Father's fraud , also known as misattributed paternity or paternal discrepancy , is a type of fraud that occurs when, in a non-dad event, Mom names a man as the biological father of a child, when he knows or suspects that he is not a biological father. The modern concept of paternity fraud is related to the historical understanding of adultery.
Video Paternity fraud
Genesis
A study published in 2016 shows that one in 50 UK fathers is raising a child he thinks is his own but is actually a biological child of another man, and his birth reflects the high incidence of female infidelity, between 5 and 27% in women under 30.
The 2005 scientific study of published international studies on paternal differences found a range of incidence, worldwide, from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%). However, since many studies were conducted between the 1950s and 1980s, some figures may not be reliable due to inaccuracies in scientific testing methods and procedures used at the time. Recent studies, from 1991 to 1999, cite the following incidence rates: 4.0% (Canada), 2.8% (France), 1.4% and 1.6% (UK), and 11.8% Mexico), 0.8% (Switzerland). These figures show that the 10% number of the cited and unfounded nonpaternal events is an overestimate. However, this amount may not be accurately circulated because of the following: in studies that only see couples who have paternity testing because the father is being debated, there is a higher level; incidence 17% to 33% (median 26.9%). The most at risk are those born from younger parents, unmarried couples and those with low socioeconomic status, or from certain cultural groups.
A 2008 UK study found that fathers were misidentified in 0.2% (1 in 500) of cases processed by the Child Support Agency. Of that 0.2%, those completed by DNA testing of fathers between 2004 and 2008 show that between 10 and 19% of mothers have deliberately named the wrong father; no women are prosecuted.
Maps Paternity fraud
Legal by country
Australia
The District Court of Victoria in 2002 gave Mr. $ 70,000 in compensation. Magill for economic damages and losses to his ex-wife as a result of DNA testing in 2000 showing only one out of three children he paid genetic support for. The ruling was later canceled in 2005 by the Victorian Court of Appeal found that the "intention to deceive" by the ex-wife has not been proven about the mistake made by Ms. Magill in the form of birth about the father of the children. This ruling was later submitted to the High Court of Australia.
In 2006 the High Court of Australia rescinded the appeal, upholding the Victorian Victoria Court High Court in 2005. Supreme Court Justice Murray Gleeson in a 94-page High Court Judgment argued, "Without doubt, the petitioner's wife deceived him, but the painful scam was in disloyalty, not because of his failure to admit it. " Mr. Magill as part of the decision was also ordered to pay the Child Support Agency legal fees over the previous 18 months from litigation.
The 2006 High Court ruling led to numerous calls from Australia to reform and amend the Family Law Law and Child Support Act to help protect men in Mr. Magill's situation. In 2008 the father putative in Australia could begin using DNA tests to confirm the father's support order after the new change, "section 143 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act", applies to Family Court policies. The Magill case is often cited regarding new legal reforms in Australia and is considered a landmark type case.
Canada
Mr. Cornelio began paying child support for his twin ex-wife after the couple split up in 1998. The first couple set up a collective custody agreement in 2002 that continued Mr. monetary support. Cornelio for the twins. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Cornelio requested a reduction in visit time along with an increase in support payments that prompted Mr. Cornelio to question the father of the twins. The next DNA test showed that he was not their biological father. Request made by Mr. Cornelio to be released from further support payments claiming to be a victim of misstatement or fraud when Miss Cornelio failed to disclose an affair when they married when she signed a 2002 joint custody agreement.
The Ontario High Court in 2008 decided to refuse a request to be released or reimbursed for support payments. Judge van Rensburg decided to refuse Mr. Cornelio wondered at the time of his separation if an affair by his ex-wife was actually responsible for the twins. "It was not until access was disrupted and Ms. Cornelio began the process of seeking increased child support that respondents started to pursue the matter," the judge said. "The fact of the relationship - even if it has now become tense - is enough to require Mr. Cornelio to continue contributing to the material needs of the children."
Finnish
The starting point in Finnish law in 2018 is that the husband is a recognized father of a child born into marriage (or to a deceased husband). Only if the wife agrees, can the initial determination be set for something else. However, starting in 2016, the mother's right to generally allow or prevent parental inquiry is abolished. Errors and immediate forcing the juridical assumptions about a husband's father have not changed in the latest 2015 Act.
A suspected husband can file a legal action to undo his paternity, ignoring his wife's refusal. Legal action for cancellation may be submitted to the district court by a person who has been determined by marriage or by some other authoritative decision.
