After 16 years of believing that I am the father of a child I now have reason to believe that I am not . Can I legally request a DNA test in a New York State Family Court support hearing?

Yes you can request a DNA test to know once and for all.
But some states still require you to pay the support simply because your name is on the birth certificate. So I would start asap to start the ball rolling to do anything and everything it might require to stop being responsible for the support if you turn out not to be the dad.
I know the TV Judge Hackett ordered one girl to pay the guy back all the support he had paid for the 2 yr old that turned out not to be his. Does that happen in real Court? I doubt it but going through the process might be well worth it.

After 16 years of believing that I am the father of a child I now have reason to belive that I am not . Can I legally request a DNA test in a New York State Family Court support hearing?


Yes, in NYS you can. I assume you have bonded with the child and this could be devastating to that child.

But, yes, you can.

What will the Court do with the results? Anyone's guess.


EDIT: Apparently in your case you cannot because you just opened another thread stating that your request for DNA has been denied - by a magistrate, not a Judge.

1.Can I appeal the Magistrate decision in not allowing me to get a DNA test done in a support case for a child older then 16 years old? 2. Do I have a legal right to get this test done? 3.Is their a statute of limitations on these procedures in New Yok State?

1.Can I appeal the Magistrate decision in not allowing me to get a DNA test done in a support case for a child older then 16 years old? 2. Do I have a legal right to get this test done? 3.Is their a statute of limitations on these procedures in New Yok State?


Now you've got me confused - you are posting two different scenarios on two different threads.

You've already asked for a DNA and you've already been denied? If so the grounds for refusal HAVE to be given to you - some section of the law, some reason.

Without knowing what has gone on before any advice is uselss and a matter of guessing.

Should be combined with other thread - which I answered without all the background info contained here.

>Threads Merged<

A very interesting article:
Law.com - N.Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity' (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1152534921526)
Syllabus:
He who acts like a father, is a father -- if not biologically than at least legally -- the Court of Appeals said Thursday in imposing "equitable paternity" on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a girl and acted accordingly.

The court in Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D. 40, upheld the trial court and the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, in ordering a man to pay child support on behalf of a child he did not father. In doing so, it recognized the legislatively endorsed concept of "equity paternity," or paternity by estoppel (see Family Court Act §§ 18 [a] and 532 [a]).
Shondel moved to New York and lodged a paternity petition in Brooklyn, and Mark filed a separate visitation petition. A court-ordered DNA test proved that Mark was not the father.
On appeal, Mark argued that the imposition of "equitable paternity" effectively saddled him with an involuntary adoption, in violation of the Constitution and contrary to public policy.

But the 2nd Department, and now the Court of Appeals, focused not on whether Mark got a raw deal, but on the best interests of the child.

The dissenters objected to the application of estoppel against a "completely innocent litigant" who was misled by the child's mother. They noted that the woman swore in Family Court that she had not had sexual relations during the relevant time span with anyone other than Mark, an assertion that DNA analysis proved was a lie.

They said the decision rewards people who make no effort to nurture or support a child who may be their own while penalizing people like Mark who immediately assumed responsibility.

"With this decision, this Court supports a public policy that says a man should never take on a parental role unless he wants to be unconditionally responsible for the child's financial support," Judge Bundy Smith wrote.

Judges Smith and Bundy Smith concluded that it could not serve the child's best interests "to have an order of filiation declare respondent to be her father, a man, who in addition to having no biological tie, has no interest in continuing a relationship with her or her mother."

New York Family Court Act Section 418
§ 418. Genetic marker and DNA tests; admissibility of records or
Reports of test results; costs of tests. (a) The court, on its own
Motion or motion of any party, when paternity is contested, shall order
The mother, the child and the alleged father to submit to one or more
Genetic marker or DNA marker tests of a type generally acknowledged as
Reliable by an accreditation body designated by the secretary of the
Federal department of health and human services and performed by a
Laboratory approved by such an accreditation body and by the
Commissioner of health or by a duly qualified physician to aid in the
Determination of whether the alleged father is or is not the father of
The child. No such test shall be ordered, however, upon a written
finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child
on the basis of res judicata, equitable estoppel or the presumption of
legitimacy of a child born to a married woman.

I am not sure after 16 years that there is any "truth" other than you are the child's father. If someone else was a sperm donor they were never in the picture, and your relationship with the child as that child's father. If there is a time, I am not sure 16 is the years for it, that is a hard time for a teen.