Paternity fraud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Family law |
| Entering into marriage |
| Prenuptial agreement Marriage Common-law marriage Same-sex marriage |
| Legal states similar to marriage |
| Cohabitation · Civil union Domestic partnership Registered partnership Putative marriage |
| Dissolution of marriage |
| Annulment · Divorce · Alimony |
| Issues affecting children |
| Paternity · Legitimacy · Adoption Legal guardian · Foster care Ward · Emancipation of minors Grandparent visitation Parental responsibility Contact (including visitation) Residence in English law Custody · Child support |
| Related areas |
| Spousal abuse · Child abuse Child abduction · Child marriage Adultery · Bigamy · Incest |
| Conflict of laws |
| Marriage · Nullity · Divorce |
Paternity fraud is the act of falsely naming a man to be the biological father of a child, particularly for the purpose of collecting child support (also referred to as child maintenance), by the mother when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father. The term entered into common use in the late 1990s. It has been given significant coverage by U.S. activists and authors Tom Leykis, Glenn Sacks, and Wendy McElroy.
In cases of paternity fraud, there are many potential victims: the defrauded man, the child deprived of a relationship with his/her biological father, and the biological father who is deprived of his relationship with his child. Subsidiary victims include the defrauded child's and the men's families. In particular, financial hardship may have resulted for the defrauded man's children and spouse in cases in which the man was forced to make child support payments for the other man's child.
In some jurisdictions in some countries, there is limited opportunity to legally challenge the assumption of paternity. For example, by forbidding men to challenge paternity, especially in the context of marriage, by limiting the amount of time allowed to challenge paternity, or by allowing women to make a claim of paternity without adequate chance for rebuttal by the alleged father. Such is the case in state of California. In some jurisdictions, the husband of the mother of a child is held to be the father, regardless of biological relationship.
Contents |
[edit] Testing
The ready availability of genetic fingerprinting allows men suspicious of paternity fraud to request a paternity test to make positive identification of the father. In many countries, such tests require the consent of the mother or an order made by a family court though this is not universally true.
Access to such testing is restricted in some jurisdictions as it is held to not be in the best interests of the child for such information to become available. A man finding out that the child is not his biological child contrary to information supplied by the mother may result in his rejection of the child or mother.
[edit] Occurrence
Statistics from the United States, Australia and other countries suggest that approximately 30% of all paternity tests exclude the putative father as biological father.[1] These numbers do not reflect the overall incidence of non-paternity events in the general population, because the numbers are based on tests performed in cases in which the alleged fathers suspected they were not the biological fathers of the subject child.
According to Steve Scherer, a senior scientist in the department of genetics at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, 10% of babies born in Canada are victims of paternity fraud. A 10% paternity fraud rate was also cited during a science seminar for Canadian judges by a panel of medical experts.[2]
Dr. Jeanette Papp, director of genotyping and sequencing in the University of California at Los Angeles department of human genetics is of the opinion that 15% of children born in the Western world are victims of paternity fraud.[2]
Paternity fraud statistics for Australia provided on a TV show aired by the Australian Broadcasting Company stated that for the year 2003 more than 3,000 DNA paternity tests were ordered by men in Australia, and in almost a 25% of those cases, the paternity test revealed that the children they thought were theirs were actually sired by another man.[3]
Child identity rights are stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). UNCRC articles seven, eight, and nine specifically provide for a child's right to be raised by both biological parents, to be identified properly at birth, and require that the government birth registry contain an accurate record of the identity information of both biological and social parents. Examples of "social parents" include, but are not limited to, adoptive parents, kin parents, couples, or single women who have no direct biological connection with the child because of their use of donor sperm and eggs.
The article "Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences". Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2005 (59): 749-754. http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/9/749. summarizes several studies and concludes that rates of paternal discrepancies vary between studies from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%).
[edit] Cases
[edit] Liam Magill
- Liam Magill.[4][5] was initially awarded compensation for damages, not to be confused with the costs of raising the children, against his ex-wife for pain and suffering as a result of the paternity fraud, but lost upon his ex-wife's appeal to the High Court. The sole issue of this case was civil damages for deceit (fraud) (not reimbursement of child rearing costs or child financial support paid). As of January 2007, Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights" or "Charter of Rights" like Canada, The United States and the European Union. Equality of sex (gender) was therefore not an issue at trial. This case gained world-wide attention. A book titled "Ulitmate Betrayal: Paternity Fraud Expose" was written about this case by American author and lawyer Lea Anna Cooper.[6]
[edit] Jim Knapp AKA Jim "Jones"
- Jim Knapp AKA Jim "Jones"[7], was found to not have fathered a child for whom he was paying child support after a 12 year battle in the California court system.
- Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker, a Florida resident, discovered the child he was paying support for was not his via DNA testing. Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him, stating that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year post divorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support a child she had with another man.[8]
[edit] Steve Barreras
- In New Mexico, Steve Barreras was forced to pay a total of $20,000 for a daughter that never existed. In August 1999, Steve Barreras and Viola Trevino divorced, with Viola later claiming to be pregnant with Steve's child.[9] This was in spite of the fact that Barreras had a vasectomy in 1998 and claimed that Trevino had tubal ligation in 1978.[10] Trevino fabricated a daughter named "Stephanie Renee"[9], who Trevino claimed was born on September 3, 1999[10], and obtained a baptismal certificate, birth certificate, Medicare card and Social Security card for the fictitious girl.[11][12] Mr. Barreras' adult daughter, Eve Barreras, assisted her mother in the scam by filing a fraudulent birth certificate for the phantom daughter with Vital Statistics while she worked at St. Joseph's Northeast Hospital.[10] In 2002, Trevino was able to persuade a court to order Steve to pay child support for the fabricated daughter, by falsifying DNA evidence.[13]
- When the judge demanded to see Trevino's daughter in December 2004, she went to a local mall where she persuaded a grandmother and her 2 year old granddaughter that they were "going to go see Santa Claus", but instead went to the courthouse with the 2 year old girl and attempted to pass her off before the judge as her own.[12] Mr. Barreras, the paternity fraud victim, successfully sued blood laboratory Mobile Blood Services for their role in the DNA hoax. The DNA came from adult daughter Eve Barreras with help of lab employee Pamela Flores.[14]
- Viola Trevino was sentenced to 16 months in a federal prison in Arizona[15] for claiming the "girl" on tax returns. Trevino owes the IRS over $2200 for the fraud and Barreras $26,000 in child support and lawyer's fees.[16] In November 2007, Trevino was supposed to answer state charges that include kidnapping, fraud, and perjury, but disappeared. A warrant was issued for Trevino, who could face another 45 years in prison.[15] She was arrested days later.[17]
- In August 2008, Trevino plead guilty to thirteen of the 24 counts against her. The deal means she could spend 21 years in prison.[18] She was sentenced by State District Judge Albert "Pat" Murdoch 21 years in November 2008 on charges of fraud and perjury, with 15 years suspended, leaving her to serve 6 years.[11] In January 2009, Trevino's sentence was reduced to four years (time served plus one year), but would serve the suspended 15 years if she violated probation.[19]
[edit] Other cases
- A South Korean man won compensation for pain and suffering damages of $42,380 when his wife had another man's baby and committed paternity fraud. Reported June, 2004 in Associated Press, USA.[20]
- In the UK on April 2007 a stockbroker was awarded £22,400 in damages. The judge, Sir John Blofeld, said he had been unable to accept the evidence of the woman, known only as Ms B, who is now 46 and a mother of two, and said she had made repeated "fraudulent representations" to Mr A over the child's paternity.[21]
[edit] See also
- Birth control sabotage
- Extrinsic fraud
- Reproductive rights
- Men's rights
- Men's movement
- Non-paternity event
- child support
[edit] References
- ^ http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144414531354
- ^ a b Abraham C (2002-12-14). "Mommy's little secret". The Globe and Mail.
- ^ "Who's your daddy?". The 7.30 Report (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 2004-10-22.
- ^ Paternity fraud 'dad' loses appeal, The Age, 9 November 2006 - 11:35AM accessed 16 November 2006
- ^ Magill v Magill (2006) HCA 51 (9 November 2006) in the High Court of Australia
- ^ "Ultimate Betrayal: Paternity Fraud Expose" Australian Paternity Fraud website
- ^ "Who's Your Daddy?" Metroactive 19-25 July 2006 accessed 16 November 2006
- ^ Christian Science Monitor
- ^ a b "CNN.com transcripts - Live from ...". CNN. 30 MAR 2005. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/30/lol.02.html. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ a b c Carolyn Carlson (12 DEC 2004). "Ex-husband Paid $20,000 To Support Nonexistent Daughter". Albuquerque Journal. http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/272130metro12-12-04.htm. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ a b "Con woman gets six years". KOB-TV New Mexico (NBC affiliate). 7 NOV 2008. http://kob.com/article/stories/S651737.shtml. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ a b "Agency Culpable in Child Support Scam". Fox News. 17 FEB 2004. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141525,00.html. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ "Con woman ruled competent to stand trial". KOB-TV New Mexico (NBC affiliate). 21 MAR 2008. http://kob.com/article/stories/S420092.shtml. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ "Child support fraud case lands in 2 courtrooms". KOB-TV New Mexico (NBC affiliate). 10 SEPT 2007. http://kob.com/article/stories/S190773.shtml. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ a b "Con woman disappears". KOB-TV New Mexico (NBC affiliate). http://video.aol.com/video-detail/con-woman-disappears/288230386570295329. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ "Child Support Fraud Nets 16 month sentence for woman". http://ancpr.com/blog/2006/10/06/child-support-fraud-nets-16-month-sentence-for-woman.
- ^ "Con woman appears in court". KOB-TV New Mexico (NBC affiliate). http://kob.com/article/stories/s263338.shtml. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ "Trevino pleads guilty to fraud, perjury". KOB-TV New Mexico (NBC affiliate). 1 AUG 2008. http://www.clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/658732/trevino_pleads_guilty_to_fraud_perjury. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ "Trevino fraud sentence reduced". KOB-TV New Mexico (NBC affiliate). 23 FEB 2009. http://kob.com/article/stories/S759299.shtml?cat=519. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
- ^ "Court: woman must pay husband for baby". Associated Press. 24004-06-01.
- ^ "Stockbroker wins £22,000 damages for paternity deceit". http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/04/law.world. Retrieved on 21 FEB 2009.
