Found out 8 year old is not mine

[Badger27]

I have tries working with his mother as previously said, I told her I would giver her 800 a month he is on my medi al dental and vision insurance am I said she can claim him every tear in taxes. She said no she want everything she can get out of me so this is the next thing. I know it sounds cruel but my blood children are not going to suffer, I have an obligation to take care of them also and if the ex don't want to work it out this is my only option left.

 

[tranquility]

Is everyone sure it is WI law that guides?

When I got a girl pregnant, was young and never got a test and signed the recognition of parantage form in Minnesota,

is the state supplied. Was there another thread somewhere?

In Minnesota, the time to rebut the recognition is:

Subd. 2.Rebuttal.

A presumption under this section may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence. If two or more presumptions arise which conflict with each other, the presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls. The presumption is rebutted by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man.

So, the key is what an "appropriate action" is and the statute of limitations on it. But, at least there is a presumption.

But, we have the signed recognition of parentage form with the statute at:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=257.75

With a "revocation of recognition" provision of:

Subd. 2.Revocation of recognition.

A recognition may be revoked in a writing signed by the mother or father before a notary public and filed with the state registrar of vital statistics within the earlier of 60 days after the recognition is executed or the date of an administrative or judicial hearing relating to the child in which the revoking party is a party to the related action. A joinder in a recognition may be revoked in a writing signed by the man who executed the joinder and filed with the state registrar of vital statistics within 60 days after the joinder is executed. Upon receipt of a revocation of the recognition of parentage or joinder in a recognition, the state registrar of vital statistics shall forward a copy of the revocation to the nonrevoking parent, or, in the case of a joinder in a recognition, to the mother and father who executed the recognition.

Yea, not so much. But, what of trying to vacate the recognition?

Subd. 4.Action to vacate recognition.

(a) An action to vacate a recognition of paternity may be brought by the mother, father, husband or former husband who executed a joinder, or the child. An action to vacate a recognition of parentage may be brought by the public authority. A mother, father, or husband or former husband who executed a joinder must bring the action within one year of the execution of the recognition or within six months after the person bringing the action obtains the results of blood or genetic tests that indicate that the man who executed the recognition is not the father of the child. A child must bring an action to vacate within six months after the child obtains the result of blood or genetic tests that indicate that the man who executed the recognition is not the father of the child, or within one year of reaching the age of majority, whichever is later. If the court finds a prima facie basis for vacating the recognition, the court shall order the child, mother, father, and husband or former husband who executed a joinder to submit to blood tests. If the court issues an order for the taking of blood tests, the court shall require the party seeking to vacate the recognition to make advance payment for the costs of the blood tests. If the party fails to pay for the costs of the blood tests, the court shall dismiss the action to vacate with prejudice. The court may also order the party seeking to vacate the recognition to pay the other party's reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements. If the results of the blood tests establish that the man who executed the recognition is not the father, the court shall vacate the recognition. If a recognition is vacated, any joinder in the recognition under subdivision 1a is also vacated. The court shall terminate the obligation of a party to pay ongoing child support based on the recognition. A modification of child support based on a recognition may be made retroactive with respect to any period during which the moving party has pending a motion to vacate the recognition but only from the date of service of notice of the motion on the responding party.

(b) The burden of proof in an action to vacate the recognition is on the moving party. The moving party must request the vacation on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The legal responsibilities in existence at the time of an action to vacate, including child support obligations, may not be suspended during the proceeding, except for good cause shown.

So, it seems that under Minnesota law, the OP could file suit to revoke recognition. What happens then?

That's the tough question for an attorney to answer. I suspect the choice of law would be where the child was born and not where he lives now. (Or, where the parents live.) This is more a civil procedure question and not a presumption question.

Even in Wisconsin, the presumption seems to be able to be challenged:

891.405  Presumption of paternity based on acknowledgment. A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he and the mother have acknowledged paternity under s. 69.15 (3) (b) 1. or 3. and no other man is presumed to be the father under s. 891.41 (1).

