Illinois high court rules paternity agreement carries more weight than DNA test

[Dusty]

Illinois high court rules paternity agreement carries more weight than DNA test

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS

The Associated Press

09/23/2004


SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Documents trump DNA when it comes to deciding a child's legal father, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court held that a man who signed a paternity agreement saying he fathered a baby cannot challenge the document now, even though DNA tests prove he isn't the biological father. The agreement can be challenged if it was obtained through fraud or duress but not because it is simply wrong, the court said.

The case involves Romel Smith of the Chicago suburb of Bellwood, who signed a paternity statement in 1997 and agreed to pay child support. The document said he was waiving his right to genetic testing.

Several years later, he grew suspicious. A DNA test showed he wasn't the father after all.

But the court says Smith remains the legal father.

"I'm quite shocked," said Smith's attorney, Gary Paul McFarling. "I really don't understand the Supreme Court and their logic."

He said it has not been uncommon for Illinois courts to allow challenges to paternity agreements, and this ruling will sharply limit that practice. McFarling, who had not decided whether to ask the court to reconsider, said that could open the door to lawsuits by mothers trying to enforce old paternity agreements that had been thrown out.

In another case, the Supreme Court allowed a suit in which a man claims he fathered a child with a woman married to another man. The husband tried to get the suit thrown out, arguing he is the presumptive father, but the court said the suit can go forward.

"This area of law is moving fast all over the country, and it has produced a lot of confusion and inconsistency," said David Meyer, an expert on family law at the University of Illinois law school.

The Smith ruling adds to the confusion by barring paternity challenges in some cases, such as when a man signs a voluntary agreement, but allowing them in others, Meyer said. A man going through a divorce, for instance, could challenge paternity if he learned that a child born during the marriage was not his.

A major problem nationwide is that it's not clear whether to focus on accuracy in determining the biological father or consistency in declaring a father and then protecting children from wrenching changes, he said.

"That's what courts and legislatures are really struggling with right now," Meyer said. "They haven't settled on a consistent principle, which is why the law is so confusing."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, and here is where it gets so confusing for them - "..it's not clear whether to focus on -accuracy in determining- the biological father or -consistency in declaring- a father and then protecting children from wrenching changes, he said

So, it's clear that the state is having a problem of figuring out if it should go for accuracy [one shot, one kill] or consistency [use a shotgun and bag whoever falls out of the tree we just shot].



Hummm... so it boils down to getting the right guy or any guy you can blame, eh? Seems like a class action suit in the making to me...

[Beachcomber]

>
>The case involves Romel Smith of the Chicago suburb of Bellwood, who =
>signed a paternity statement in 1997 and agreed to pay child support. =
>The document said he was waiving his right to genetic testing.=20
>
>Several years later, he grew suspicious. A DNA test showed he wasn't the =
>father after all.=20
>
If the document said that he was waiving his right to genetic testing,
why is he trying to make a claim based on genetic testing at a later
date.

Maybe he was given bad legal advice and should not have signed a
document with that clause.

I am sympathetic to father's rights... But a contract is a contract.

Beachcomber

[The Dave©]

> Beachcomber wrote:

>
> >
> > The case involves Romel Smith of the Chicago suburb of Bellwood,
> > who = signed a paternity statement in 1997 and agreed to pay child
> > support. = The document said he was waiving his right to genetic
> > testing.=20
> >
> > Several years later, he grew suspicious. A DNA test showed he
> > wasn't the = father after all.=20
> >
> If the document said that he was waiving his right to genetic testing,
> why is he trying to make a claim based on genetic testing at a later
> date.
>
> Maybe he was given bad legal advice and should not have signed a
> document with that clause.
>
> I am sympathetic to father's rights... But a contract is a contract.

I have to agree. Whether through bad advice or just plain old naivety
(sp?), he voluntarily gave up his rights. Having said that, it's now
obvious that people should not sign away their rights in documents such
as these. In fact, I'd take it a step farther... I'd have language
put in that specifically *preserves* my rights, just so there's no
confusion.

--
If Illinois is the "Land of Lincoln", what were they before the Civil
War?

[JayR]

(Beachcomber) wrote in message >...
> >
> >The case involves Romel Smith of the Chicago suburb of Bellwood, who =
> >signed a paternity statement in 1997 and agreed to pay child support. =
> >The document said he was waiving his right to genetic testing.=20
> >
> >Several years later, he grew suspicious. A DNA test showed he wasn't the =
> >father after all.=20
> >
> If the document said that he was waiving his right to genetic testing,
> why is he trying to make a claim based on genetic testing at a later
> date.
>
> Maybe he was given bad legal advice and should not have signed a
> document with that clause.
>
> I am sympathetic to father's rights... But a contract is a contract.
>
> Beachcomber

The state of California has the "POP" (Paternity Opportunity Program),
which is basically a legal form that hospitals "encourage" men to sign
acknowledging paternity (and waiving rights to contest it once two
years have elapsed). The hospital will not add a man's name to the
child's birth certificate unless he signs the form. The state pays
the hospital $10 for each completed form.

So far California has paid roughly $9 million to hospitals in return
for men's signatures on these forms. Why?

Men, particularly young, naive men, who are sweating bullets in the
hospital supporting a woman giving birth, will probably sign just
about anything placed in front of them, and probably without reading
it carefully. Perhaps Romel Smith had no idea what he was signing at
the time, or perhaps he was given assurances by the mom that he was
the father and trusted her and did receive better information until 2
years had passed. The story doesn't tell many the details of Mr.
Smith's story (surprised?).

