More US dads Paying for kids they thought were their own (PATERNITY FRAUD)

[$5 submissions]

As DNA testing becomes more widespread, the full scope of this problem becomes more apparent. However, some experts say the LAW has yet to catch up. The victim: "dads" footing the bill for supporting the kids of their unfaithful partners.

I don't think Fatherhood is independent of BIOLOGY ... BUT... in the case of accepting fatherhood for kids that aren't your own, you must FREELY choose it. Right?

source: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20060418.html

The National Law Journal recently reported that "paternity fraud is rampant in the United States."

Paternity fraud involves

a woman's claiming, dishonestly, that a particular man has fathered children with her.

By making such fraudulent claims, a woman is able to collect child support payments from a man who had nothing to do with siring her children.

Indeed, even after a man has successfully disproved paternity, using DNA tests, courts have sometimes required the non-father to continue to pay child support.

Not surprisingly, such results have generated outrage among fathers' rights groups and have led to lawsuits as well as calls for legislative reform. Though the practice of paternity fraud is troubling, however, we should examine the context of such claims to determine to what extent, and against whom, an injustice is being perpetrated.

The Presumption of Paternity

Legally actionable paternity errors most commonly occur when a man and a woman are married to each other at the time of a child's conception and birth. Such errors have legal consequences because of something called the "presumption of paternity," which applies in most states.

The presumption holds that when a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is the father of that child. For various legal purposes, it can be important to establish the paternity of a child. The presumption permits the question to be answered simply and without investigation.

[_Richard_]

i don't understand how they bring the child into the legal argument. I think that should be on an ethical level for the non-father in question, and ultimately up to that non-father to pursue his natural goals

[d-null]

that is strange, I would have thought that the man that paid would be able to sue the mother and child for his money back, not be forced to keep on paying, that is really insane

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i don't understand how they bring the child into the legal argument. I think that should be on an ethical level for the non-father in question, and ultimately up to that non-father to pursue his natural goals

non-father, you mean "sperm donor"?