Iowa court allows paternity-fraud lawsuit

Submitted by Mastodon on Wed, 2012-06-06 14:07

Article here. Excerpt:

'IOWA CITY -- A mother who falsely represents the identity of the father of her child can be sued for fraud and ordered to pay back financial support she received, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court reluctantly opened the door to claims of paternity fraud, a controversial and particularly messy area of litigation that had not been recognized in Iowa. Chief Justice Mark Cady warned litigants to use caution in bringing such cases, saying they would be hard to prove, emotional and embarrassing.

"In the end, it becomes painfully obvious that parties pushed into the justice system over a paternity fraud claim could never leave it unscathed, and the standards of justice will certainly be stretched to their limits, even if justice is attainable," Cady wrote in a concurrence to the 7-0 decision. "This consequence may cause many reasonable, caring people to simply leave the claim dormant for the betterment of others."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

That we live in a country in which a woman can terminate a pregnancy for any reason but men are forced to assume legal obligations for children they did not father. Apparently, not forcing men to assume these legal obligations is "stretching the limits" of justice.

Is it really all that unfair to require a woman to give the names of all possible fathers of a child rather than permitting her to pick the one she wants it to be? I thought under oath witnesses were expected to tell the "truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth." In this matter, however, half-truths and outright lies are rewarded with money.

The real solution is required paternity testing of all children. That way we know the truth--and the truth will set us free.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Thu, 2012-06-07 02:49

While this case is a positive development, there is still a long way to go before men are granted comparable legal rights to women, when it comes to reproductive and family issues. The guy here should be entitled to receive his attorney's fees, and interest, but he is not. He should also be entitled to receive punitive damages if the woman can be shown to have deliberately lied about paternity. Punitive damages are desirable because they send a message to women that paternity fraud doesn't pay. And what about jail time for the mother for fraud? All four of these remedies are not even on the table. But being able to get reimbursement for the amounts paid is a start, and that's what this case is about.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by redwoodwriter on Thu, 2012-06-07 06:08

Since when did paternity fraud become hard to prove as stated in the article?

Either the accused man is the father or not. DNA can not and does not lie.

Must be some type of home grown legal stupidity in Iowa.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Luek on Fri, 2012-06-08 05:38