A man signed an agknowledement of perturnity. Believing the woman he was the father. They never married. He has been paying child support for 14 years only to find he's not the father and the woman knew this the whole time. In NY he can not go after her for the child support paid by him. Can he find the Biological father and go after him for the support? If so, since she refuses to name the biological father is it leagal to put in the local news paper " Anyone knowing anyone that had a sexual relationship with (her name) during the year 19** - 19**.. Please contact ***?

First, why do you say he can't sue the mother for fraud? It's a longshot, but if he can prove she knowingly perpetrated a fraud on him, he might have a case.

Second, why did he not get a paternity test? I would never pay for a child without one.

But putting an ad in the paper like that smacks of a law suit.

What has been his relationship with the child over the last 14 years?

I wonder if the best way to go about this particular action would be for the tort of misrepresentation. My guess is that the reason he was told he couldn't "go after" her was because it has been long established that where a person takes on the role of a parent they will be estopped (prevented by law) from denying parentage (child support, housing, etc... ).

I agree with the previous poster, if he can make out the elements of misrepresentation he would have a case--maybe--that would be something he would have to discuss with an attorney in the jurisdiction he is in (or where the child/mother reside).

The problem comes from where the deception took place and who was involved in it. The bio dad if involved in the deception could also be sued. That is why it is important to know the relationship that has gone on between this man and the child.

No, legally the person who agreed to be the father, is legally the father. He has a legal obligation to pay child support. Unless he gets the court order droped, he still has to pay unless he gets the court order changed, In many places he will have to keep paying support even if not the father, since there is only a short period to contest it.

And no he can not go after the other man unless he can prove there was some fraud done on his part.

I think it's important to differentiate between fraud and misrepresentation. Fraud (generally) is a crime where misrepresentation is a tort. A crime results in jail time where a tort results in money damages.

The person has 3 choices here, go tort only, go criminal only, or do both. I see advantages to not going the criminal route. A family court will look to the best interests of the child (as a general legal principle, but check the jurisdiction) and might decide that while it is unfair to the person who is now legally "father" to have to continue to pay it is still in the best interests of the child to order that he do so.

So, If this person is looking to have justice go the criminal prosecution route, but if he is looking for his money back go the tort route.

The court that deals with torts can not only order repayment of the money already paid but can order payment of future money to be paid--maybe. I mention this because some jurisdictions have specific family courts where a civil court can not interfere with their orders, but this might be a way around the family court order.

Either way, I think the person would then bring the civil court finding that the mother was liable for the tort of misrepresentation and that was the foundation of the agreement that he was the father maybe, maybe the family court would release him (though Im not convinced they would).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adthern

I think it's important to differentiate between fraud and misrepresentation. Fraud (generally) is a crime where misrepresentation is a tort. A crime results in jail time where a tort results in money damages.

The person has 3 choices here, go tort only, go criminal only, or do both. I see advantages to not going the criminal route. A family court will look to the best interests of the child (as a general legal principle, but check the jurisdiction) and might decide that while it is unfair to the person who is now legally "father" to have to continue to pay it is still in the best interests of the child to order that he do so.

So, If this person is looking to have justice go the criminal prosecution route, but if he is looking for his money back go the tort route.

The court that deals with torts can not only order repayment of the money already paid but can order payment of future money to be paid--maybe. I mention this because some jurisdictions have specific family courts where a civil court can not interfere with thier orders, but this might be a way around the family court order.

Either way, I think the person would then bring the civil court finding that the mother was liable for the tort of misrepresentation and that was the foundation of the agreement that he was the father maybe, maybe the family court would release him (though Im not convinced they would).

---

I think your bringing confusion into this matter. Family Court is a part of the civil court system. In places where there is separation ( like California) they still have clear cut lines drawn. With the OP remaining the legal father there is nothing to file suit over in a civil court. So the starting point remains with the family court first and foremost. All of this needs to be filtered out before proceeding because if there was deception and participation of a third party then when taken to civil or criminal levels outside of family court there is a clear path. In law there are clear paths taken to designate the makeup of prevailing law and to the separation of powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

I think your bringing confusion into this matter. Family Court is a part of the civil court system. In places where there is seperation ( like California) they still have clear cut lines drawn. With the OP remaining the legal father there is nothing to file suit over in a civil court. So the starting point remains with the family court first and foremost. All of this needs to be filtered out before proceeding because if there was deception and participation of a third party then when taken to civil or criminal levels outside of family court there is a clear path. In law there are clear paths taken to designate the makeup of prevailing law and to the seperation of powers.

---

I am not sure what you find confusing about my points. While the family court is generally considered to be civil court, here in Massachusetts they have their own jusrisdiction and are completely separate from the civil court dealing with torts.

