If I was just recently told that I am the father of a 16 year old child. Can the court order a dna test if the welfare board wants to establish paternity in order to collect back welfare provided for the child.

if I was just recently told that I am the father of a 16 year old child. Can the court order a dna test if the welfare board wants to establish paternity in order to collect back welfare provided for the child. this is in New Jersey

Before the court will order support, paternity needs to be established. You get a lawyer and make sure that a paternity test is taken.

if I was just recently told that I am the father of a 16 year old child. Can the court order a dna test if the welfare board wants to establish paternity in order to collect back welfare provided for the child.

Who "told" you this? The mother of the child? Or were you served court papers listing you as the alleged father of the child?

If this has already been taken to court and the court orders a test, then yes - you need to take one.

In terms of back support/repaying the state - was the mother unable to locate you after making reasonable attempts to do so? The reason I ask is that any welfare office is going to check into this prior to awarding benefits. Now, if the mother was simply saying that she didn't know who the father was in order to receive the benefits, I don't see why you would be liable to repay anything for the last 16 years. But the best way to make sure of that is by hiring an attorney, like Scott said.

Who "told" you this? The mother of the child? Or were you served court papers listing you as the alleged father of the child?

If this has already been taken to court and the court orders a test, then yes - you need to take one.

In terms of back support/repaying the state - was the mother unable to locate you after making reasonable attempts to do so? The reason I ask is that any welfare office is going to check into this prior to awarding benefits. Now, if the mother was simply saying that she didn't know who the father was in order to receive the benefits, I don't see why you would be liable to repay anything for the last 16 years. But the best way to make sure of that is by hiring an attorney, like Scott said.

Thank you, that is helpful. The court has ordered a dna paternity test, which is fine by me and will be good for the 16 year old child. The problem I have is, that the mother informed me by e-mail after the daughter turned 16 that she was sorry that she had lied to me 16 years ago and "surprise", the baby was mine, and that she had been looking for me for years.. She had told me shortly after the child was born, to get lost, more or less, because the child was NOT mine. I saved the e-mail. Now the welfare board pulled me into court for a paternity test, in order to receive reimbursment for past welfare payments to the mother for the child. There is no complaint for child support,at this time, as the child has not lived with the mother for over 3 years. Strange, but true. Where do you think I stand. Thank you very much for your attention.

thankyou, that is helpful. the court has ordered a dna paternity test, which is fine by me and will be good for the 16 year old child. The problem I have is, that the mother informed me by e-mail after the daughter turned 16 that she was sorry that she had lied to me 16 years ago and "surprise", the baby was mine, and that she had been looking for me for years.. She had told me shortly after the child was born, to get lost, more or less, because the child was NOT mine. I saved the e-mail. Now the welfare board pulled me into court for a paternity test, in order to recieve reimbursment for past welfare payments to the mother for the child. there is no complaint for child support,at this time, as the child has not lived with the mother for over 3 years. Strange, but true. Where do you think I stand. Thankyou very much for your attention.

Hmmm... this is a tricky situation. The mother said you were not the father, then went and applied for welfare and presumably told them that she did not know who the father was. Now the mother is naming you in a paternity suit and the welfare office wants to be reimbursed for raising what may/may not be "your" child.

If the mother is the one who lied on her application, she may have to reimburse the benefits she received but I can't say that for certain. I would definitely get an attorney for this one.

Just out of curiosity - why did you not ask for a paternity test 16 years ago? Obviously you knew that you had sex with this woman and that she had a child approximately nine months after the fact - weren't you the slightest bit curious if it was your child or not?

In terms of back support/repaying the state - was the mother unable to locate you after making reasonable attempts to do so? The reason I ask is that any welfare office is going to check into this prior to awarding benefits. Now, if the mother was simply saying that she didn't know who the father was in order to receive the benefits, I don't see why you would be liable to repay anything for the last 16 years. But the best way to make sure of that is by hiring an attorney, like Scott said.
If the OP is found to be the father he will be responsible to the welfare for compensation,I e. he has to pay for all period she received welfare.

If the OP is found to be the father he will be responsible to the welfare for compensation,i e. he has to pay for all period she received welfare.

Pardon me, but how the hell is that fair to these fathers who first of all, never get to know their child(ren) and secondly, have to repay the state for all the benefits that someone else received? The courts won't allow child support to be backdated, yet the biological father has to reimburse for the years that the mother hid the child and received welfare?

