October 23, 2004

Paying for someone elses mistake

The SF Chronicle has another story, about a man who thought he was the father of a child. Made significant changes to his life, took care of the child and then, years later, found out he wasn't the father.

He sues to get back the money he spent supporting someone else's child - and loses on the grounds that it is not in the best interest of the child.

The court sadi that, among other reasons, this holding will hopefully cause fathers who aren't sure about paternity to test early.

He said dismissal of the suit would encourage unmarried men in McBride's position to undergo early testing if they are uncertain about paternity - an incentive that already exists for married men, whose fatherhood is conclusively established by law after two years. It would also discourage them from forming emotional ties that they were ready to drop based on genetic tests, Ruvolo said.

This, to me, seems to be a mis-step by the court. Let's ignore, for now, the idea that it is okay for one man to pay for another person's child without ability to recoup.

The court here seems to be encouraging a situation which, to me, seems incredibly confrontational and antagonistic. This guy did the right thing. He girlfriend says to him 'I'm pregnant with your child'. He didn't say 'prove it' or demand testing. He took responsibility, gave up his job, moved with the girl and took care of his responsibilities.

The court seems to be saying 'He should have demanded she prove his paternity ' before he step in. This seems counter-intuitive.

And where, in all of this, is the responsibility of the mother? She claims that she didn't purposefully deceive the guy - which maybe true, but this all must mean that she was sleeping with several men when she got pregnant - and I'm guessing the non-dad wasn't aware of this.

There may be a greater good at work here - but I don't see it.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 05:15 AM || Link to me || Category:: Law, Just Left On