(b)
1. Except as provided under par. (c), if the state registrar receives a statement acknowledging paternity on a form prescribed by the state registrar and signed by both of the birth parents of a child determined to be a marital child under s. 767.803, a certified copy of the parents' marriage certificate, and the fee required under s. 69.22 (5) (b) 1., the state registrar shall insert the name of the husband from the marriage certificate as the father if the name of the father was omitted on the original birth certificate. The state registrar shall include on the form for the acknowledgment the items in s. 767.813 (5g).
2. Except as provided under par. (c), if the parent of a child determined to be a marital child under s. 767.803 dies after his or her marriage and before the statement acknowledging paternity has been signed, the state registrar shall insert the name of the father under subd. 1. upon receipt of a court order determining that the husband was the father of the child.
3. Except as provided under par. (c), if the state registrar receives a statement acknowledging paternity on a form prescribed by the state registrar and signed by both parents, and by a parent or legal guardian of any parent who is under the age of 18 years, along with the fee under s. 69.22, the state registrar shall insert the name of the father under subd. 1. The state registrar shall mark the certificate to show that the form is on file. The form shall be available to the department of children and families or a county child support agency under s. 59.53 (5) pursuant to the program responsibilities under s. 49.22 or to any other person with a direct and tangible interest in the record. The state registrar shall include on the form for the acknowledgment the information in s. 767.805 and the items in s. 767.813 (5g).
4. If a registrant has not reached the age of 18 years and if any of the following indicate, in a statement acknowledging paternity under subd. 1. or 3., that the given name or surname, or both, of the registrant should be changed on the birth certificate, the state registrar shall enter the name indicated on the birth certificate without a court order:
a. The mother of the registrant, except as provided under subd. 4. b. and c.
b. The father of the registrant if the father has legal custody of the registrant.
c. The parents of the registrant if they have married each other after the birth of the registrant.

It seems parentage by acknowledgment requires a specific approved form. Even if the facts of http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/891/891.41 would find the presumption, there seems a process to overcome the presumption with the limitation of:

A genetic test showing another man to be the natural father rebuts the presumption under s. 767.48 (1m) [now s. 767.84 (1m)] and sub. (1) that the spouse of the child's mother is the father, but equitable estoppel may be employed to preclude rebutting the presumption. The issue is whether the actions and inactions of the parties advocating the rebuttal of the marital presumption were so unfair as to preclude them from overcoming the public's interest in the marital presumption based on the results of genetic tests. Randy A. J. v. Norma I. J. 2004 WI 41, 270 Wis. 2d 384, 677 N.W.2d 630, 02-0469.

With the end result being, I think the OP can challenge paternity even at this date. If MN law is followed, it seems the limitation is 6 months from the date of the test results. If WI law, the key will be fairness. (aka equitable estoppel) While I think the very concept to be quite horrible to consider on the part of the OP on a child he has treated as his own for 8 years, he may have a legal leg to stand on. Especially since I think it is MN law that would guide. (Although have not done a civ pro search on the matter.)

 

[CSO286]

Well if she never at the time told me that it could be another guys child and she told me it was mild child and now I start to really see that the child does not resemble me at all and I get a dna teat come back he is not mine, wouldn't that not be fraud on her part? And there for give me a legal ground to bring a paternity case against her?

It's not fraud on her part unless you can prove she named you as Dad with an intent to deceive you. You guys were all busy playing happy families and she named you as dad most likely believing you WERE dad.
No, you still have no case.

 

[Silverplum]

I have tries working with his mother as previously said, I told her I would giver her 800 a month he is on my medi al dental and vision insurance am I said she can claim him every tear in taxes. She said no she want everything she can get out of me so this is the next thing. I know it sounds cruel but my blood children are not going to suffer, I have an obligation to take care of them also and if the ex don't want to work it out this is my only option left.

Q4P, indeed.

 

[Just Blue]

When I got a girl pregnant, was young and never got a test and signed the recognition of parantage form in Minnesota, we got married about a year later and that did not last, never thought the boy looked liked me but always wondered and never got a test, fast forward a few years he is now 8, I finally got a good job I am married now and have 2 kids with my wife, I take my 8 year old 2 days a week, I get a thing from child support saying I have to pay 1400 a month! I have a family at home I have to take care of too after taxes and everything that is almost half my take home pay, so I got a dna test done and it turns out he is not my kid, I live in wisconsin and my sons mom lives in wisconsin what are my options?

I waited to post till I had JUST the right advice for you. ( )is my advice.

Have a great day.

 

[stealth2]

This poor kid...

 

[justalayman]

When I got a girl pregnant, was young and never got a test and signed the recognition of parantage form in Minnesota, we got married about a year later and that did not last, never thought the boy looked liked me but always wondered and never got a test, fast forward a few years he is now 8, I finally got a good job I am married now and have 2 kids with my wife, I take my 8 year old 2 days a week, I get a thing from child support saying I have to pay 1400 a month! I have a family at home I have to take care of too after taxes and everything that is almost half my take home pay, so I got a dna test done and it turns out he is not my kid, I live in wisconsin and my sons mom lives in wisconsin what are my options?

Congratulations. You have a son.


seriously dude, only after you realize you have to pay child support does this become a concern? I bet that makes your son feel great about himself. Shame on you.

 

[justalayman]

I have been paying child support since we split when he was 2 I was paying 360 a month, it's sad that it has to come to money but I have a family to take care of also,t

maybe you should have thought about that before you took on this new family. After all, your son was here first. Maybe you should cut back at home rather than trying to cut out your son.

 

[justalayman]

I have an obligation to take care of them also and if the ex don't want to work it out this is my only option left.

well, you have nothing then because this is not an option that is available to you. Time to buck up and pay your obligations.

