Paternity fraud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Image:Scale of justice.png |
| Family law |
|---|
| Entering into marriage |
| Prenuptial agreement · Marriage |
| Common-law marriage |
| Same-sex marriage |
| Legal states similar to marriage |
| Cohabitation · Civil union |
| Domestic partnership |
| Registered partnership |
| Dissolution of marriage |
| Annulment · Divorce · Alimony |
| Issues affecting children |
| Paternity · Legitimacy · Adoption |
| Legal guardian · Ward |
| Emancipation of minors |
| Parental responsibility |
| Contact (including Visitation) |
| Residence in English law |
| Custody · Child support |
| Areas of possible legal concern |
| Spousal abuse · Child abuse |
| Child abduction |
| Adultery · Bigamy · Incest |
| Conflict of Laws Issues |
| Marriage · Nullity · Divorce |
Paternity fraud came into common use in the late 1990's describing the act of naming a man to be the father of a child when the mother knows (or suspects) that he is not the actual father, particularly for child support purposes. In many jurisdictions the husband of the mother of a child is held to be the father[citation needed]. The concept has been given significant coverage by activists such as Tom Leykis, Glenn Sacks, and Wendy McElroy
In some circumstances, there is limited opportunity to challenge this assumption, by limiting the amount of time allowed to challenge paternity, or by allowing women to claim paternity in nearly anonymous conditions.[citation needed]
The ready availability of genetic fingerprinting has created a situation where men suspicious of paternity fraud are able to have a paternity test undertaken to check their suspicion. Access to such testing is restricted in some places as it is held to not be in the best interests of the child for such information to be freely available and thus the results of such tests to be admissible evidence before a court, the testing would have to have been approved, typically in a family court.
Michael Gilding, a sociologist at Swinburne University of Technology in a study, found the incidence of misattributed paternity was 1% of all paternity tests<ref>"Paternity fraud an urban myth: study" Sydney Morning Herald, 29 June 29 2005 - 6:19PM accessed 16 November 2006</ref><ref>Abstract "Rampant Misattributed Paternity: the Creation of an Urban Myth", People and Place, vol 13, no 2, 2005 accessed 16 November 2006</ref>.
[edit] Cases
- Liam Magill<ref>Paternity fraud 'dad' loses appeal, The Age, 9 November 2006 - 11:35AM accessed 16 Novemer 2006</ref><ref>Magill v Magill (2006) HCA 51 (9 November 2006) in the High Court of Australia</ref> was initially awarded compensation against his ex wife for pain and suffering as a result of paternity fraud, but lost on appeal.
- Jim Knapp AKA Jim "Jones"<ref>"Who's Your Daddy?" Metroactive 19-25 July 2006 accessed 16 November 2006</ref>, was found to not have fathered a child for whom he was paying child support after a 12 year battle in the California court system.
[edit] References
<references/>
