I found this interesting and thought I'd share it with you all :) Just when you think you've heard it all... sometimes the court is helpful but this is just insanity.

I read an article in a magazine a few years ago regarding paternity. The article was centered around a gentleman who had sex with a woman and then went off to war. While he was overseas, the woman listed him as the father on the child's birth certificate, regardless of the fact that she gave birth a year and a half after she had last seen him. The first he learned of this was when he found out his driver's license had been suspended for "failure to pay child support." When he realized what happened, he requested a paternity test. The test results concluded that he was not the father, which stopped the child support as of that date, but the court still ordered him to pay the past due support.

Another example they gave was a man whose DNA test revealed he was not the father, but the court decided it was "in the best interest of the child" and ordered him to pay support anyway.

So much for our "fair" legal system.

I found this interesting and thought I'd share it with you all :) Just when you think you've heard it all....sometimes the court is helpful but this is just insanity.

I read an article in a magazine a few years ago regarding paternity. The article was centered around a gentleman who had sex with a woman and then went off to war. While he was overseas, the woman listed him as the father on the child's birth certificate, regardless of the fact that she gave birth a year and a half after she had last seen him. The first he learned of this was when he found out his driver's license had been suspended for "failure to pay child support." When he realized what happened, he requested a paternity test. The test results concluded that he was not the father, which stopped the child support as of that date, but the court still ordered him to pay the past due support.

Another example they gave was a man whose DNA test revealed he was not the father, but the court decided it was "in the best interest of the child" and ordered him to pay support anyway.

So much for our "fair" legal system.


Some of this is frightening - I am also aware of a decision where the "father" was held liable for past child support on a child who was not his (by DNA testing) because the "father" never responded to the original Court documents which he said he never received. The mother waited some years to get him held in contempt for not paying... because she couldn't find him.

I am always rather fascinated by the cases in which the husband goes off to some foreign country, the wife has a baby 11 months (give or take) later and the husband is stuck paying support. I suppose the law has to draw a line somewhere but really -

I found this interesting and thought I'd share it with you all :) Just when you think you've heard it all....sometimes the court is helpful but this is just insanity.

I read an article in a magazine a few years ago regarding paternity. The article was centered around a gentleman who had sex with a woman and then went off to war. While he was overseas, the woman listed him as the father on the child's birth certificate, regardless of the fact that she gave birth a year and a half after she had last seen him. The first he learned of this was when he found out his driver's license had been suspended for "failure to pay child support." When he realized what happened, he requested a paternity test. The test results concluded that he was not the father, which stopped the child support as of that date, but the court still ordered him to pay the past due support.

Another example they gave was a man whose DNA test revealed he was not the father, but the court decided it was "in the best interest of the child" and ordered him to pay support anyway.

So much for our "fair" legal system.

There are many examples of a non-bio parent being charged with child support or as in some cases where the mother has passed away and the father has the children then being charged with arrears ( as has happened in California ) The horror stories go on and on. I think the ones I feel for most are the ones that suddenly find out they have a child from 16 years ago and lose everything because the courts charge them with arrears for the entire 16 years. The current system isn't perfect and in most cases its not even close but that's how we get so many visitors to this site. Lol

Paternity fraud is the act of falsely naming a man to be the biological father of a child, particularly for the purpose of collecting child support (also referred to as child maintenance), by the mother when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father.
In cases of paternity fraud, there are many potential victims: the defrauded man, the child deprived of a relationship with his/her biological father, and the biological father who is deprived of his relationship with his child. Subsidiary victims include the defrauded child's and the men's families. In particular, financial hardship may have resulted for the defrauded man's children and spouse in cases in which the man was forced to make child support payments for the other man's child.
Access to DNA testing is restricted in some jurisdictions as it is held to not be in the best interests of the child for such information to become available. A man finding out that the child is not his biological child contrary to information supplied by the mother may result in his rejection of the child or mother.
Once the Court has established paternity that man is responsible for paying child support for the next 18 years (or more) -- even if the man is later proven not to be the biological father. This gives a big incentive for a promiscuous female (including married women) to identify the highest earner from among her sexual partners as the father. There is no penalty for a female if she knowingly commits paternity fraud.
Even in cases where the mother and true biological father have later married -- the man originally identified as the father has still been forced to pay child support to that couple for a child that he had nothing to do with.

