SB 61, introduced by Senator Steele and recommended by the the child custody and support advisory committee specifies that, if a genetic test indicates that a man is not a child’s father, that constitutes a material mistake of fact that existed in the execution of the paternity affidavit.
My guess is that this is probably meant to address the problem where a guy finds out he is not the father but ends up stuck paying child support because, legally, all the deadlines have passed for him to challenge paternity. (See, e.g.)
Incidentally, I see that Chris Worden of the iPOPA blog testified before the committee on the subject of paternity affidavits. I don’t know whether he commented on this issue, specifically, however.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20051227.html
It looks like these laws are necessary in order to allow the law to catch up with science. It’s nuts that courts can declare someone to be the father when science clearly shows otherwise. A person should not have to spend $200k to raise the child that was fathered by another man, period.
The above article explains why the law thinks it’s ok to penalize the guy $200k because he didn’t discover his wife’s deception in time. It’s just not right.
Courts can be fairly humorless when it comes to deadlines. It’s not so much that courts aren’t interested in genetic evidence, it’s that the evidence should have been introduced when paternity was being established.
What you don’t want to have happen is let a guy blow off dealing with the issue for years then make everyone redo issues that were established as a matter of law once he gets around to bothering with a genetic test. A lot of value is placed on the finality of judicial determinations.
On the other hand, I can definitely think of situations where it’s excusable for someone to fail to get the testing initially, and it would be particularly egregious to require payment for someone else’s child.
That Florida case is hooey. If the court is so interested in the psyche of the child, what remediation is available to the “father” when the mother poisons the child psyche against a father? AFAIK, none. And, there seems to be no penalty for the woman lying in divorce court either. Justice, meh.
Some men are told that they are the father of a child about to be born.
Usually they aren’t married to the woman. The woman isn’t married to anyone else either. The guy goes to the hospital to see what he believes is his newborn. The hospital staff induces the guy to sign a Paternity Affidavit sometimes just to be able to visit the baby. He then has a very limited time period to take the steps to revoke the Affidavit that he signed at the hospital.
There are some guys who are really dumb including prospective wannabe dads who shouldn’t be signing anything at a hospital or otherwise.
The real problem is getting a Judge to order the scientific test to be taken. Most mothers are too smart to allow any testing before any Court case has been filed.
takes place.
It seems there is an incentive for the woman to lie about who the father might be until 366 days after the divorce is finalized. The husband might not challenge paternity because for all he knew, his were the only sperm swimming in that pond. Fool the clueless, win $200k.