Not arguing with you by any means, but where is the logic?

Pardon me, but how the hell is that fair to these fathers
Not arguing with you by any means, but where is the logic?

I never said it was fair.

where is the logic?
Please do not ask me:)

I never said it was fair.

Please do not ask me:)

Honestly... you'd think if they were able to prove/if the mother admits that she was dishonest, the burden would be on HER to repay - not the father.

And we wonder why people complain that family court is so biased...

The purpose for the creation of the IV-D welfare program was to recover taxpayer money which was being spent by the federal government on needy families under Title IV-A (TANF). The intent of Congress was to slow the drain that the Title IV-A (TANF) cash assistance program had on the budget.

According to the "monetary budget "thinking it is his fault.

And we wonder why people complain that family court is so biased...
The presumption was that single mothers with a high incidence of out-of-wedlock births were the proximate cause of the rising welfare expenditures. Congress attempted to shift the financial burden from their own budget to the other parent.How easy!!!!
It is "unfair and inequitable" to make a mother financial responsible for her acts.

I"d like to say the family court is gender biased-women need therapy-men need punishment.That's the truth-if you want,have a look at court practice about alimony and estoppel...
Let me finish with my my signature:

Everybody makes choices, and nobody should be entitled to special treatment because of those choices.
Equal results based on unequal treatment amounts to no kind of equality at all !!!

"In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls."Lenny Bruce

125B.050 Period of limitations.

1. If there is no court order for support, any demand in writing to a parent not having physical custody for payment of support on behalf of a minor child, mailed to the last known address of the parent, tolls the running of the statute of limitations for the bringing of an action for that support.

2. A motion for relief after judgment and an independent action to enforce a judgment for support of a child may be commenced at any time.

3. If a court has issued an order for the support of a child, there is no limitation on the time in which an action may be commenced to:

(a) Collect arrearages in the amount of that support; or

(b) Seek reimbursement of money paid as public assistance for that child.

Bottom line: Fathers are equally responsible for raising their own children.

The mother of this child presumably put in 14 years of time and probably more resources than were available through welfare to raise this child. Welfare basically provided an interest free loan to the biological father and is now trying to collect.

In the past, it was much easier for men to walk away with no responsibilities, leaving mothers to both raise the children and find resources to pay for food, clothing, housing, school supplies, etc. Because of the unique combination of DNA testing and the statutes that GV70 cites, it is now much harder to do that (unless the woman is educated, has a good job, raises the child without any help from welfare, and does not ask for help).

Men who do not want to have to support children should take measures not to have any.

It is certainly not equable or fair for either men or women that a moment's pleasure should result in such a heavy financial and social burden. But it does. Biology has played a cruel trick on us by making us suspend our judgment at the very moment we need it.

Bottom line: Fathers are equally responsible for raising their own children.

The mother of this child presumably put in 14 years of time and probably more resources than were available through welfare to raise this child. Welfare basically provided an interest free loan to the biological father and is now trying to collect.

In the past, it was much easier for men to walk away with no responsibilities, leaving mothers to both raise the children and find resources to pay for food, clothing, housing, school supplies, etc. Because of the unique combination of DNA testing and the statutes that GV70 cites, it is now much harder to do that (unless the woman is educated, has a good job, raises the child without any help from welfare, and does not ask for help).

Men who do not want to have to support children should take measures not to have any.

It is certainly not equable or fair for either men or women that a moment's pleasure should result in such a heavy financial and social burden. But it does. Biology has played a cruel trick on us by making us suspend our judgment at the very moment we need it.

There is no argument that fathers are just as liable for providing for their children as the mother is. My issue is that women lie to the father or purposely chase them away, apply for welfare, lie on the application and say they don't know who the father is or where he's located - and then the father gets stuck with the bill. If a man took a baby, ran away from the mother, applied for welfare and then she got stuck with the bill, you can bet your bottom dollar that NOW would be up in arms over how women are being "victimized" by these evil fathers. It's not a fair and balanced system, by any means.

Here's a classic example: I know someone with a 10-year-old son. He has been a single father since the child was a year old. The child's mother has been ordered to pay support, yet consistently fails to do so - he wouldn't even be able to tell you the last time that she sent him a dime. Is she in jail? Nope. Try turning the tables once and see just how fast he gets arrested.