You are welding two issues together and saying they can not be separated, that's just not true. Attorneys can attack an issue from multiple sides and prevail using strategies that are unconventional. If the OP takes your advice, he goes to family court (where he will almost certainly lose without rock solid proof of misrepresentation--most likely at least a clear and convincing standard, if not a significantly higher standard) and if he fails to win, that's it he is done and can not go anywhere else.

I disagree, a misrepresentation that causes money damages is a tort and can be brought in a straight civil court and won which would get him a judgment for the payments he has made (enforcin that judgment is a whole other matter). I think, armed with a win in either civil or criminal court would increase his odds of prevailing in Family court immensely.

If there is one thing my law school professors have taught me is to look at all possible avenues of attack, not just the straight forward ones.

Hmmm... let's see
Family court-a very bad idea
Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D. (2006 NY Slip Op 05238)
The court also said that fraud and misrepresentation, often used as defenses to the doctrine of equitable estoppel, did not apply. "The legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation," Rosenblatt wrote. "Under the enactment, the mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."
/God save us from NIS and Rosenblatt!! /
Criminal claims-no such cases
Civil court-Intentional infliction of emotional distress tort claim may have some success.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...00-928&invol=1
"In the present case, Robert, by contrast, is bringing
The subsequent action seeking to recover damages in tort for
The fraud perpetrated upon him by Robin's allegedly outrageous
Conduct in willfully misrepresenting to Robert that he was
Adam's father. Robert is not seeking to relitigate the legal finding
Of paternity made in the dissolution action and is not seeking
To impact in any way the attendant legal rights and responsibilities
Associated with the legal finding of paternity.In fact, in
Presenting his case to prove the alleged torts, part of Robert's
Proof will necessarily be that there is, indeed, a legal finding of
Paternity in the dissolution decree. This, in addition to the evidence
Concerning the biological relationship between Robert
And Adam, will be necessary to proving the alleged torts. For
That reason, Robert is not seeking to in any way alter the legal
Finding of paternity in the dissolution decree.
Robert is not, however,
Asking the court to terminate his legal status as Adam's father.
Robert is asking the court to consider the issues of the lack of a
Biological relationship with Adam, Robin's alleged conduct
Leading Robert to believe he was the biological father, and
Robin's conduct constituting the intentional infliction of emotional
stress upon Robert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sherryg1966

A man signed an agknowledement of perturnity. Believing the woman he was the father. They never married. He has been paying child support for 14 years only to find he's not the father and the woman knew this the whole time. In NY he can not go after her for the child support paid by him. Can he find the Biological father and go after him for the support? If so, since she refuses to name the biological father is it leagal to put in the local news paper " Anyone knowing anyone that had a sexual relationship with (her name) during the year 19** - 19**.. Please contact ***?

---

Not, in NY, no. HE had the opportunity to establish "perturinity" when the child was born, 14 years ago. He didn't take it. There are Court decision to that effect.

He IS the child's legal father in NY.

I can't believe any sane person would consider such an ad - of course, I can't believe any sane person would sign an acknowledgement of paternity without DNA testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GV70

Hmmm....let's see
Family court-a very bad idea
Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D. (2006 NY Slip Op 05238)
The court also said that fraud and misrepresentation, often used as defenses to the doctrine of equitable estoppel, did not apply. "The legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation," Rosenblatt wrote. "Under the enactment, the mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."
/God save us from NIS and Rosenblatt!!!/
Criminal claims-no such cases
Civil court-Intentional infliction of emotional distress tort claim may have some success.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
"In the present case, Robert, by contrast, is bringing
the subsequent action seeking to recover damages in tort for
the fraud perpetrated upon him by Robin’s allegedly outrageous
conduct in willfully misrepresenting to Robert that he was
Adam’s father. Robert is not seeking to relitigate the legal finding
of paternity made in the dissolution action and is not seeking
to impact in any way the attendant legal rights and responsibilities
associated with the legal finding of paternity.In fact, in
presenting his case to prove the alleged torts, part of Robert’s
proof will necessarily be that there is, indeed, a legal finding of
paternity in the dissolution decree. This, in addition to the evidence
concerning the biological relationship between Robert
and Adam, will be necessary to proving the alleged torts. For
that reason, Robert is not seeking to in any way alter the legal
finding of paternity in the dissolution decree.
Robert is not, however,
asking the court to terminate his legal status as Adam’s father.
Robert is asking the court to consider the issues of the lack of a
biological relationship with Adam, Robin’s alleged conduct
leading Robert to believe he was the biological father, and
Robin’s conduct constituting the intentional infliction of emotional
stress upon Robert.

---

Thank you for the post, makes my point clearly--though jurisdictions adopt different law so the OP needs to consult an attorney where this will be tried and deal with the collateral issues and see if this argument works in that jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

With the OP remaining the legal father there is nothing to file suit over in a civil court.

---

Repectfully disagree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

JudyKayTee agrees : That's his specialty, complicating things. Check the other posts - nothing is simple.

---

The things are complicated and really nothing is simple