotionally devastated by learning that a child he has bonded with and raised as his own is not his (though the courts often characterize the relationship prior to the discovery as "enjoyment" for the man in order to mitigate the crime of the mother).
It means"Disestablishing of paternity on base fraud,mistake and etc.
Linear Mode