A man who has officially acknowledged paternity imposed his right to further action if he, knowing that the woman was having sexual intercourse with another man, or that he has used a foreign sperm for fertilization, has stated in writing after the birth of the child that the child belongs to him.
If it is not legally binding on prebirth, a person's admission should be rejected, if the nanny care staff has a suspicion that the man is not the father of the child, or for any reason unable to understand what he or she is doing. do when ackowledging the paternity..
If the mother, in court in case of recognition or in accepting a deliberate admission provides false information to the authorities, which contributes to the establishment of the wrong father, he will at least be fined.
South Korea
In 2004 a South Korean man was compensated $ 42,380 for pain and suffering when a DNA test showed that his ex-wife's father's claims about their child were wrong. When Mr. Doe, who had married Doe on his paternity claim, began a lawsuit against the hospital for diverting his child at birth, Ms. Doe claims to have conceived another baby boy.
Switzerland
On January 5, 2015, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (decision 5A_619 of 2015) ruled a case in which a plaintiff challenged his daughter's paternity (presumably). Plaintiffs have been screened for sperm in November 2009. As a result of the examination, the plaintiff's fertility was found to be 3%. The Court held that the alleged father should have begun to investigate his paternal as a consequence of the finding. Plaintiffs have actually confirmed non-dads through DNA evidence in 2013 after the failure of her marriage. The court ruled that a one-year deadline under Article 260c of the Civil Civil Code filed an act that failed due to the plaintiff's alleged incompetence (alleged by his father) for more than two years. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court thus confirms the ruling by the first instance and refuses the appeal. Therefore, the plaintiff's financial obligations to his (alleged) daughter will not change.
United Kingdom
In Britain, fraudulent fathers, such as adultery, are not a criminal offense except in the case of the descendants of the sons of the British king under the Act of Betrayal 1351 in which the adulterers are punished as punishment of the King's line with the King "friend,... or wife's son oldest and heir to the King ". In all other cases, simply making false statements on public documents is a crime, including mentioning someone who is not a biological father. In 2008 nobody was sued in cases involving paternity fraud. A mother is allowed not to name her biological father if she does not know it. Dad's fraud is a mistaken form of father.
The split in 2002 between spouses, identified for legal reasons as Tn. A and B, pushing Mr. A to pursue a parental contract to establish her unmarried right as the father of their child. Ms. B then asked for a DNA test which then showed that A was not father (five) years ago. After that discovery, Mr. A then sued B for damages of up to £ 100,000 as a result of a trick.
During 2007 in what was reported as the first known case of its kind to reach a trial in the UK, the High Court ruled in favor of Mr. A who provided a compensation of £ 7,500 with another Ã, Â £ 14,943 for the day off and a meal outside that spent Mr. A on Ms. B (not child). The ruling fell short of the number of lawsuits registered because the London court did not allow damages to material child charges incurred due to Mr A's enjoyment of the relationship. The judge, Sir John Blofeld, said he was satisfied that Mr. A to come to court not as leverage for contact with the child but because he did not want to "be taken for the trip".
United States
The United States has historically imposed a strong marriage presumption, and has also burdened paternity challenges when paternity has been established legally. In recent years, especially since the advent of DNA tests, laws and guidelines have been proposed or enacted that could allow for father's challenge by an authorized father who then determines he or she is not the biological father of the child, or by a biological father who learns that others have been mentioned on child's birth certificate as the child's father.
California
In the case of County of Los Angeles v. Navarro , in 1996, County Los Angeles filed a default decision against Mr. Navarro's alleged father and ordered him to pay monthly support for Ms.'s two children. Doe. The complaint to establish paternity filed by the Family Support Operations Bureau is based on information provided by Mrs. Doe who named "Manuel Nava" as the father of the children. The agency determined that Mr. Navarro is the father in question and sends a notice to his brother's residence which includes Mr. Navarro as a "resident companion", a notice denied by Navarro ever received.
In 2001 Mr. Navarro, who was armed with a DNA test that showed that he was not the father of the children, demanded that County Los Angeles request to be released from a support order. County Los Angeles opposes the motion, arguing that the motion was filed after a six-month deadline against the standard decision and the mother's assertion that she is the father is not enough to make extrinsic fraud. The trial court sided with the County and refused the motion. This ruling was subsequently filed an appeal to the California Court of Appeals Court 2.