Sure, getting legal advice prior to signing would have been a good
idea. I don't know if that's always practical, however. Men, our
sons and brothers, need to be educated about these things BEFORE they
find themselves with pen in hand at the hospital.

[Dave the wave]

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
Illinois high court rules paternity agreement carries more weight than DNA test

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS

The Associated Press

09/23/2004


SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Documents trump DNA when it comes to deciding a child's legal father, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court held that a man who signed a paternity agreement saying he fathered a baby cannot challenge the document now, even though DNA tests prove he isn't the biological father. The agreement can be challenged if it was obtained through fraud or duress but not because it is simply wrong, the court said.

The case involves Romel Smith of the Chicago suburb of Bellwood, who signed a paternity statement in 1997 and agreed to pay child support. The document said he was waiving his right to genetic testing.

Several years later, he grew suspicious. A DNA test showed he wasn't the father after all.

But the court says Smith remains the legal father.

"I'm quite shocked," said Smith's attorney, Gary Paul McFarling. "I really don't understand the Supreme Court and their logic."

He said it has not been uncommon for Illinois courts to allow challenges to paternity agreements, and this ruling will sharply limit that practice. McFarling, who had not decided whether to ask the court to reconsider, said that could open the door to lawsuits by mothers trying to enforce old paternity agreements that had been thrown out.

In another case, the Supreme Court allowed a suit in which a man claims he fathered a child with a woman married to another man. The husband tried to get the suit thrown out, arguing he is the presumptive father, but the court said the suit can go forward.

"This area of law is moving fast all over the country, and it has produced a lot of confusion and inconsistency," said David Meyer, an expert on family law at the University of Illinois law school.

The Smith ruling adds to the confusion by barring paternity challenges in some cases, such as when a man signs a voluntary agreement, but allowing them in others, Meyer said. A man going through a divorce, for instance, could challenge paternity if he learned that a child born during the marriage was not his.

A major problem nationwide is that it's not clear whether to focus on accuracy in determining the biological father or consistency in declaring a father and then protecting children from wrenching changes, he said.

"That's what courts and legislatures are really struggling with right now," Meyer said. "They haven't settled on a consistent principle, which is why the law is so confusing."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, and here is where it gets so confusing for them - "..it's not clear whether to focus on -accuracy in determining- the biological father or -consistency in declaring- a father and then protecting children from wrenching changes, he said

So, it's clear that the state is having a problem of figuring out if it should go for accuracy [one shot, one kill] or consistency [use a shotgun and bag whoever falls out of the tree we just shot].



Hummm... so it boils down to getting the right guy or any guy you can blame, eh? Seems like a class action suit in the making to me...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't understand why the state/s would create such a "trap". Are woman so deviant that men must be snared at a very vulnerable time in order to ensure the child has a father? Imagine your wife/lover is about to deliver (or just delivered I guess) and you're asked to decide if you think your mate has been sleeping around or not. Do you even consider that you are forfeiting future rights? Except for the most casual of affairs, this "trap" could in and of itself cause significant problems. Your mate says, "what do you mean you can't be sure you're the father?". This situation is absurd for the father. There is no "win" choice for the father.

Then a few years go by and after months of arguing, or maybe months of becoming more intimate, she reveals the affair she was having 9 or 10 months before little Johnny was born!!!! I was in a relationship were the bottom fell out and I learned things about my ex I would have never dreamed of on my own. (My sons were teenagers so I never even considered the possibility they weren't mine. DNA match or not, they are my sons.)

There should be a third choice were the father admits to the best of his knowledge the child is his offspring, but should information arise pointing to the contrary, the father can request a DNA test be taken to resolve any questions. I don't think a DNA test could be requested at the father's whim, for the emotional protection of both child and mother; but, neither should the father have to bring in some other guy who says the child might be his, just to request a DNA test. If the father has some reason -other than he just wants to emotionally hurt the mother- he should be granted a paternity test.


--
from
Dave the wave~~~~~

[GudGye11]

But if he was relying on the mother's assertion that he, indeed, was the father
then his signing of the paternity statement WAS under fraud or duress just as
any other document signed when you rely on something that someone says.

I can just see the mother now, looking at poor Romel with those puppydog eyes,
"Of course you're the father, Romel darling...now please sign the papers."

The event in question can be resolved in the future if the state would simply
implement a law which says that the mother will declare who the father is, and
DNA testing will be done in ALL instances to insure that the same fraud is not
perpetrated in the future. Don't make it voluntary...make it mandatory for ALL
births, not just births to single mothers. Then there will be no questions in
the future.

In article >,
(Beachcomber) writes:

>>The case involves Romel Smith of the Chicago suburb of Bellwood, who =
>>signed a paternity statement in 1997 and agreed to pay child support. =
>>The document said he was waiving his right to genetic testing.=20
>>
>>Several years later, he grew suspicious. A DNA test showed he wasn't the =
>>father after all.=20
>>
>If the document said that he was waiving his right to genetic testing,
>why is he trying to make a claim based on genetic testing at a later
>date.
>
>Maybe he was given bad legal advice and should not have signed a
>document with that clause.
>
>I am sympathetic to father's rights... But a contract is a contract.
>
>Beachcomber