 

[swalsh411]

Well..... you could always divorce your wife, re-marry the mother of the child that isn't yours, file yet again for divorce, and then contest paternity. You may even be able to talk your current wife into it.

Just throwing out the option!

 

[myemerald]

I'm curious as to why the child support went from $360/month to $1,400/month. That seems awfully high for one child, and such a drastic increase. Have you looked into that - to see if it can be reduced?

 

[LdiJ]

I'm curious as to why the child support went from $360/month to $1,400/month. That seems awfully high for one child, and such a drastic increase. Have you looked into that - to see if it can be reduced?

I had the same question. He stated that the 1400.00 represented 50% or more of his take home pay, and that sounds quite out of sync since obviously the child is in school and wouldn't have high daycare costs (or any daycare costs if he is correct that mom is not working).

So, maybe what he needs to be doing is appealing that child support order. I played with the numbers on online calculators for both WI and MN and for his support to be as high as 1400.00 a month he would have to be grossing some serious cash, and therefore it wouldn't work out to be 50% of his take home pay.

OP...let me ask you a question. Are you willing to look into that child's eyes and tell him that you are not going to be his father any more? Can you actually DO that and live with yourself?

 

[Pinkie39]

OP...let me ask you a question. Are you willing to look into that child's eyes and tell him that you are not going to be his father any more? Can you actually DO that and live with yourself?

Hmmm, so a father is only a father when he's forking out cash for his child?! Really?! Who said the OP can't still have a relationship with the boy, even if she's not paying child support? And where does Mom's responsibility come into paly here? SHE had an affair, and SHE lied to both her husband and her child about who her child's bio father is. But SHE's not at fault in any way, shape or form?

I think it's a terrible shame that men are only looked at as open wallets when it comes to parenting in this country. They're not viewed as essential to raising children, just only as essential to buying the child things.

Moms are viewed as almightly and holy, but dads are viewed as dumb and incompetent. If anyone doesn't believe me, just look at how men are portrayed on popular TV shows and commercials. And how Father's Dad doesn't receive half the attention and advertising that Mother's Day does.

Women get glorified by the media on Mother's Day, while fathers get to read and watch articles and TV shows about "deadbeat dads" on their "special" day. Never a mention of deadbeat moms, even though women who are ordered to pay child support pay at much lower rates then men (and suffer fewer legal consequences for doing so too).

 

[TheGeekess]

Hmmm, so a father is only a father when he's forking out cash for his child?! Really?! Who said the OP can't still have a relationship with the boy, even if she's not paying child support? And where does Mom's responsibility come into paly here? SHE had an affair, and SHE lied to both her husband and her child about who her child's bio father is. But SHE's not at fault in any way, shape or form?

I think it's a terrible shame that men are only looked at as open wallets when it comes to parenting in this country. They're not viewed as essential to raising children, just only as essential to buying the child things.

Moms are viewed as almightly and holy, but dads are viewed as dumb and incompetent. If anyone doesn't believe me, just look at how men are portrayed on popular TV shows and commercials. And how Father's Dad doesn't receive half the attention and advertising that Mother's Day does.

Women get glorified by the media on Mother's Day, while fathers get to read and watch articles and TV shows about "deadbeat dads" on their "special" day. Never a mention of deadbeat moms, even though women who are ordered to pay child support pay at much lower rates then men (and suffer fewer legal consequences for doing so too).

Oh, look, it's one of the forum's resident trolls again under a different name.

 

[LdiJ]

Hmmm, so a father is only a father when he's forking out cash for his child?! Really?! Who said the OP can't still have a relationship with the boy, even if she's not paying child support? And where does Mom's responsibility come into paly here? SHE had an affair, and SHE lied to both her husband and her child about who her child's bio father is. But SHE's not at fault in any way, shape or form?

I think it's a terrible shame that men are only looked at as open wallets when it comes to parenting in this country. They're not viewed as essential to raising children, just only as essential to buying the child things.

Moms are viewed as almightly and holy, but dads are viewed as dumb and incompetent. If anyone doesn't believe me, just look at how men are portrayed on popular TV shows and commercials. And how Father's Dad doesn't receive half the attention and advertising that Mother's Day does.

Women get glorified by the media on Mother's Day, while fathers get to read and watch articles and TV shows about "deadbeat dads" on their "special" day. Never a mention of deadbeat moms, even though women who are ordered to pay child support pay at much lower rates then men (and suffer fewer legal consequences for doing so too).

Pinkie...you seem to be lacking a bit in reality here.

If his paternity is disestablished so that he no longer has to pay child support, then he will no longer be legally the child's father and therefore will no longer have any rights regarding the child. Therefore his ability to maintain a relationship with the child would be nil. Legal parenthood is comprised of both rights and responsibilities. They cannot be separated.