Paternity Fraud

Paternity Fraud

- Paternity fraud is encouraged and not punished. -

This page was last updated on Sunday, April 07, 2013

Introduction

Paternity fraud is an intentional lie to induce a man to surrender a legal right or to force him to support a child who is not his own. The elements in this are deception, legal presumption, or fraud that occurred in the chain of custody. This includes changing or switching results of a paternity test or an action by identical twins who agree to assume the role of the other. The most common source of paternity fraud is the legal presumption that every child born in a marriage is that of the husband and his wife.

On very rare occasions, some has switched children, and the parents learn about this later but this is not necessarily fraud. However, it could involve kidnaping, by another person, under certain circumstances where paternity is not an issue but maternity is. The earliest recorded incidence is not found in a modern hospital but in the Bible, I Kings 3. So the question was not who was the father but would likely be the mother. So the wrong answer could have been fatal but that was not Solomon’s intent. He was trying to decide which woman would be the better mother.

Paternity is simply the quality or state of being a father but it also refers to an origin or decent from a father. While many societies trace their origins through their maternal line other’s trace their origins through their paternal line of decent. It does not make much difference because the result must be the same. A child is of the maternal line of its mother and of the paternal line of its father.

Paternity Assignment in Ancient Times

Paternity testing probably had its origins at least 4,000 years ago. It was not scientific but it did depend on several well-known fundamentals. First, the neighborhood busybodies, if someone wanted to know the local news, these particular women were on the ‘A-List’ of persons to see. If they could not help, one could go to the local patriarchs, the leaders of the clans, the Fonzarelli’s of ancient times. They could make things happen but they could not do one thing, and that was change the average length of gestation.

Diet and the woman’s inherent physical constitution dictated that. Moreover, the lunar cycle was probably a better way of keeping time than the solar day. All of this depended upon the notion that once a process is set in motion, it will continue until something happens to stop it. So a pregnancy once started continues to continue until the child is born. Normally, this occurs about 280 days or about ten lunar months. However, as many know, every pregnancy is a little different, and each continues until its own conclusion. (The actual range is between 266 and 287 days).

Levirate Law

Ancient people designed Levirate marriage to ensure that a deceased male leaves a family to carry on his name. Sometimes this is a result of a compulsory marriage of a widow, to a brother of her dead husband. However, this is not to be confused with compulsory marriages designed to keep the peace among nations or continue a royal line of succession. Under Jewish law did not require a formal ceremony. Living with a close male relative, with the intent to marry was sufficient to establish the marriage as an accomplished act. So a widow only had to wait three months to establish her new marriage and this is how it worked.

If she had shown no sign that she was pregnant before her marriage but gave birth six months later, the question of who was the father would be important. If the child were ‘full-term’, the first husband was the father but if the child were premature, then the second husband was the father. The reason for this determination was that it could affect the child’s right to inherit and it could invalidate the marriage. Moreover, if an event had nullified the marriage, then the mother might not have any right to support.

Many exceptions to the three-month rule exist, so the onset of the signs of pregnancy may raise doubts about a child’s paternity. That is where the bell-shaped curve comes in to explain this point. Simply, a normal bell-shaped curve is symmetrical about its vertical axis and has a single midpoint that is equally distant from its tails on either side. So one-half of a bell-shaped curve is a mirror image of the other side and so its skewness is zero. This is important because each exception must have equal importance. For an example, pregnancies either end or come full to term in their own time because pregnancies cannot continue indefinitely.

Welfare Payments and Paternity Fraud

A single woman with children could not receive welfare payments unless she named the father (or potential fathers). So she selected a man and then filed her claim with a notice for him to appear at the paternity hearing. The problem was that she was under no obligation to prove that she sent the notice, and so many women did not send the notice. When the alleged father failed to appear, the court entered a default judgment of paternity against him and he had no redress. So if he were married, then he and his wife would have to pay child support to a complete stranger.

The crime of fraud comprises every act of breach of legal or equitable duty. Law determines legal duty while the courts determine want is fair and impartial (equitable duty). So in these matters, equitable duty (in law) is unhampered by technical rules that the courts may have devised. The legislatures designed these rules to limit a person’s legal ability to recover what she owes him. Very few men, falsely accused of paternity, have recovered any damages from those who have defrauded them.

That is only half of the issue, the government will garnish a man’s wages and holdings to pay child support. However, it will refuse to do the same to a woman who had committed the fraud. So the garnishment was a swindle by the state acting for the woman who had falsely claimed that this innocent man was the father of her child. Moreover, the state uses this income to pay its own bills, so the State is not much different from a hustler or a go-between.

