A Blow For "Paternity Fraud"

Guys, when you don't contest paternity from the onset, and you take on the role of father, this New York case rightly decided that you had acted in the capacity of the role of father, and can't rid yourself of your responsibilities towards the child who had considered you the only father she had ever know.

-----

N.Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity'
New York Law Journal

He who acts like a father, is a father -- at least legally -- the New York Court of Appeals said in imposing "equitable paternity" on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a girl and acted accordingly. The man had argued that the order to pay child support on behalf of a child he did not father effectively saddled him with an involuntary adoption, in violation of the Constitution and contrary to public policy. But the court focused not on whether he got a raw deal but on the best interests of the child.

-----

More from the article:

Mark did not dispute his paternity. Instead, he helped pay for Shondel's pregnancy, visited the girl he thought was his and made her a beneficiary of his life insurance. He also signed a letter affirming his fatherhood so the child could obtain immigration papers. In 1999, he married another woman, and they have children.

The next year, Shondel moved to New York and lodged a paternity petition in Brooklyn, and Mark filed a separate visitation petition. A court-ordered DNA test proved that Mark was not the father.

At that point, Mark attempted to sever ties with the girl. But he was equitably estopped from disclaiming paternity and ordered to pay child support. The child support amounted to $78 weekly, plus retroactive support of $12,859. Mark has had no personal contact with the child since March 2000.

On appeal, Mark argued that the imposition of "equitable paternity" effectively saddled him with an involuntary adoption, in violation of the Constitution and contrary to public policy.

But the 2nd Department, and now the Court of Appeals, focused not on whether Mark got a raw deal, but on the best interests of the child.

"In allowing a court to declare paternity irrespective of biological fatherhood, the Legislature made a deliberate policy choice that speaks directly to the case before us," Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt wrote for the 5-2 majority. "The potential damage to a child's psyche caused by suddenly ending established parental support need only be stated to be appreciated. Cutting off that support, whether emotional or financial, may leave the child in a worse position than if that support had never been given."

Like the lower courts, the Court of Appeals found that Mark had in every way held himself out to be the child's father -- buying her Christmas and birthday presents, referring to himself as "daddy," introducing her to his family, and regularly communicating with her. Mark had claimed he had rarely seen or had contact with the child, but none of the courts hearing his case believed him.

"The issue does not involve the equities between the two adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child," Judge Rosenblatt wrote. "The Legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation ... [T]he mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."

-----

The child's welfare is most important, not dad's rights. New York made the right decision in this case. Dad had already established himself by his actions as his daughter's father, even though he was not her biological father. Fatherhood is more than DNA. New York agreed with that, and ruled accordingly.