Paternity in Georgia, He's not the father...

AKA2D '91 · #1 06-23-2002, 08:27 PM

High court won't hear paternity argument
Mae Gentry - Staff
Wednesday, June 12, 2002

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Tuesday to consider the case of a Decatur man ordered to pay child support even though DNA proves he's not the father.

The court is "ignoring paternity fraud," said the plaintiff's attorney, Jeffery M. Leving of Chicago. "It's no different than ignoring DNA testing showing a convicted murderer wasn't guilty of murder."

Carnell A. Smith, 41, had been paying child support to his ex-girlfriend for 11 years. Two years ago, when the court ordered him to pay more, he got a blood test that showed he was not the child's father.

Smith went to court saying he should not have to pay further child support. He has not paid since then and has not seen the child, who is now 13.

Under a new Georgia law, men no longer would be required to support children who, as proved by genetic testing or other evidence, are not theirs. The law takes effect July 1, but would not apply to Smith.

Traditionally, courts have considered the best interest of the child, said family law expert Robert Boyd, an attorney with the Atlanta law firm Davis Matthews and Quigley.

"The idea is that this person has established a bond with the child, and now all of a sudden you're going to say I'm no longer your dad just because of a blood test. It's a very complicated issue."

ClassyLady · #2 06-24-2002, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AKA2D '91
"The idea is that this person has established a bond with the child, and now all of a sudden you're going to say I'm no longer your dad just because of a blood test. It's a very complicated issue."

Complicated is right!!

Did this man have a relationship with this child or was he just sending a check every month? If he actually had a father/child relationship, then I hope that he did not just walk out of the child's life. Regardless of the results, after 11 years, even if you are not the father you are still the dad.

AKAtude · #3 06-24-2002, 07:50 PM

I think paternity should be established from the very beginning. If men have doubts, then they should speak up and don't wait until years later to say something. And if women know they have been getting around, they need to be honest. Since I don't know all the facts about this particular situation, I can only speculate. If this man did have a relationship with this child, I also hope he did not just walk out of this child's life.

lovele1978 · #4 06-25-2002, 08:43 AM

From what I hear.... (at least in the state of Maryland) if the child in question was born after 1997, even if paternity has already been established or claimed, a paternity test is required before child support will be enforced. I am not sure what they do for children born before then.

I really hope that this man is not walking out of this child's life because she needs a father regardless. As far as the mother, she should feel ashamed of herself for taking money from a man who is not required to do so. I wouldn't blame the courts if they made her pay him back!!

Kimmie1913 · #5 06-25-2002, 03:57 PM

In MANY, MANY states, if you begin paying child support, and never requested a test or challenged paternity, it will not matter what a test says down the road. The theory has always been it is the best interest of the child to maintain a stable relationship weith the person beleived to be their father. Also, like anyting else they treat it like there is a time to speak up and if you choose to be quiet, that is your fault.

I would tell anyone having a child olut of wedlock to have a paternity test to be sure and end all questions from the start.

Swamp Thang · #6 06-25-2002, 09:38 PM

If he was having a relationship with this lady.. it's obvious that she was also have 'relations' with more people than him (including the baby's father).

Bottom line, he should sue for all of his back support back. Mother's always sue for support (which is only right) when a deadbeat dad isn't AT LEAST supporting the child financially. And the deadbeat dad is responsible for ALLL back support going back to the child's birthdate (which is his duty).

In that SAME FASHION.. this Man has been ROBBED !!! Both financially and parentially. No Woman would ever get to know that feeling (because you know that's your child that came from your womb) but, just imagine one day that, after so many years.. that your child isn't yours... (of course, that doesn't count if the Father adopts)...

I feel terribly for this man.

shani · #7 06-28-2002, 04:00 AM

I feel that the father should STOP playing child support and sue the mother. But, not discontinue the bond with the child. Why should he pay for a child that's not his? But why should the child suffer due to its mothers mishaps?

Jody · #8 06-28-2002, 10:20 PM

The man responsible for that child is his BIOLOGICAL father. The article says what prompted the DNA test was that the mother wanted more money. If she cared about her child, she would have made sure that he knew his FATHER, not some guy she could pimp for a check.

I saw a television documentary which talked about the sociology of why it is important to know both sides of your family. When a child is born, it has the protection of BOTH CLANS. It is unfair to deny a child the blanket of protection from both of their blood lines.

ClassyLady · #9 06-30-2002, 05:53 PM

As far as the man suing for the money he already paid, I don't think that's going to happen. If she ever gave him even the slightest indication that the baby might not be his, then he's not getting a dime back. From what I understand of the law, if she lets him know that the baby might not be his, and he pays child support anyway, then that's just on him. By disregarding her warning and not seeking a peternity test, he is giving her the money and has no standing to sue for it.

I believe that she can be held liable if she told him that it was his child and had reason to believe that it might not have been.