The courts won't allow child support to be backdated...
Not true... in a few states there is provision that CS starts from the date of application.Other states have two years retroactive child support awards.In Tn ,Ga and Tx it is not unheard back CS to be ordered for the day of birth...

Here's a classic example: I know someone with a 10-year-old son. He has been a single father since the child was a year old. The child's mother has been ordered to pay support, yet consistently fails to do so - he wouldn't even be able to tell you the last time that she sent him a dime. Is she in jail? Nope. Try turning the tables once and see just how fast he gets arrested.
... and I know about many similar cases.
But remember Francisco Rodriguez's case.He owes more than $10,000 in back child support payments in a paternity case involving a 15-year-old girl who, according to DNA results and the girl's mother, is not his daughter. He now has DNA results that show the 15-year-old girl wasn't fathered by him. He even has an affidavit from the girl's mother saying he's "not the father" and asking that Rodriguez no longer be required to pay child support.

Yet the state is continuing to push him to pay $305 a month to support the girl, as well as the more than $10,000 already owed. He spent a night in jail because of his delinquent payments. :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

My issue is that women lie to the father or purposely chase them away, apply for welfare, lie on the application and say they don't know who the father is or where he's located - and then the father gets stuck with the bill.

I don't disagree that some women lie about some of these things. And it's wrong for them to do so.

But, first, the father would get stuck with half the cost of raising the child even if she didn't lie. If she told him she was pregnant, he would STILL have to pay child support. The lies don't change that, though I don't support lying at all.

Second, nobody feels sorry for a woman who complains about having kids she didn't want because she failed to use birth control. Why should men expect sympathy for not using birth control themselves?

And third, where reproduction is concerned, lying is not the special sin of one sex or the other. And certainly over the last couple of millennia, men have, on average, had the upper hand. Men lie about whether they are married, whether they have had a vasectomy or not, whether they will withdraw, whether they "care" and will be there, and so on. Many of them even force themselves on unwilling women, who end up pregnant and caring for a child for the rest of their lives. These acts by men are all wrong, too.

Many more women have been lead down the garden path and left with a squalling baby-->teenager for 18 years than men have been stuck with child support--a very recent invention. Does that make it right for women to conceal a pregnancy from a man who is not a danger to her? No.

But men are now having to learn the same lesson that women have been learning (repeatedly) for thousands of years. Sex is exquisitely expensive.

Two things. As This asked, why did the OP not ask for a paternity test at the time. I'm sure he breathed a sigh of relief when she told him it wasn't his and went his merry way. So I don't have much sympathy for the OP on that score.

Second we don't know that the mother lied on her application for welfare. Only that she lied to the OP.

Two things. As This asked, why did the OP not ask for a paternity test at the time. I'm sure he breathed a sigh of relief when she told him it wasn't his and went his merry way. So I don't have much sympathy for the OP on that score.

Second we don't know that the mother lied on her application for welfare. Only that she lied to the OP.

Obviously, I realize that things have changed in the past 16 years. However, I applied for medical assistance when I learned I was pregnant; the state was going to order my husband to pay child support to me because we weren't married when our daughter was born. I called the child support office and said I didn't want it, we were in a relationship and he was already supporting her. Child support actually said to me, "Well you're going to get it anyway; you're not living together." Keep in mind, I was receiving absolutely NOTHING other than medical assistance.

Same scenario when he went to file his taxes and claimed our daughter; they asked where I was in the picture. He said we were together which allowed him to claim head of household and list me as a dependent.

So like I said, maybe things have changed in sixteen years. I know as of today, the only way she'd get away with that is by lying.

Obviously, I realize that things have changed in the past 16 years. However, I applied for medical assistance when I learned I was pregnant; the state was going to order my husband to pay child support to me because we weren't married when our daughter was born. I called the child support office and said I didn't want it, we were in a relationship and he was already supporting her. Child support actually said to me, "Well you're going to get it anyway; you're not living together." Keep in mind, I was receiving absolutely NOTHING other than medical assistance.

Same scenario when he went to file his taxes and claimed our daughter; they asked where I was in the picture. He said we were together which allowed him to claim head of household and list me as a dependent.