The Effect in Modern Times

Paternity fraud is probably much higher than currently claimed. For an example, some laws restrict the use of paternity tests because of the presumption of paternity in marriage. In other instances, the law may restrict the use of paternity tests to preserve the family if the truth would become known. Also some laws may restrict the use of paternity tests to ensure that the father will continue to support the family that may not be of his making. In other matters, a wife may go to court to prevent her husband from learning the truth. This means that laws and decisions that restrict the use of paternity tests lead to underestimates of paternity fraud. This also means that the prevalence of paternity fraud is higher than what the estimates show.

Now according to the literature, DNA evidence is not enough to prove paternity fraud. The plaintiff must prove that the mother knew that the child’s father was another man and she concealed that fact for monetary gain. In contrast, the law relating to fraud comprises all acts, omissions, and concealment involving breach of trust, or legal or equitable duty that results in damage to another. So in this definition, a person can presume fraud from the circumstances without proving the intent to defraud.

For an example, if the child’s biological father was one man but the mother decided to defraud another man, then she has committed fraud. So in this construction, sexual intercourse is unnecessary. It simply ignores the issue of intercourse because several ways to become pregnant without it exist and the potential biological father does not have to be present. We know it as the Turkey Baster Method of artificial insemination.

Inaccuracy in Government Testing Standards

Questionable reports say that government approved paternity tests are 99.99 percent accurate. I hope not, because there is supposed to be no error. Cosmic Ether does not fill the gaps in space nor ‘fudge factors’ that fill the gaps in DNA tests. Nor is there any such thing as the immortal African Jeep, a yellow, dog-like animal with magical powers (Eugene the Jeep).

The matching DNA is either there or not there. It is irrefutable and it is not open to discussion or dispute. By the way, would anyone settle for one chance in 10,000 of being falsely accused? Let us say that the entire human population of this planet is seven billion (7,000,000,000) people. That is 700,000 chances of being falsely accused of paternity and that is just by chance.

Some people claim that DNA evidence and prior intent is not sufficient to prove paternity fraud. According to these so-called pundits, the victim has to prove that the mother knew that she was lying and she did so for monetary gain. So if she does not know the difference between lying and telling the truth, then she is a pathological liar whom no one can trust. The second part is that if she did not lie for monetary gain, then she lied for own aberrant self satisfaction.

The proof is this; to my own knowledge, the government never returned a cent to any man whom they had accused of paternity, rape, or spousal abuse. I know that from personal experience. The proof of paternity fraud is simple. If she kept the money, then she committed fraud, the crime of deceiving someone to get money or goods. So if a government agency intervened by garnishing his accounts and sending his money to her, then they too have committed fraud. Note: Although seven billion people exist, many of those are either too young, too old, or too tired to commit paternity fraud. Moreover, other factors have to be considered that are beyond the scope of this paper. These statistics simply show that committing paternity fraud is easy.

California's Paternity Opportunity Program for Unmarried Parents

Among other statements it states, "A declaration of paternity may be challenged in court only in the first two years after the child's birth by using blood and genetic tests that prove the man is not the biological father. It also may overturned if the father or mother is able to prove that he/she signed the form because of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact."

Later it states, "If either of you later change your mind after you sign this form, you must complete a Rescission Form for the Declaration of Paternity (CS 915) to cancel or rescind the declaration of paternity. You must file the rescission form with the California Department of Child Support Services within 60 days from the date you signed the declaration of paternity."

The problem is that California law does not require that each person signing the form provide two color photographs signed by themselves and by the person witnessing the transaction. The law should also require each parent and witness to provide their thumbprint or their fingerprints and photo identification such as a driver's license or a state identification card. By doing this, the forms can provide an audit trail linking the signatures and photographs and finger prints to the person making the declaration.

According to the instructions (for the Rescission Form for the Declaration of Paternity), anyone who signed the Declaration for Paternity can use this form to cancel it within 60 days of signing it. This means that either the purported father or the child's mother can cancel the Declaration of Paternity. Nevertheless, if the court has entered an order for custody, visitation, or child support, the declaration stands. The instructions later specify that the person who signed the rescission form must also notify the other person using return receipt mail. This procedure invites fraud.

Many do not realize that in other jurisdictions the purported parent’s personal income does not determine the amount of child support. When the non custodial parent has a live-in partner or has remarried, then the total household income can be considered in computing child support (some jurisdictions may limit that amount). The income earner pays the income taxes on the money that goes for child support while the recipient does not. Most jurisdictions do not require the custodial parent to account for the expenditure of funds received as child support and this has led to many abuses (such as unfair wage garnishments). Those abuses are beyond the scope of this paper. Moreover, California law does change and so this information may not reflect current law.

Wrongly Accused but He Still has to Pay

A judge ruled that a man would no longer have to pay support for a child that was not his. Yet the state says that he owes them thousands of dollars in back payments. As a result, they revoked his driver’s licence and they are still seeking payments from him. We call that extortion. The problem lies in an increase in unwed mothers.

