Friday, March 23, 2012

Paternity testing can come too late

Don't waste time wondering whether a paternity test is needed to determine the father of that newborn. If anyone has any doubts, there are important legal reasons to swallow your pride, perhaps even offend the in-laws, and have the test performed.
The law in Pennsylvania is clear: If a man acts like a child's father, and acts in a responsbile manner, he can be penalized for doing the right thing if eventually it is learned the child is not his.
A perfect example is a young man named Damoun Lopez, of Philadelphia. Mr. Lopez is on the hook for 18 years of child support even though the child in question is not his daughter and he has never married the girl's mother.
How did this happen?
Mr. Lopez suspected the child was not his even before the girl was born June 7, 2003. He asked for a blood test, but never pushed hard on the request and it never was performed. His name was placed on the birth certificate. By the time the child was 2 years old it was clear from looking at the child that the girl was not his daughter.
When he finally demanded a DNA paternity test, it confirmed his fears. The baby was not his daughter.
Too late, the court said.
Mr. Lopez's problem was that after the child was born, Mr. Lopez by his own admission "was wrapped up" with taking "the role of father wholeheartedly. I stepped up." He developed a strengthening relationship with the baby. In fact, at one point, Mr. Lopez backed away from his request for a blood test because of "the fear of actually finding out she wasn't mine," he told the court.
Pennsylvania recognizes what's known as "the doctrine of paternity by estoppel." Simply, that means if Mr. Lopez assumed the role of father, by providing support or holding himself out as the baby's parent, then Mr. Lopez by law will not be allowed to deny parentage.
The main reason behind this doctrine is to prevent non-parents from abandoning a child after the child has come to rely and depend on their support. In addtition, as in the example of Mr. Lopez, the child often has bonded emotionally with the adult.
This doctrine is not absolute. It will not apply if the reluctant father can show he was tricked. Proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence will allow a man to avoid paternity even if, as with Mr. Lopez, the man has offered support and bonded with the child.
Fraud can be established if father can prove that mother in fact knew he was not the biological parent and in fact deceived and manipulated the man.

Labels:

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Father punished for false claims of child abuse

In child custody disputes, there's a fine line between being cautious and concerned about the child's welfare and abusing the system to gain the upper hand in litigation.
In a stark example of extreme overreaching, a Bucks County man who had enjoyed shared custody of his 4-year-daughter lost nearly all his privileges for repeatedly subjecting the child to unneccesary physical examinations and triggering unfounded child abuse investigations.
Michael Orozco had initiated "numerous" Children & Youth complaints against the girls' mother, claiming she and her boyfriend were phsyically, sexually and emotionally abusing the child. Mr. Orozco also took the child for "invasive" medical examinations without mother's knowledge or consent.  He would also have the child disrobe for inspections upon her return from visits with mother.
There were never any findings of abuse; instead, the court found that father had manufactured evidence and made false allegations in an attempt to gain control and custody of the girl.
Significantly, these efforts by father to manipulate the system were not isolated events but followed literally years of contentious litigation.
The Bucks County judge who heard the case described father's conduct as "heinous" and denied him all but four hours weekly of supervisied visitation to prevent further efforts to poison the child's mind.
Father appealed the judge's ruling, but the Superior Court decided that limiting father's custody rights was in the child's best interest. The case is Orozco v. Wilson, 2012 PA Super 49 (February 2012).

Labels: