Texas - fraud/mistaken paternity bill

[garrula lingua]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Tx

SB 785 passed, and was effective immediately:
This permits men (who signed an Acknowledgment of Paternity, believing the child was his) who have been ordered to pay child support, without genetic testing, to request genetic testing in order to determine whether they are the genetic parent of the child. If not, current child support will be terminated (prior child support is still collectable).

Under the new paternity law, you can petition the court to terminate your paternity (again, this stops current child support and medical support).

You have until Sept. 1, 2012, to file. After that, there is a one-year period (from the date you came to believe the child was not yours), to file.

This is an incredibly important bill, which has quietly come into being; the deadline for filing without a time limit is ticking away.

Contact a family law attorney and file to terminate your rights under SB 785, if appropriate.

Note: even if the parent-child relationship is terminated, the man may request the court to order periods of possession or access to the child following the termination (if the court determines that denial of poss'n/access would harm the child).

PM me if you need more info. This should be at about 6.005 in the Family Code, when the new FL Codes are printed.

 

[Ohiogal]

That is interesting information GL. Thanks for sharing it!

 

[Proserpina]

Interesting indeed.

Though slightly discomforting in one or two ways.

(Hi, GL - that's you on the other site, isn't it? )

 

[mistoffolees]

Interesting indeed.

Though slightly discomforting in one or two ways.

Like many things, it depends on how it is applied - particularly the visitation part.

We've all seen cases where someone who is not the father only finds out after some period of time that he's not the father, but gets stuck with 18 years of CS while Mom does everything she can to deny access to the child. This levels the playing field a bit.

 

[garrula lingua]

Interesting indeed.

Though slightly discomforting in one or two ways.

(Hi, GL - that's you on the other site, isn't it? )

Yep.
Good morning, Proser!
I'd better behave around you - you don't miss anything!

Trying to inform some of the men who are affected ... there's so little media play on this, and few attorneys know of the change (they, normally, stay away from anything related to the Office of the Attorney General).

 

[garrula lingua]

Hi, Misto & OG,

It was explained as a 'slippery slope' item among the legislators.

Some states (eg California), have the doctrine of 'Paternity by Estoppel' whereby it is argued that, although 'He' isn't bio-Dad, he IS Dad - the only Dad the child knows. Those Courts will, usually, find "him" to be Dad (Paty by Estoppel), when the bonds with the child are strong (and child support will continue - he is Dad, legally).

Tx (which does not have Paternity by Estoppel) has decided these men can have their 'parentage' terminated, but (to protect the child), the Judge can order visitation.

The man has to have believed that he was the Dad when he signed the AOP, and Judges have told me that they are unclear as to the procedure (love that; making it up works for me).

I haven't gone over exactly what was approved and will be codified (the initial proposed bill also included men who were adjudicated as Dad without an AOP and without a DNA test).

 

[mistoffolees]

Hi, Misto & OG,

It was explained as a 'slippery slope' item among the legislators.

Some states (eg California), have the doctrine of 'Paternity by Estoppel' whereby it is argued that, although 'He' isn't bio-Dad, he IS Dad - the only Dad the child knows. Those Courts will, usually, find "him" to be Dad (Paty by Estoppel), when the bonds with the child are strong (and child support will continue - he is Dad, legally).

Tx (which does not have Paternity by Estoppel) has decided these men can have their 'parentage' terminated, but (to protect the child), the Judge can order visitation.

The man has to have believed that he was the Dad when he signed the AOP, and Judges have told me that they are unclear as to the procedure (love that; making it up works for me).

I haven't gone over exactly what was approved and will be codified (the initial proposed bill also included men who were adjudicated as Dad without an AOP and without a DNA test).

I agree that, in general, if a man has been in the child's life and the child sees him as Dad, that it is probably in everyone's best interests to continue that relationship. I know I would sure want that.

OTOH, this creates a pathway for the men who are badly mistreated by the system (such as the example I gave before where a man who is being forced to pay CS, but who has never seen the child because Mom keeps hiding) to possibly get out of an unjust situation.

Like most laws, there's likely to be a great deal of flexibility in how the courts interpret and apply this. Obviously, if they go to the extreme (either way), it's not going to further justice, but finding the right balance might be a good thing.

 

[Tex78704]

Although any child support arreages will still be due, it will not longer be subject to contempt.

And SB 785 should now make some bio father's start sweating. In many cases the true biological father is known, but is currently off the hook for child support because another guy is legally compelled to provide support.

Once the non-biological father is off the hook, mom and/or the State of Texas will be looking for the biological father to pony up child support.

 

[nextwife]

Although any child support arreages will still be due, it will not longer be subject to contempt.

And SB 785 should now make some bio father's start sweating. In many cases the true biological father is known, but is currently off the hook for child support because another guy is legally compelled to provide support.

Once the non-biological father is off the hook, mom and/or the State of Texas will be looking for the biological father to pony up child support.