To receive money from the government, the unwed mother must name a man as the father of her child and this is easy to do. She checks the records simply selects a person to be the father and then tells the court. Since she did not provide the actual address, they sent the summons to a mail drop at a local UPS store. This ensures that she gets the summons and not her prospective victim of a swindle.

When he fails to appear, the court may make a default judgement in her favor and the wheels of justice now creak to a stop. This man has defied a court order and now he is going to get what is coming to him. So while women are becoming more likely, again in our time, to become unwed mothers, they are accusing more men of paternity. Nevertheless, this is only half of the definition of paternity fraud.

The other part of the problem is the irrefutable right of the state to force men to continue to pay child support for children that are not their own. In other words, the state has become a sugar daddy. It is his money that government agencies are spending and not their own and that is not the solution. A lie of omission remains a lie. So if the state says that a man owes them money without proof of paternity, it is their debt and not his. Otherwise, it is extortion and that is truly an example of blaming the victim.

Yet another crime is afoot and it called embezzlement. Child support agencies have adjusted their means of collection before the payment is due. This means that they can earn money on the interest while depriving the obligee of their funds. This money often exists as a fraction of a cent. However, over several thousand accounts, this amount becomes a significant sum. Nevertheless, what if it the amount is in the millions? Now that is embezzlement on a grand scale.

Tidbits

1. A Massachusetts court ruled that a husband has to pay child support to his wife who had impregnated herself by artificial insemination with another man’s sperm.

2. A Nebraska court has ruled that a married man may challenge paternity after his divorce from the child’s mother. If his paternity is not supported by testing, he will not have to pay child support. However, the court may increase spousal support payments to make up the difference.

3. A Illinois court ruled that a boy cannot discover the identity of his natural father until he has reached the age of 18.

4. A Tennessee court has refused to reimburse a man who was fraudulently forced to pay child support by state authorities.

5. According to 'The World Almanac and Book of Facts - 2012', the world population is approximately 6,946,043,989 people.

6. The statement that ‘the courts almost never punish those who commit Paternity Fraud’ is possibly false. No verifiable record exists that the government ever punished a female (thus far) for this type of fraud. This is also true for frauds involving child abuse, domestic violence, and spousal abuse. Since judges adjudicate these cases, the problem of judicial fraud continues to exist. So a simple and effective way of reducing paternity fraud is to remove those particular judges and their associates who allow it to occur. Because that, is the same as encouragement.

7. Many of use who write about abuse and the law have observed that men seem to have fewer rights the women. This is the primary reason that the states must ratify and confirm that the Equal Rights Amendment is to be the law of the land.

8. To prove paternity fraud, DNA evidence is not enough. The plaintiff must prove that the mother knew of the false paternity, but allowed the secret to stay hidden for monetary gain. This cannot be done by DNA alone. So now the male plaintiff has to prove intent, knowledge, and gross negligence. (UK)

9. Nearly, one in five paternity claims handled by the Child Support Agency (CSA-UK) end up showing the mother has deliberately or inadvertently misidentified the father.

10. According to the Child Support Agency (CSA - UK), there had not been a single prosecution of any woman making a false claim of paternity.

11. If the DNA test establishes that the named father is the actual father, then he must pay for the cost of the test. If the DNA establishes he is not the father then the taxpayer pays, so there is no consequence for the mother in making a false claim.

12. In 2008, the Government of the United Kingdom had exposed more than 4,800 (4,854) false claims of paternity and not one prosecution for the crime.

13. Italics represent my own additions and clarifications.

14. Officials throughout the world are discouraging levirate marriage in an effort to reduce the spread of AIDS and other diseases.

Mother please, I rather do it myself

A Turkey Baster resembles a very large eyedropper and a person uses it to moisten meat at intervals with a liquid during cooking. Due to its shape and function it is the most common method to get pregnant by artificial insemination in the home. According to the literature, a person can purchase a barrel or an oral medicine syringe at any drugstore near the children’s thermometers. This is convenient because a woman may want to use a thermometer to detect the onset of ovulation. Some sources recommend that a person should buy a syringe with a plunger and not one with a bulb. It should be at least 4 inches long but longer is best but the method of obtaining sperm is the province of the consenting parties. However, a person can freeze sperm for later use but they may need additional instructions because improper thawing can destroy sperm.

References and other Sources

Tom Leykis, Wendy McElroy, and Glen Sacks have written extensively on paternity fraud and their work has appeared on the Internet.

Annual Report Summary for Testing in 2006 - Prepared by the Relationship Testing Standards and Accreditation Program Units

The American Association of Blood Banks.

Edward Steven Nunes

Index