A woman filed two separate paternity petitions naming two men as the father of a minor child. Child support services said that they served one of the respondents. He is saying the documents were improperly served. He never received the documents. He was in Federal prison

Is there a special process for federal inmates?

Claiming non service is just a delaying tactic. But I would think it is very easy to serve an inmate.

They need to be served via the US Marshals Office. Check with them.

A woman filed two separate paternity petitions naming two men as the father of a minor child. ...

He might think about getting his case dismissed because she filed two separate petitions. In each she must have claimed that the respondent is the father, yet the fact that she filed another petition would be evidence that she doesn't know. I see the potential here of two inconsistent decrees, each establishing a different father.

And as to the question in the title, no, it is very doubtful that such case law exists. For case law, there has to be an appeal, and I would be surprised if such a case has ever gone to the appeal level.

Agree with AK - how do you file two petitions, each claiming a person is the father?

I've served in Federal prison. You ask permission, go in, hand the papers to the inmate.

... I've served in Federal prison. You ask permission, go in, hand the papers to the inmate.

After first, I gather, asking to see prisoner such-and-such. And on your return you would state that the prison told you that he or she was the defendant?

I had to get permission in advance, sign in (indicating which prisoner I was "visiting"), ID Defendant by photo (provided to me), hand over papers. If prisoner hadn't wanted to see me then he would not have been served. It was his choice and I did say I was there to serve papers.

I used the standard Affidavit of Service - knew the person to be X based upon...

... If prisoner hadn't wanted to see me then he would not have been served. It was his choice and I did say I was there to serve papers. ...

I suppose the U.S. Marshall option is available in that case.

He might think about getting his case dismissed because she filed two separate petitions.

I'm going admit ignorance here. If a woman has a child and there are multiple possible fathers, then how does she file? Also what does she file? Does she just file to establish paternity or is she filing for child support? And since she is unsure of the father, does she file one petition naming all possible fathers or separate petitions? Since the first step would be a paternity test, one the result are know then the court dismisses the petition(s) where the test is negative.

It just doesn't seem to me that filing separate petitions in this case is grounds for a dismissal of all petitions.

I'm with Scott - would both Petitions be dismissed? Perhaps the Court would dismiss one and hear the other? And then there's the case of filing both in the first place.

AK, your thoughts?

I'm going admit ignorance here. If a woman has a child and there are multiple possible fathers, then how does she file? Also what does she file? Does she just file to establish paternity or is she filing for child support? And since she is unsure of the father, does she file one petition naming all possible fathers or separate petitions? Since the first step would be a paternity test, one the result are know then the court dismisses the petition(s) where the test is negative.

It just doesn't seem to me that filing separate petitions in this case is grounds for a dismissal of all petitions.


I'm with Scott - would both Petitions be dismissed? Perhaps the Court would dismiss one and hear the other? And then there's the case of filing both in the first place.

AK, your thoughts?

I don't know that she would have standing to just ask for a determination of paternity. She should be asking for child support. In any event, I believe she should have filed one petition against both men, asking for alternative relief. That would be required my the mandatory joiner rules (such as in the FRCP (http://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.info/frcp/), a model for civil rules used in many states - See Rule 19 in particular).

Of course if one of the men moves that his case be dismissed, it might be wiser for the court to instead order that the cases be combined, and the instant case dismissed only be dismissed if joiner isn't feasible.

I don't know that she would have standing to just ask for a determination of paternity. She should be asking for child support.

I totally agree. Until the OP returns and clarifies what petitions were filed we really don't know. But the original question was about improper service and I don't see any issue there. Unless paternity was awarded by default (i.e. the other potential father came up negative so the inmate was named the legal father because they never submitted a sample) then I don't see the issue. If that did happen, the inmate can submit a sample at this point.