And in many cases, biodad has no idea because mom had already
"moved on" before child was born, and decided bringing an ex boyfriend into her life would compliacte the new relationship. Is it really fair to rob a biodad of raising his child, but then go looking for him after babyhood, toddlerhood etc are over an done with, when he has no real opportunity to "parent his child" in a way that impact their development (to me, why we become parents in the first place)? We need to stop treating male parents as if having the correct one matters less than having a wallet, any wallet, to go after.

Signing an affidavit of paternity that may create a legal dad of another man's child, without that other man having the same opportunity to relinguish parental rights that a female bioparent has is just morally wrong, IMHO. If we can't remove biomom's rights without due process for her, we shouldn't do it to biodads either.

 

[garrula lingua]

I've had a case where the man who signed the AOP was paying c/s & had no contact with Mom or child. He couldn't even locate them; he said Mom took off shortly after the baby was born.

When Mom was located, she was living with the bio-Dad (& daughter always knew Bio-Dad was her father); Mom was getting c/s from the man who signed the AOP; she was also getting State & Federal assistance, and, Bio-Dad was working.

Each case is different ...
Some men should obtain righteous relief from this new bill (if they even know of it), and some children will be hurt by the disruption it is sure to cause.

 

[nextwife]

I've had a case where the man who signed the AOP was paying c/s & had no contact with Mom or child. He couldn't even locate them; he said Mom took off shortly after the baby was born.

When Mom was located, she was living with the bio-Dad (& daughter always knew Bio-Dad was her father); Mom was getting c/s from the man who signed the AOP; she was also getting State & Federal assistance, and, Bio-Dad was working.

Each case is different ...
Some men should obtain righteous relief from this new bill (if they even know of it), and some children will be hurt by the disruption it is sure to cause.

IMHO, there is not, but should be, a legal DISINCENTIVE for falsely (or shall we say optimistically) simply having the party mom prefers sign the AOP. I don't actually believe it fair or proper to simply have a third party sign away what may be a different man's rights to their child.

Get it RIGHT from the beginning and you don't have these potential problems down the road!

 

[muchneededhelp]

IMHO, there is not, but should be, a legal DISINCENTIVE for falsely (or shall we say optimistically) simply having the party mom prefers sign the AOP. I don't actually believe it fair or proper to simply have a third party sign away what may be a different man's rights to their child.

Get it RIGHT from the beginning and you don't have these potential problems down the road!

Stop suggesting common sense! There's no place for that here!

 

[garrula lingua]

Nextwife:
I agree, completely!

Most AOPs are signed at the hospital - where all 3 parties are present and can easily submit DNA (it's just a cheek swab).

Acknowledgments of Paternity should require a DNA test result conforming with the father's acknowledgment.
Then, there's no question of fraud or mistake, and Dad can't gripe about supporting his child.

I do feel for the men who are not bio-father, are kept away from the child by mother (who knows he may not be Dad), and still have to pay child support or medical support.

 

[mistoffolees]

IMHO, there is not, but should be, a legal DISINCENTIVE for falsely (or shall we say optimistically) simply having the party mom prefers sign the AOP. I don't actually believe it fair or proper to simply have a third party sign away what may be a different man's rights to their child.

Get it RIGHT from the beginning and you don't have these potential problems down the road!

I'm OK with the suggestion someone made that they should do a DNA test routinely at birth. That would go a long way toward reducing the need for this type of law.

Not that I ever expect that to happen.....

 

[garrula lingua]

SB 785 also includes men who were adjudicated to be the father due to their non-appearance at court and includes any man who did not have DNA testing and was adjudicated as Dad - the exceptions are fathers who adopted the children, gestaational agreements, and artificial insemination).

Whether or not the man signed the AOP, if a default Judgment of Paternity was entered against him, or if there was a prior adjudication of paternity without DNA testing, per this bill, a man has a right to file to terminate his paternity (again, he has until 8/31/12 to file, without having to prove when he learned of the facts which led him to believe he is not Dad. After 8/31/12, he can only file within one year of learning of the facts re non-parentage.

If the Petition states the required info (and that info is verified at a pretrial hearing), then the court will order genetic testing (that's about $570. at Labcorp- he pays); if the DNA test comes back confirming he is Dad, the Court will simply deny the Petition.
If the DNA test comes back showing he is not Dad, then the Court will order all current child support and medical support to be terminated (prior support accrued is still owed by 'non-Dad').

Mom (or the child support agency) is free to file a Paternity case against the 'real bio-Dad', but the Court can't order any retroactive child or medical support - the Court can only order 'new Dad' to pay current c/s and m/s.

(It is not positive that 'man' has to pay for parentage testing (but, in the interest of expediting the case, it's easier if he does, and also the date when the 'open period' for filing terminates was reported in places as 8/31/11, but the prospective amendment written by the legislature states 8/31/2012.