So like I said, maybe things have changed in sixteen years. I know as of today, the only way she'd get away with that is by lying.
Update from the defendant. Around the due date I called the mother on the phone, to find out whether the child had been born YETand was originally given the information by the mother, that the child had been born "deceased". Yes, that WAS a very evil and cruel thing to do. 15 to 20 minutes later the mother called back and told me that she indeed had "lied" to me. The child was born alive and well, but she stated that the child was of no concern to me BECAUSE I was NOT the father because a dna test had been performed and another man was the father. These were evil lies to tell anyone, and obviously were meant to hurt me, without regard for the child's future. The mother robbed a father and daughter, pending dna test, of a 16 year relationship.(I really hope she is my daughter). Then she lied on the application by saying that I admitted verbally to being the father (this is on paper), then almost a year later sent me an email,after no communicatiom for 16 years, stating that I did have a daughter and that she was sooo sorry for lying to me 16 years ago. Strange but true. HELP!!

So like I said, maybe things have changed in sixteen years. I know as of today, the only way she'd get away with that is by lying.

What I was referring to was a scenario where she couldn't find the OP. He did state that she told him she had been looking for him. Or she could have listed a few potential fathers (she may have truly believed it wasn't his) and none were a match and again, they couldn't locate the OP.

What I was referring to was a scenario where she couldn't find the OP. He did state that she told him she had been looking for him. Or she could have listed a few potential fathers (she may have truly believed it wasn't his) and none were a match and again, they couldn't locate the OP.

But that all comes back to my original question: why are women allowed to play these games and not have to suffer the consequences? The OP was making reasonable efforts to learn about the child out of concern that it may very well be his child; the mother lied to him and he relocated - who is at fault? If a man deprived a woman of a relationship with her child, I can't even tell you the amount of people who would be lobbying senators and state representatives trying to get the law changed. But because it happens to a man, we're all just supposed to sit back and smile?

Like I said, the law is not fair and balanced by any means.

why are women allowed to play these games and not have to suffer the consequences?
Because it is "Public Policy";)


The OP was making reasonable efforts to learn about the child out of concern that it may very well be his child; the mother lied to him and he relocated - who is at fault? If a man deprived a woman of a relationship with her child, I can't even tell you the amount of people who would be lobbying senators and state representatives trying to get the law changed. But because it happens to a man, we're all just supposed to sit back and smile?

Like I said, the law is not fair and balanced by any means.
Gotcha!

If a man deprived a woman of a relationship with her child, I can't even tell you the amount of people who would be lobbying senators and state representatives trying to get the law changed.

I have met two different women whose wealthy husbands took their young sons from them through aggressive custody cases and international travel. Both women seemed perfectly nice and sane, though very sad in both cases. These things DO happen and nobody is doing anything about it.

If lying were illegal, half the population would be in jail. It's wrong, but weirdly not illegal unless you lie under oath.

Men are at a distinct disadvantage in that if they want a relationship with their children, they often have to maintain a cooperative bond with the mother at least through the pregnancy.

Men are at a distinct disadvantage in that if they want a relationship with their children, they often have to maintain a cooperative bond with the mother at least through the pregnancy.

I have a minor issue with this. What's wrong with keeping a civil relationship with the mother for the sake of the child? Granted it's a two way street. But both of these people made a choice to have intercourse and risk a pregnancy. They should both be adult about for the sake of that child. And yes I know that is usually too much to hope for, but if the father is put at a distinct disadvantage its because of choices he made.

I have met two different women whose wealthy husbands took their young sons from them through aggressive custody cases and international travel. Both women seemed perfectly nice and sane, though very sad in both cases. These things DO happen and nobody is doing anything about it.

If lying were illegal, half the population would be in jail. It's wrong, but weirdly not illegal unless you lie under oath.

Men are at a distinct disadvantage in that if they want a relationship with their children, they often have to maintain a cooperative bond with the mother at least through the pregnancy.



Got to disagree here - sorry.

I'm not saying that money doesn't talk because we all know that it does. What I AM saying is that two cases out of I don't know how many isn't a pattern.

As far as lying under oath, this Board has discussed this before. Courtroom testimony is pretty much sheltered. I've seen people make outrageous statements in the Courtroom, obviously under oath, and walk away.

I don't see men being at a disadvantage unless/until they maintain a "cooperative" posture with the mother - the Court should decide visitation (I am not in favor of side "deals") and that is based on what is in the best interest of the child, not whether the parents cooperate.

Also - I get weary of the "poor father" thinking. He helped create this child; he didn't carry the child; he doesn't birth the child. Maybe "he" should have thought about it before he took his pants off (as should "she") but the father's life goes on, pretty much the same as before. Meanwhile in the majority of cases the female's life changes drastically and forever.

