You ain't my baby daddy: the problem of paternity fraud and paternity laws.

AuthorSherman, Stephen A.

INTRODUCTION

Men are trading in parental status for money and doing so with the permission of the courts. In R.A.C. v. P.J.S. (1) the New Jersey Superior Court allowed such behavior by construing the discovery rule to allow a victim of paternity fraud to pursue a claim for the reimbursement of child-rearing expenses against the biological father of the child. (2) The August, 2005, decision held that this statutory right--to sue the biological father for reimbursement of certain funds expended in the raising of the child--extended even to some expenditures after the child had reached the age of majority. (3) The facts of R.A.C. deviated from the majority of paternity disputes in that the child was thirty years old at the time of the proceedings and had been raised exclusively by the mother and R.A.C., who was not the biological father. (4) Rather than centering its decision on the family unit and the bond between father and son, the court focused on the fraud perpetuated by the mother and biological father and utilized equitable tolling to allow the putative father to bring suit thirty years after the birth of the son. (5) By construing statutes in ways that allow such results, courts effectively encourage men to question the paternity of their children and to seek remedies that will be harmful to the children.

Paternity fraud occurs when a mother makes a representation to a man that the child is genetically his own even though she is aware that he is not, or may not be, the father of the child. (6) Paternity fraud has existed for centuries (7) and has become a widespread problem today. At common law, paternity was presumed when the man was the husband of the mother, (8) but modern courts have begun to abandon such an approach. (9) Under the common law, any child born into an existing marriage was presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband, absent certain circumstances. (10) This presumption was not absolute, but rather a rebuttable presumption, provided that the husband could demonstrate contrary evidence. More specifically, a man would have to prove that his parenting the child was impossible by demonstrating sterility, lack of access during the conception period, or impotence. (11) By allowing the man to contest paternity without a showing of these traditional means of refutation, the R.A.C. decision demonstrates how far the courts have moved since the days of the common law. (12) The move away from the common law presumption is a positive step due to modern technology and the protection of a putative father's rights, but moving too far will result in negative effects such as the destruction of households, especially as children are left confused about their true parentage. The courts must reach a middle ground between the harsh presumption of paternity and the lax modern rules that allow suits to be pursued at almost any time after the birth of the child. The courts must balance the rights of the putative father with those of the child in order to develop a law that is fair and that will enable children to be happy and healthy members of society. As discussed in this Note, current paternity laws are failing in their purpose, and new laws must be enacted to protect the interests of the children. This Note proposes that a shortened statute of limitations (eighteen months) would alleviate the problems associated with paternity fraud by providing the putative

father ample time to file his suit but not allowing him to file his suit at such a time that it might endanger the child's social and mental well-being.

This Note addresses the trend away from the strict common law presumption of paternity and toward the laxity demonstrated in R.A.C., and it discusses how to minimize the negative effects of this shift. Part I summarizes the common law notions of paternity and the rationale behind the presumption of paternity. Part II briefly summarizes the Supreme Court's rulings that define paternal rights and then gives a brief overview of the prevailing methods of analysis in state courts. Finally, Part III sets forth a proposed framework for paternity disputes based on psychological studies of child development and on the significance of breaking the father-child relationship. More specifically, Part III argues for a statute of limitations for paternity fraud claims that is in the best interest of the child and concludes that an eighteen-month statute of limitations would provide the best balance between the interests of the child and those of the putative father.

  1. PATERNITY FRAUD IN THE COMMON LAW

    1. Presumption of Paternity

      Paternity fraud is not a modern concept--it is probably as old as paternity itself. In the days of the common law, British lawmakers addressed the issue despite the lack of modern technology and genetic testing. One of the oldest British laws concerning paternity was entitled, "Acte for the setting of the Poore on Worke, and for the avoyding of Ydleness." (13) This law mandated that illegitimate children be provided for by the putative father. (14) In many cases, the offered proof of paternity was the mother's oral testimony. (15) Accordingly, if the genitor could be determined, he would be located and forced to pay child support. (16)

      In order to avoid controversy, the common law utilized the "presumption of paternity" doctrine, which stated that any child born into a lawful marriage was presumed to be fruit of the marriage. (17) Such a presumption served to make certain that children were legitimate and to clarify whose duty it was to care for them. (18) Although there were several policy rationales behind the common law presumption, lawmakers were primarily concerned with avoiding the title of "illegitimate," which would deprive the child of inheritance and succession. (19) The promotion of "peace and tranquility of States and families" (20) served as a secondary rationale for the presumption. In order for children to inherit, it had to be proven that the children were born of the man whose estate was at issue and that he left no contrary intention in his will. (21) As Samuel von Pufendorf further states, the main proof of legitimacy is marriage; because a woman's fidelity to her husband is presumed, any child born to a woman is presumed to be the child of her husband. (22)

    2. Rebutting the Presumption

      Although the common law utilized a strong presumption of paternity, it was a rebuttable presumption. If the husband could prove impossibility, then the presumption could be successfully rebutted. (23) To prove impossibility under the traditional common law, a man had to show sterility, impotence, or non-access during the period of conception. (24) As Blackstone stated: "[I]f the husband be out of the kingdom of England (or, as the law somewhat loosely phrases it, extra quatuor maria) for above nine months, so that no access to his wife can be presumed, her issue during that time shall be bastard." (25) Without such evidence, the child was conclusively presumed to be legitimate and the husband was presumed to be the father. (26)

    3. Duties Owed to Illegitimate Children

      Legitimate children enjoyed the full rights of being heirs of their fathers. However, an illegitimate child was stripped of any inheritance rights. (27) An illegitimate child could only acquire throughout his life, never inherit, because the law perceived such children as Fillius nullius, or the son of nobody. (28) Furthermore, if a child was not only an illegitimate child but also born out of wedlock, then he also lost any right to support from the father. (29) Thus, the common law instituted the concept of the presumption of paternity to avoid labeling children illegitimate and stripping them of their rights. (30)

      Even if the presumption was successfully rebutted, it did not cure the presumed father of his paternal responsibilities. The common law viewed paternal love so highly that to take away the care and devotion of a father from his child would be to make impossible and unintelligible a social life. (31) If the child had been born during the marriage of the presumed father and the mother, then the father still owed the duty of maintenance to the child. (32) Pufendorf defines the duty of maintenance as education, nourishment, protection, information, and governing so that the child may be useful to society and learn to be self-reliant. (33) Through the duty of maintenance, a father derived his dominion over his children. (34) Thus, in order for a family unit to maintain stability, a father needed to maintain the children in his house such that he could hold them under his dominion.

      The common law forced a strict policy on fathers via the presumption of paternity. Rebuttal was a difficult task without the testimony of the wife, and if a marriage was involved, maintenance was still required. Although the child may not have belonged to the presumed father, the common law recognized that the child still needed a father and support. As Pufendorf stated: "For what Reason is there that the poor innocent Infant should be suffer'd to famish for another's Sin?" (35) Pufendorf and Blackstone demonstrate that the makers of the common law focused on the well-being of the child by enforcing the presumption of paternity to preserve the rights of children and by enforcing the duty of maintenance to ensure that children became functioning members of society. (36)

  2. MODERN TRENDS IN PATERNITY FRAUD

    1. Paternal Rights in the United States Supreme Court

      The issue of paternity fraud has generally been left to the states to determine their own theories as to its resolution. The United States Supreme Court, however, has ruled in five major cases and defined specific paternal rights under the Constitution. Although these cases do not directly discuss paternity fraud, they do demonstrate the constitutional meaning of paternity and the rights of a father, and they also illuminate what is at stake during paternity fraud disputes.

      ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT