Texas Bill Would Require Genetic Testing for C/S

...and it only takes one state to start a domino effect.

For anyone not wanting to read the bill, it's saying the only way you can be ruled to pay child support is if a) you're the biological father, B) you've been named a father but refuse to get the testing (which I can't imagine why someone would do this), C) you're an adoptive parent, or D) you file an affidavit admitting you're the father.

Of course D is odd since it still allows a woman to get pregnant and then pick her 'father' for the child, and never even notify the true father, assuming the man she picks is willing to assume the role.

But moreso, and this shows some foresight on the part of these legislatures, is that it even requires women to pay half the testing bill.

It also sounds like in Section 2 they're trying to give men a way out if they were defrauded, forced to sign under duress, or if there was a 'material mistake of fact'. This can be done any time up to the child's 18th birthday (whereas it seems before they had 4 years max).

My real question will be, how will women's/mothers' groups explain the either A) drastic increase in child support being denied due to false claims or B) the sharp decline in women seeking child support to begin with. I'm sure they'll cite having to pay half the genetic testing fee as some kind of way to demean women who just want their children cared for.

Also of importance is the section labeled 160.803 which says the court can suspend the obligation of an alleged father if the mother refuses to have the genetic testing within 30 days.

So, wife or girlfirend cheats and gets pregnant. Husband/boyfriend believes it is his child since they were also having regular sex, signs legal documentation (birth certificate?). She never told him she had cheated, she never told him there was a chance the baby was not his.

Later genetic testing proves he isn't the father...is he still stuck paying child alimony and if so...what does this bill change in the majority of cases?

It still seems that she can lie and as long as she can convince him (not hard when he loves her) then all is well. If the law is going to enforce child alimony payments then it can't claim that her lie is only between the two of them and they can't do anything about it.

Pentium, I believe if you read the text, the implication seems to be that if the person was misled then there's standing to challenge the child support. Specifically on page 4/5 it state's they can vacate an order if he's not adoptive, didn't consent to assited reproduction, and isn't the genetic father, unless as specified in section B he knew at the time he wasn't the father. If he didn't know he wasn't, I don't think that would prevent it from being vacated.

If paternity is proven false a man CAN be relieved of child alimony now. The language of this changes nothing.