Today many men who have been functioning as social fathers are in a position to discover that they are not biological fathers. Some of them are demanding, often in the context of divorce, to be released from their parental responsibilities. This is not a small problem: recent studies show that surprisingly high percentages of children born in the context of marriage or marriage-like relationships are not genetically related to their mothers' partners, the men who have been functioning as their fathers/According to American Association of Blood Banks-30%/





Here is what Senior Judge William L. Knopf from Kentucky Court of Appeals wrote in his opinion in BALLINGER v. BOONE
"At the outset, we note that Kentucky law provides that a child born during a marriage “is presumed to be the child of the husband and wife.” KRS 406.011... After learning that he was not the girls' biological father, Kelly sought judicial recognition as their de facto custodian. The statute setting forth the requirements for de facto status is found at KRS 403.270... Subsection (1) of KRS 403.270 provides:
(a) As used in this chapter and KRS 405.020, unless
The context requires otherwise, “de facto custodian”
Means a person who has been shown by clear and
Convincing evidence to have been the primary
Caregiver for, and financial supporter of, a child who
Has resided with the person for a period of six (6)
Months or more if the child is under three (3) years of
Age and for a period of one (1) year or more if the child
Is three (3) years of age or older or has been placed by
The Department of Community Based Services. Any
Period after a legal proceeding has been
Commenced by a parent seeking to regain custody of
The child shall not be included in determining whether
The child has resided with the person for the required
Minimum period.
(b) A person shall not be a de facto custodian until a
Court determines by clear and convincing evidence that
The person meets the definition of de facto custodian
Established in paragraph (a) of this subsection. Once a
Court determines that a person meets the definition of
De facto custodian, the court shall give the person the
Same standing in custody matters that is given to each
Parent under this section and KRS 403.280, 403.340,
403.350, 403.822, and 405.020.
On appeal, Melinda and Boone challenge the trial court's application of this statute and its resulting conclusion that Kelly is the girls' de facto custodian. The record is clear that from a factual standpoint, it is beyond dispute that at all times from the girls'births until after the initiation of dissolution proceedings Kelly believed that he was their father and acted accordingly.
Consalvi, supra at 197-98 (emphasis in original). The Court concluded that “it is not enough that a person provide for a child alongside the parent” but rather he must
“literally stand in the place of the natural parent.”
Therein lies the irony: if a misled husband decides to “run” in order to avoid any parental support obligations, he would be prohibited from doing so by S.R.D.and would remain financially bound to the child, but should he desire to “stay” and maintain a relationship with the child, Consalvi, literally applied, says that he cannot be the de facto custodian and is not entitled to custody or visitation."

Dianna Thompson /If DNA is used to free death-row inmates, we should accept it in paternity cases. /

The Sonoma County, Calif. district attorney refused to rescind a child-support order against Nick Napoli despite DNA testing that proved he did not father the two children assigned him by court order. The district attorney's office told Napoli that even if they had proof he wasn't the father, they could not reassign paternity without the mother's consent. Napoli now owes $19,180 in back child support for the children.


Dylan Davis of Denver learned that 6-year-old twin children were not his following his divorce. Because Colorado allows only five years for challenges to paternity findings, Davis now must pay a total of $145,000 in child support through the twins' 19th birthdays.


In June 2000, California's 4th District Court of Appeals ruled that Darin Reeves of Rancho Santa Margarita would have to continue paying child support for a child he did not father. Since 1995, Reeves has paid more than $51,000 in child support and welfare reimbursements, in addition to $11,000 in legal fees that he has spent fighting the finding of paternity.


Dennis Caron of Ohio was jailed for 30 days for refusing to pay child support for a child that DNA tests show is not his.
Interestingly, women from a variety of financial backgrounds provide fraudulent information regarding their children's paternity. Who they name as the father oftentimes depends on their marital status. Married women most often name the men who were their husbands at the time of conception, fulfilling a societal expectation of monogamy. However, unmarried women who have multiple intimate partners most often name the men who will best provide financially for their children. In some cases, mothers will implicate men whom they believe will fill the role of a father to their children.When courts allow mothers to pick who will be financially responsible for their children, regardless of true parentage, fraud will prevail. When the truth no longer matters, state agencies tend to decide they have no obligation to seek out biological fathers and refuse to acknowledge DNA evidence disproving paternity.

I just think all of this is disgusting. People can't control themselves and now there are children paying the consequences. And then to make it worse, the courts are allowed to determine what's best for us. Such a sad, sad world we live in these days...

You know the system is really designed to to get what it wants, regardless of any flaws, mistakes, misunderstandings, or the truth. CSE is the worst of the bunch, because they will not, under any circumstances, eliminat arrearages that they could make a considerable profit from.