Got to disagree here - sorry.

I'm not saying that money doesn't talk because we all know that it does. What I AM saying is that two cases out of I don't know how many isn't a pattern.

As far as lying under oath, this Board has discussed this before. Courtroom testimony is pretty much sheltered. I've seen people make outrageous statements in the Courtroom, obviously under oath, and walk away.

I don't see men being at a disadvantage unless/until they maintain a "cooperative" posture with the mother - the Court should decide visitation (I am not in favor of side "deals") and that is based on what is in the best interest of the child, not whether or not the parents cooperate.

Also - I get weary of the "poor father" thinking. He helped create this child; he didn't carry the child; he doesn't birth the child. Maybe "he" should have thought about it before he took his pants off (as should "she") but the father's life goes on, pretty much the same as before. Meanwhile in the majority of cases the female's life changes drastically and forever.

My thoughts exactly - kind of. Does money talk? Absolutely. But money doesn't decide what's in the child(ren)'s best interests. If in the rare instance a woman loses custody of her children, there is a reason for it. I have seen very few fathers win custody and the ones that have were not wealthy by any means - they were just the better parent.

I agree and disagree with the poor father - I do not feel bad for men who drop their pants and create children with more women than they can keep track of, and then complain about having to pay child support. I DO feel bad for fathers who want to be a part of their children's lives and are shoved out by the mother.

Perfect example: I know a couple who shared two children; one was biologically his and the other was not, but he raised both as his own and was on both birth certificates. Years later, she started sleeping with the "other" father and kicked her husband out. She took everything about him from the past five years - things she was okay with when they were to her benefit - walked into court and won sole custody and supervised visitation. Her ex-husband never laid a hand on her, never laid a hand on their children - but because of who his family and friends associated with, she won. And to this day, she brags about how she works so hard and is a single mother "doing it all on her own." I have no respect for women who intentionally chase off the fathers and then complain about their struggles.

I have a minor issue with this. What's wrong with keeping a civil relationship with the mother for the sake of the child? Granted its a two way street. But both of these people made a choice to have intercourse and risk a pregnancy. They should both be adult about for the sake of that child. And yes I know that is usually too much to hope for, but if the father is put at a distinct disadvantage its because of choices he made.

Some of this we are just going to disagree on. If the courts clearly give advantage to the mothers then that isn't the fathers fault. Too many courts see the fathers as walking wallets. Too many laws don't consider time with the child and reducing child support in the same light. Many states still have straight percentages or have laws on the books that are so messed up. Again its not the fathers fault. The courts need to stop the "standard" and truly look at every situation as unique. This crap with 80/20 splitting of the children as a cut and dry format is ruining this country. Lets look at an example. The courts award the mother the children in a 80/20 custody split. Then order $2,000 per month as child support. There by taking 50% of the mans gross income. With changes in the law the man can not deduct the child support nor can it be claimed anywhere. He might also be in a 15 - 25% tax bracket. Leaving him less. Now for visitation both parties are going to need a 3 bedroom home of some kind. But its clear that one home is going to be poor and the other can keep affording all the lawyer they need. How is that the mans fault?

Got to disagree here - sorry.

I'm not saying that money doesn't talk because we all know that it does. What I AM saying is that two cases out of I don't know how many isn't a pattern.

As far as lying under oath, this Board has discussed this before. Courtroom testimony is pretty much sheltered. I've seen people make outrageous statements in the Courtroom, obviously under oath, and walk away.

I don't see men being at a disadvantage unless/until they maintain a "cooperative" posture with the mother - the Court should decide visitation (I am not in favor of side "deals") and that is based on what is in the best interest of the child, not whether or not the parents cooperate.

Also - I get weary of the "poor father" thinking. He helped create this child; he didn't carry the child; he doesn't birth the child. Maybe "he" should have thought about it before he took his pants off (as should "she") but the father's life goes on, pretty much the same as before. Meanwhile in the majority of cases the female's life changes drastically and forever.

Hi Judy,
I don't think we disagree that much. I certainly agree with your last point.

And as for the disadvantage, I just meant that if a guy can't get along with a woman long enough to find out she's pregnant and wait for the baby is born, he stands a decent chance of not ever knowing he had a kid. When a woman has a kid, she always knows.