.jpg)
Copyright Wikimedia Commons
Two paternity cases decided by Monroe County Family Court Judge Dandrea Ruhlmann in 2009 but only listed in New York State Official Reports on March 19, 2010 show clearly, as have other cases we have written about, that when it comes to paternity DNA testing is not the final determinant.
According to Judge Ruhlmann, the best interests of the child takes precedence over DNA testing.
In Linzi W. v John R., the court refused to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity signed five days after the birth of a child who is now more than four years old, even though DNA testing showed that the father who signed the acknowledgment of paternity is not the child's biological father. The child's mother petitioned the court to vacate the paternity.
This case is more complex than the above synopsis shows. At one point a petition of neglect was filed against the mother, and there was testimony about the father's alleged lack of parenting skills. However, in its final paragraph, the court summarized the entire case by stating, "Crucial it is in John's best interests that both res judicata and equitable estoppel prevent vacatur of the acknowledgment of paternity. The Attorney for the Child advocates that the parties work together and put an end to the questioning of paternity. John shall not lose his family, including Respondent (the only father he knows - and has, considering that his other potential father is serving a life sentence in prison)."
In the second case, In the Matter of a Paternity Proceeding Chanthoan M., Petitioner, against David F. Evan H., Respondents, it was the biological father who wanted to bar DNA or GMT (Genetical Marker Testing) from being admitted into court. The Respondent argued "that his consent to the GMT was induced since Petitioner failed to disclose that she was married prior to the test."
However, the court stated in its decision "Neither the marital presumption nor equitable estoppel bars the admission of the GMT. The GMT, showing the probability that Respondent is Mariah's biological father at 99.97%, creates a rebuttable presumption of Respondent's paternity. As Respondent did not adduce evidence to overcome such presumption, the GMT constitutes the requisite clear and convincing proof to declare Respondent's paternity (Family Court Act § 532 [a]; see Matter of Cheryl P. v Theodore D., 217 AD2d 997 [4th Dept 1995])."
For more info:
Read New York State court rules that child's best interests trumps father's right to DNA testing
Read Another New York State court rules that best interests of the child trumps father's right to DNA testing
Comments
It's almost never "In the best interest of the child". It's always "in the best interest of the State, or the judge, or the CPS worker". The Friend of the Court gets Federal funding for every dollar it collects in child support. So, someone must be the father and someone must pay so they can get their matching funds.
I agree for the most part. A lot of what goes on in family court is motivated by counties wanting to be reimbursed by the state and federal government, as well ask making sure someone pays for the kids so they stay off the welfare rolls. Justice and what really is in the child's best interests are often sacrificed for money.
If there was any doubt in anybodys mind that the child support system was all about the money this should pretty much wiped it out. People in this country realy need to wake up and take a look at this system whos pourpose is nothing more then to use children to fliece money away from the nearest man that they can get money from. Whether or not he is the father simply doesn't matter.
This is slavery and nothing more.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!