Florida Divorce * Child Custody * Domestic Violence Law Lawyer | Boca Raton

An interesting study comes out of the University of Oklahoma.

According to this United Press International report, men confident of their paternity turn out to be correct more than 98% of the time.

The study also found that men who doubt their paternity actually prove to be the actual biological fathers more than 70% of the time.

This report is timely, in light of recent publicity surrounding claims of rampant paternity fraud. More on that in a previous post.

The study also underscores an important point: perception is more powerful than reality. Men are more likely to be involved with and provide support for children who they believe are theirs - regardless of whether they are right or wrong in that belief.

Is paternity fraud rampant? That’s the proposition featured in a National Law Journal article.

The basis for the proposition is that, in numbers of cases, DNA tests eventually conclusively disproved paternity of the supposed father - after he was held to be the child’s father.

The article does not mention that, in the vast majority of cases, those men had the opportunity to prevent such a holding from being made, simply by requesting or submitting to DNA testing, before the holding was made - and shared with the child and the people that make up the child’s universe.

Why did they wait?

Now, an Illinois man is defending a pending paternity claim against him. But DNA testing won’t help him.

According to a Chicago Sun Times article, the man contends that he was merely a sperm donor and, therefore, should not be responsible for his biological children.

The man reportedly met the birth mother on a dating website, not a sperm donor bank. They apparently dated for a full year before they broke up.

And, later, he allegedly signed what sounds like an acknowledgment of paternity - while in a bank.

Although the article doesn’t mention the word “fraud”, that certainly sounds like the essence of the father’s defense.

Fraud as a ground to disestablish legal paternity. A potentially slippery slope.

An organization known as The National Center for Men has reportedly filed a questionable federal court lawsuit on behalf of a baby’s admitted biological father.

The theory behind the suit seems to be that: men are denied equal protection of the law, because the biological mother’s reproductive rights supersede the biological father’s reproductive rights.

Therefore, the organization’s argument apparently goes, it is unconstitutional to impose child support obligations on a father - unless the father wanted, planned or later accepted the child.

The reported facts of the case indicate that the father alleges that the mother told the father she was unable to conceive. The article did not indicate whether the mother knew the truth.

Interestingly, it does not appear from the article whether the father asserted the mother’s alleged fraud as a defense in the state court paternity case that imposed the child support obligation.

Arguably, doing so may have quietly put an end to this particular father’s cause.

An article in the Kansas City Star reports on a Missouri court ruling that is consistent with the law of many states, but goes against the grain of many. The court held that a man must still support a child who was eventually proven not to be his biological (or adopted) child.

The article rationalizes the ruling by concluding it “pits fairness to men against what is considered best for children”. Certainly, the guardians of public policy stand watch over the rights and interests of innocent children.

But another, more general legal principle is just as key: once a case is decided, it’s decided. This fundamental principle is known as res judicata.

In this case, a paternity hearing was held in 1993. The alleged father apparently had notice and an opportunity to appear to dispute his paternity.

He didn’t do so. Without evidence from the alleged father to contradict the mother’s evidence, the paternity court determined that the alleged father was the legal father of the boy.

Further, even after the man learned that he wasn’t the boy’s biological father, he waited another three years to take action. Way too late.

Where the supremacy of the interests of children does come into play is in consideration of proposed legislation that would bar a paternity determination until a DNA test is produced.

If such legislation passed, any alleged father could evade his obligation to contribute to the support of his child by simply refusing to submit to a test and / or ignoring paternity proceedings - as the father in the reported case did. That would be harmful to children - and against public policy.