Recently a man was ordered to continue paying child support even though it was proven that he is not the father of the child. Here’s how I heard it on NPR:
A young man had a girlfriend. She became pregnant and told him that the child was his. He “does the right thing” and accepts paternity. He pays child support for years. Then he’s finally able to afford a paternity test. The child is not his. He sues to discontinue child support on the grounds that it’s not his child. The courts decided that since he had been paying child support, that makes him the father.
This, to me, seems unfair. Based on the story as I heard it, he was falsely and deliberately named the father. Since the case has been decided, he has no recourse there; but I’m wondering, hypothetically, how he would fare if he sued for damages arising from fraud? That is, if he could prove that the girl deliberately named him the father, or if she withheld the fact that he may not have been the father (which probably came out in the original case), could he successfully sue her for fraud? He may still have to pay child support, but could he win a settlement such that the woman would have to repay the amount he’s already given her, plus an amount equal to the amount he would pay until the child turns 18? What about bringing a suit against the actual father?
Is it fair that, having supported a child in good faith under the assumption of paternity, a man would have to continue to pay child support after he finds out that the child is not his and that he challenged the child support immediately after learning this? Who’s at fault here?
Suppose a man is convited of murder and is sentenced to death (or if you prefer, convicted of rape and is sentenced to a long prison term)? If DNA or other evidence proves beyond all doubt that he is not guilty of the murder (or rape), should he fulfill the sentence (or be executed) because he’d been sitting in prison for so long that he’s now considered the person who committed the act?