« Law - Flood insurance issues now on trial | Main | Ind. Courts - "A Jeffersonville lawyer has been sued for defamation of character for the second time in about two months" »
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Law - N.Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity'
"N.Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity'" is the headline to a New York Law Journal story today. Some quotes:
He who acts like a father, is a father -- if not biologically than at least legally -- the Court of Appeals said Thursday in imposing "equitable paternity" on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a girl and acted accordingly.This all sounded familiar. Brief research has not turned up an Indiana case, but here is an ILB report of an Illinois decision from September 2004:The court in Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 40, upheld the trial court and the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, in ordering a man to pay child support on behalf of a child he did not father. In doing so, it recognized the legislatively endorsed concept of "equity paternity," or paternity by estoppel (see Family Court Act ยงยง 18 [a] and 532 [a]).
Shondel J. centers on a Guyana native who, while living in New York, met a woman in Guyana while visiting family in 1995. After the man, Mark D., returned to New York, the woman, Shondel J., informed him that she was pregnant and carrying his child.
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." * * *
All four women on the court -- Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Victoria A. Graffeo and Susan Phillips Read -- joined Rosenblatt. Judge George Bundy Smith dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Robert S. Smith.
An AP story today in the Munster Times reports:SPRINGFIELD (AP) -- Documents trump DNA when it comes to deciding a child's legal father, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.The Illinois Supreme Court decision is THE PEOPLE ex rel. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID v. ROMEL C. SMITH. Access it here.The court held that a man who signed a paternity agreement saying he fathered a baby cannot challenge the document now, even though DNA tests prove he isn't the biological father. The agreement can be challenged if it was obtained through fraud or duress but not because it is simply wrong, the court said.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 11, 2006 03:23 PM
Posted to General Law Related