In 2004, the appeals court reversed the verdict of the court that won Navarro and became the first California case issued to declare that the statute of limitations does not apply in the waiver of the old default decision against paternity fraud victims. As soon as the verdict was issued, the Los Angeles County Children's Support Services Department announced that they would request that the case be unpublished so it could not be used as a precedent by others in Mr.'s situation. Navarro. The request was later rejected by the California Supreme Court.
Florida
In the case of Parker v. Parker , as part of their 2001 Florida divorce settlement, Mr. Parker is obliged to pay $ 1200 per child support month on the basis of Ms.'s representation. Parker to court that Mr. Parker is the child's biological father. In 2003, Parker filed a motion for humiliation and a petition to enforce child support. Parker who encourages DNA tests that show that Mr. Parker was not the boy's biological father. The movement was 16 months after their divorce, Florida law (at that time) only allowed the 12-month-old husband to follow paternity after the divorce. Mr. Court. Parker ordered the payment to be about $ 216,000 over the next fifteen years.
Mr. Parker petitioned for help claiming that a mistaken father had produced a fake support command. This was dismissed by both Courts and then, in 2005, the Court of Appeals as an intrinsic fraud and subject to Florida a one-year deadline for a dissolution decision contest, not an extrinsic fraud, or fraud in court, which could form the basis for assistance from more appraisals than one year later. This ruling then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court which, in 2007, rejected Mr. Parker who upheld the District Court IV ruling issued in 2005.
During 2006, Florida's changed laws allow DNA testing to be considered new evidence for a support command contest after a one-year deadline. In the published opinion, the Supreme Court ruling in 2007 noted changes in the Florida Statute, "which provides for the circumstances and procedures under which a man can make paternity and end child support obligations," but the court has decided not to consider this application. new law for Mr. circumstances Parker, kicking questions about retrial under the new law back to the Trial Court.
Because the basic facts are a bit questionable and the case explores the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud, other state Supreme Courts, including Iowa and Tennessee, have quoted Parker v. Parker when writing their own opinion for fraud case type fathers.
Iowa
In 2012, Iowa Supreme Court decided to allow fraud of paternity fraud to continue when they fall "within the traditional boundaries of fraud law", but advises caution in bringing cases, as they will be "hard to prove, emotional and embarrassing".
New Mexico
In the case of Barreras v. Trevino, Mr. Barreras and Miss Trevino divorced in 1999 with Trevino soon getting a support order for his alleged daughter with Mr. Barreras who was called the alleged father. In 2004, a New Mexico court ruled that Mr. Barreras's son had until then paid $ 20,000 support to Miss Trevino for a child who did not exist. Mr Barreras sued a DNA testing laboratory in 2006 for falsifying two separate DNA tests for a child allegedly using samples taken from his adult daughter who, along with one laboratory employee, was also facing fraudulent allegations. Ms. Trevino pleaded guilty in 2008 to charges of fraud and perjury facing jail twenty-one years after already serving a federal prison sentence in Arizona for claiming a girl who is not on a tax return.
As part of the father's fraud, Trevino was able to obtain a birth certificate, a medicare card and a social security card for the fictitious girl who encouraged (then) Governor Bill Richardson to direct the New Mexico Human Services Department to explain how some government agencies became not just partners unknowingly in fraud , but also rejected attempts to fix it. Letters and calls from Mr. Barreras to the New Mexico children's aid agency about his vasectomy in 1998 was ignored and when the boy supported the enforcement division's order to bring the child allegedly admitted to paternity tests more was not obeyed by Ms. Trevino, his agency only closed the case without further investigation.
Tennessee
In the case of Hodge v. Craig in October 2012, mistakenly mistaken father recognized by the Tennessee Supreme Court unanimously at Hodge v. Craig , a case in which the mother deliberately lied to a man about who the father of the child was. Based on the mother's assurance, the couple married but then divorced. Plaintiffs obediently pay child benefits including health insurance for the child. Based on the physical differences between himself and the child, he obtained tissue samples and confirmed his suspicions. Damage is provided as compensation for child benefits paid for 15 years. The court's verdict is based on a general remedy of deliberate misinterpretation; the court distinguishes the indemnification of the child support retroactive modification. The act was for damage; it is not a suit to release paternity.
See also
References
- "Finland Paternity Act 2015, unofficial translation" (PDF) . Finlex . The Finnish Ministry of Justice. 2016 . Retrieved April 18 2018 Ã, . Access page : https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2015/en20150011. Retr. Apr 18, 2018
External links
- Male reproduction rights in Curlie (based on DMOZ)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments