Duped Dads Fight Back

It was the lawyers of ancient Rome who came up with the modern definition of fatherhood: Mater semper certa est; pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant (rough translation: The mother is obvious; the father is the one she was married to when the child was born). The Romans, however, didn’t have access to genetic testing. Dylan Davis did. A few months after his divorce in 2000, Davis, 36, a software engineer in Denver, took a DNA test to confirm a nagging suspicion that he was not the biological father of his 6-year-old twins. The negative test results led him to give up partial custody of the boy and girl–”The anger grows and grows, and it just keeps chipping away at your love for those children,” he says–and since his ex-wife moved to another state, he has had no contact with the twins. But under Colorado law, he is still required to pay $663 a month in child support. So Davis is lobbying to change the statute so that he and others like him won’t be held financially accountable for children who aren’t biologically theirs.

Advocates for these so-called duped dads say such men should be treated as victims of fraud and liken the need for paternity-disestablishment amendments to truth-in-lending laws. They point to many an egregious case in which the law’s marital presumption of fatherhood has ended up enslaving a divorced dad, like the Michigan man who proved he had not sired his son but was still ordered to send child-support payments directly to the boy’s biological father, who was granted custody after the mom moved out of his place and left the kid there. Increasingly, policymakers across the country are turning a sympathetic ear to such complaints. Florida last year joined Georgia and Ohio in allowing a man to walk away from any financial obligations regardless of how many years he may have been acting as a minor’s father if he discovers he was deceived into parenthood. Fathers’ rights groups in Colorado, Illinois and West Virginia are pushing for similar legislation that would remove or extend existing time limits for challenging paternity.

Spearheading the legislative movement is Carnell Smith, a Georgia engineer who found out shortly after he broke up with his girlfriend that she was pregnant and spent the next 11 years believing he was the girl’s father. Then, in 2000, after his visitation time had been cut back around the same time that a court order nearly doubled his monthly child-support payments, he took a test that showed he was not the biological parent. Three years and about $100,000 in child support and legal fees later, Smith, 46, managed to disentangle himself from any responsibilities for the girl, and says he walked out of court “a broke but free man.” He successfully lobbied his home state to pass its paternity-fraud law in 2002 and now runs a DNA-testing company. Its slogan: “If the genes don’t fit, you must acquit!”

But justice for a disillusioned dad can clash with the best interests of a child raised to think of him as a father. “These cases get cast as the duped dad vs. the scheming wife,” says Temple University law professor Theresa Glennon, who has examined the changing legal landscape. “This is really about men deserting children they have been parenting.” She points out that severing paternal ties could devastate a child depending on the length and quality of his relationship with the nonbiological father.

Even so, last May the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the state’s current law doesn’t let a court consider a child’s best interests when a father requests DNA testing to determine paternity. And in a sign of the further complications genetic testing may have unleashed, the New Jersey Supreme Court is debating whether a nonbiological father can sue the biological one for $110,000 in child-support reimbursement. The plaintiff in the case didn’t learn the truth about the son he had believed to be his own until the kid was 30.

Some legislators, however, are acknowledging that there is more to fatherhood than what can be defined solely by the sharing of a few genes. Oklahoma last year joined several states in adopting a law that limits the time frame for contesting paternity to a few years after the child’s birth. Paula Roberts, an attorney at the nonprofit Center for Law and Social Policy who helped craft these measures, argues that such time limits protect both the child and the nonbiological father, should Mom ever try to shut him out or the biological dad suddenly show up wanting to horn in. Meanwhile, activists in Oregon are planning to submit two competing bills this session. Both allow a man to contest paternity within a year of discovering he is not the biological father, but only one forces the courts to consider a child’s best interests in every case. The other allows a nonbiological father to get out if he wants to, but if he’s the one fighting to maintain parental status, then the court has to consider the child’s interests. That’s a lot of nuance, but when it comes to determining fatherhood, sometimes an easy answer isn’t what’s best.

via Time

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.


Why should a man child support for a baby he is not allowed to see and isn’t his.

The question breaks down to one of responsibility vs. duty. Contrary to popular misconception these are not synonymous.


In paternity cases, a man has either been given the choice to assume the responsibility of being a father, or he hasn’t. If you have had that choice and decided to have unprotected sex then all the responsibilities which follow are assumed. You must, and the law can justly require, that you face the consequences of those actions.

If, on the other hand, you have not been given that choice, and have fatherhood forced upon you, then at no time were you afforded that crucial moment of free will, of personal liberty. You have been violated. In fact, to force someone into fatherhood is only slightly less evil than forcing a woman into motherhood.

Ultimately the questions which can be adjudicated before the law are ones of assumed responsibility. If your actions do not demonstrate that you made the choice to have a child, your liability in the matter should be void.

However, that doesn’t ameliorate your duty as a human being.


Duty is that which can demand submission. Regardless of personal choice we all share certain duties. “I didn’t ask to be there, but when he pulled that gun I had to act …” Whereas responsibilities are assumed, duties are forced upon us and are required.

A man who has the opportunity to do good for another has the duty to do so. Forgive the biblical reference but the story of the good Samaritan is not just one of extraordinary kindness, but an example of submission to duty. We stop to help others, not because we chose to be there at that time and in that circumstance, but because all people have a duty to help when able. It is a weakness in most of us that we fail in our duties more often than we rise to meet them. The Samaritan did nothing so much extraordinary, as it is us who fail to achieve ordinary measures of compassion.

Thus if you have been a father in name and deed for years then you have demonstrated your ability to aid, and therefore must aid. It is not a question of should, it is a question of must.

Now, we can all fail in our given duties. In fact, the measure of a man is his submission to the necessities of others, and so there can be no legal or physical force placed upon him in matters of duty lest we devalue the good choices made. And yet we can and should heap all manner of scorn, disapproval, and opprobrium on those who do fail in their duties so that next time they’re ability meets that sublime demand they might make a better choice.

To end this, let me say something that the courts cannot but the rest of us must acknowledge. A man who would turn from the face of a child who has grown up needing his love is no man at all.

Poor, poor children. That would suck.

I’m all about the “best interest of the child” so here’s what I propose:

If a woman wants a man whom she has deceived into believing is the father of her child to continue to be the paternal figure in the child’s life, SHE should have to pay HIM child support.

This somewhat (albeit slightly) compensates for the fraudulent scheming and highly illegal adultery, while at the same time providing incentive for the man to continue to be a part of the child’s life.

I understand having the child’s interest in mind. but it the duped ‘father’ doesnt want to be the childs father after finding out he’s been deceived… would he even be a good father figure to have? i think there are probably some decent people out there that would still care about the child and make an earnest effort to take care of him/her. but if the ‘dad’ wants out, he should be allowed, that’s quite possibly the worst act that could be committed in a marriage.

One thing that I think people miss when it comes to accounting for what is best for the child. Is that child support while it helps and can sustain current life style the parent will still be gone. They go on and on about how losing the parent is bad for the child. Which will happen if the father is paying child support or not.

In this day/age in the U.S., being a parent is the choice of the woman, a man does not have the choice to abort a child he does not want. So then the financial responsibility of the child should fall only on the woman.

If she cheats on a man and he finds out the child is not his, this is her fault, not his. If she allows herself to become pregnant while she isn’t married, she should be allowed to use a baby as an opportunity to sucker a man out of money. If she is married to a man who willingly fulfills his duty to provide financially and emotionally for the baby, he should only have to continue to provide for his own children’s financial well-being if he is allowed contact with them (even if he refuses).

It does take two to tango, but, as a woman, I still feel the burden of sexual responsibility must fall on the woman if she is the only one allowed to make the decisions after conception. (I acknowledge it can be more complicated in cases of rape and failed contraception.)

I also consider that abortion is not an option for some people for religious reasons, but in most cases, these same religious reasons would also prohibit sex outside of wedlock… so again, if the woman chooses to keep the baby, that’s her choice.

It’s hard to say what is best for the child when one parent is deceitful and the other doesn’t want to stick around.

I think the problem with the law sometimes is that it has a hard time with gray areas. Laws are set up like computer programs, a bunch of “yes” or “no” questions that lead to a certain non “yes” or “no” answer. I think that the law here would be best served if it were broad and very open to interpretation. This would allow a case by case interpretation.

Although, I think Mobat is right. If a non-biological father no longer wants to pay child support, than the best interest of the child doesn’t matter, the “father” obviously is no longer a good influence for the child.

I think the major problem that people have, is that they don’t want the child to suffer for his mother’s mistakes.

Simple solution for future fathers, GET A GENETIC TEST WHEN THE KID IS BORN.

In fact genetic testing of EVERY newborn and parents probably isn’t a bad idea. If the dude “signs off” after this then he’s ON the hook and has to pay up if a split happens, otherwise it’s up to the mother to turn over the genetic father for his child support.

“A man who has the opportunity to do good for another has the duty to do so. ”

Okay, give all your money to the next person you see. Fool.

Yeah, gotta agree.

Selfish parents. Sure, in this case, mothers are made to look bad. But apparently some other man was involved too… So perhaps selfish adults is more correct. I’ve seen several acquaintances beat their spouses over the head with whatever was available, usually including the kids, and all I could think was ‘wow, you must REALLY love those kids.’

I have two kids. They are my kids because I raised them. Frankly I don’t really care if they are biologically mine, and even if I broke up with my partner, ther is simply no way that I would get tested.

So while I’m apparently in a happy relationship, even a nasty divorce wouldn’t result in me NOT being their dad.

On a separate track, but related, is this: the child support laws are fundamentally flawed. My wife makes twice what I do. But if we got divorced, she’d DEFINITELY get primary custody (I stayed at home longer than she did, but that doesn’t matter) and I’d pay large support and she wouldn’t (because men are to be punished for the fact that OTHER men are arseholes).

So while I sympathize that child support isn’t necessarily fair, this whole ‘use the kids as weapons’ thing is just disgusting.

“A man who has the opportunity to do good for another has the duty to do so. ”

Ian Danforth, you have the opportunity to do good for me by sending me $600. I await your check.


This is clearly a case about equal rights. Not only should the non-biological divorced father have an opportunity to sue the biological father, but also the ex-wife on fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud charges. Why? because it takes two! Why not through in a little negligent infliction of emotional distress charges to boot?

Now, I’m all for equality between men and women, but the law as it is obviously has nothing to do with that. Society should not reward unfaithful wifes who used and manipulated their husbands for years and years. Plain and simple.

almost 20 years ago after our divorce was finalized my ex bragged to everyone that cared to listen the fact that i wasnt my 17 year old daughters father . as if that wasnt bad enough she also went on to say i had molested my daughter. i cant imagine how my daughter felt at the age of 17 and hearing these things from her mother. the abuse was of course a lie , but very good for affect i suppose..
but i still cant imagine to this day what evil crawled up into this woman and caused her to abuse her own children in this manner.

in a small town it not only was a cruel and evil thing to do to my daughter , but also a huge epiphany to me , her supposed father .

i left that town immediately in order to keep myself out of prison , because i knew if i stayed what would happen..

despite my having full parental access to my 3 kids (i also had 2 sons supposedly by this lady) she continually refused visitations and inspite of being held in contempt for her actions i was never to see my children again.

my wifes poisoning of my kids minds against me was ignored by the courts as she used her sexuality and my money to get anything she needed from judges , town , county and state police in small town west virginia while they held me at bay with the threat of going to jail for any reason that suited them..

to this day i have never seen or heard another word from my children and it is very heartbreaking to know your children have grown up without you as a result of living with the lies of their mother..

if the is a god in heaven this lady will have a seat in hell..

do i have a point with my story ??

well.. yes.. i dont trust women too well now and if i was told i was going to be a father now id be sure and get the test.. the last time i did the right thing for a woman it cost me 20 years of fatherhood that wasnt such a bed of roses anyway..


I will give you an example. Although I am a victim of such fraud my best friends is even worse. 24 years ago his girlfriend got preg. They went to their local minister and got married. 9 years later his wife leaves him for the minister that married them and they get married. He paid so much child support that for the next 12 years he was totally destitute. 2 years ago he was at his doctors getting his routine exames and being colored blind the doctor asked him how his eyesite was doing. Then asked him how his son was handling color blindness. He told the doctor his son wasnt color blind. He was then informed that was impossible because his was genetically passed down from father to son 100% of the time. This lead to DNA tests whcih confirmed it and also later confirmed the minister was the father. So all those years his exwife had been cheating on him with their minister, who also married them and then paid the two of them child support to help them raise their kid! Now how messed up is that. When confronted the ex and minister simply told him they knew all along but really needed his child support payments to make it. He has no retirement, no home of his own. The child doesnt care about him because he was rarely allowed to see him. And to think the minister is still preaching at their old church. So stop all this talk about it takes more than being a sperm doner to be a day. As most of us already know. Once you are divorced the woman gets to decide for how much longer you will get to play dad. Because the courts arent going to enforce your visitations. As far as the legal system is concerned there is only one parent ( the mother ) and one provider ( the father, otherwise known as the wallet or sucker ). If you do find your kids arent yours you might want to just keep quiet. When I found out 5 years after my divorce that neither of my children were mine I threw it in her face. She just laughed. I didnt fight it because indiana laws. But the next ime I took her to court for violating visitations. Her attorney stated that since the kids werent mine and as they grew older I might be more inclined to do them harm. I have no criminal record and even served for several years as a police office and federal bulding security. Yet now I dont get to see my kids at all and still pay 1200.00 a month in support and have to live in the gettos in order to keep a roof over my head. My ex works for the US Postal service and is build her second home. Really not much left to do but wait to die. Just hope when that day comes they wont find my body til after the kids are 21 so she wont get my Social Security! If I sound bleek, just try having your family ripped out from under you and any chance of building a future or retirement no matter how hard you try. The more you work the more they give her. 3 jobs and I have to use a space heater to keep warm because I cant afford the gas bill. Oh, and to head you liberals off at the pass. Public assistance wont help because child support is not counted in figuring if you qualify for assistance nor can child support be counted off at tax time. For all you guys out there, just keep it in your pants or move to a state that has a paternity fraud bill.



i cant believe the crap you guys in the USA have to put up with, over here in the UK it can be the same, but the government hasnt got its act together so the guys just disappear and there is no onus on the mother to reveal the fathers identity.
As for the paternity fraud, if it happened to me, i would not pay a penny, do an overnight flit to another country.
What is wrong with women cant they understand basic humanity, if hes not the father, its wrong to try and con him. i cant wait until the first test case allows a conned nonbio father to sue both the mother and the bio father for everything they have defrauded him out of.
I agree that it takes more than biology to become a good father, that is a weak excuse for years of deceit.
I become a dad and take responsibility because i believe i created this life simple, nothing complicated about that.
The Women that perpetrate this kind of crime (and it is a crime) are despicable. In a high percentage of cases, the child will want to know who their biological father is and why he didnt want the child, in addition the child cans alway turn to the nonbio and say the usual cliche “you are not my father”…
So i dont think there are any happy ever after endings when the child is born into deceit.

I found out in December of 2005 that my wife cheated on me 4 years ago. I am just now able to afford a DNA test. After discussing this matter with her, it seems that she knew all along that the child was not mine.
I love this child with my every being and want the best for him. I am a believer in a man taking on his responsibility and want the paternal father to step up and help support this child.
I also would like to bring my wife up on fraud and embezellment charges. She willingly had a child by another man and in the scheme of things she made a choice to deceive me.
A crime is a crime anyway you look at it. For anyone to not see her actions as crimminal is insane. All she had to do was tell me the truth in the beginning and allow me the choice to claim this child as my own.
By doing what she has done, she has broken up a family that has 3 other children who I an sure are mine.
The president is always talking about family values. The message that is sent by a cheating wife is a factor that destroys the value of a family.

it is wrong for a woman to do this to her children and husband,laws should be dna test at birth,also where are the childs right to know biological father,why does a man need to put up with a womans lies?pay for a child not his ~struggling all the way,taking away from his biological children?it’s crazy.it’s a crime & shouldn’t be accepted.

oh and where is the man that doesn’t know ?Where are his rights?

You should see Louisiana’s archaic system. It does provide for a loophole which I (and I am sure many other people) didn’t know about. In that state, you are assumed to be the father if you are married to the woman UNLESS you disavow the children within a certain period of time. It used to be 180 days, but now it is 300 days. THEREFORE IF YOU ARE A MAN IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA I WOULD STRONGLY STRONGLY STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY GET A PATERNITY TEST DONE WHEN A CHILD IS BORN. If it is yours, then congratulations. If it is not, then you can save yourself a whole lot of money later on. If you make 30,000 a year then you will pay $500 a month or so for a child. Which is 6K per year and in twenty years amounts to $120,000. However, if you get a better job, then expect those figures to rise dramatically.

Why is a father’s love only assumed to be as deep as his pockets??? Just because a man no longer wants to pay the ex extortion money for being lied to and cheated on doesn’t mean he is abandoning the child. A man should have a choice of whether he wants to continue to help take care of a child that turns out not to be his. Legally, he should not be forced to pay child support. Most men, if they have a relationship with the child, will continue to love the child. The courts should not reward a woman who cheats and passes off a child as someone elses. Better to find a man with a good job and deep pockets than allowing a child to meet and know their biological family??

The feminist movement is alive and kicking ever so powerfully, in the U.S. How else can one explain the nonsensical positions being advocated by them; to the effect that even if a man discovers that he is not the biological father of a child, he should still be required to provide for the child’s upkeep!
Question: shouldn’t the non-biological father have an option? What if the reverse is the case; when he discovers the child is not his, and he decides not to have anything to do with both mother and child? Is it fair to prevent him from walking away, when he is also a victim of the mother’s deception?
Women should understand the simple biological fact that the impetus for fatherhood is ordained by nature. Most men would be reluctant to take care of kids that are not theirs, biologically, except where they voluntarily agree to do so, where they are aware of all the surrounding circumstances, beforehand. Granted, a man can develop very deep emtional-bonds with his non-biological chil(ren), but the point I’m making is that he should not be forced to play that role. Therefore, this issue is not “about men deserting children they have been parenting.” In the first instance, they were made to believe that the kid was biologically theirs, hence the “parenting”. The issue is about deciet, selfishness, money and trying to ‘get-back’ at the man for seeking to bring the relationship to an end. Deciet, because the man is decieved into thinking or believing that the child is his; after all, the assumption in an exclusive relationship is that there are no third-parties involved (sexually). Selfishness, because the woman is only thinking about herself and her pocket. It is probable that a mother would not seek child-support from the non-biological ‘dad’ of her child, if she could easily bear the financial responsibility alone. So, in a nutshell, money, or the lack of it, is a major part of the issue. As for a woman’s vindictiveness, I need not say much on this.
Should fatherhood (and all the obligations associated thereto) be forced upon an unwilling, non-biological father?

If the answer to the above is ‘yes’, then (ironically) wouldn’t that be tantamount to re-inforcing the stereotypical situation we often times complain bitterly about; fathers (the biological ones) not being held responsible/accountable for their ‘actions’?
In a sense, even the advocates of ‘daddy by-force’ are inadvertently reducing the concept of fatherhood to simply paying child-support. This is because you cannot legislate on the emotions; I cannot like you by-force. I can pretend to like you, but in the context of fatherhood, that absurd state-induced position, may be more dangerous than letting nature, in her infinite wisdom, take her course.
Loving the child and voluntary support vs involuntary servitude and financial slave are two different scenarios.
In conclusion, I’d say, yes, the sperm does not a father make, but where there is no biological connection (based on deception), fatherhood should be voluntary, not enforced!

Uhhhh…correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see the gray area here. . if they’re NOT his kids, he DOES NOT HAVE to pay child support unless he CHOOSES to, and VISITATION RIGHTS must come with it . If A DADDY PAYING CHILD SUPPORT is considered what’s best for the kid, that’s fine - you just have the WRONG DADDY paying child support - let the BIOLOGICAL dad pay it. See how easy that is?

Still don’t understand? Need an example? You get a bill from your doctor’s office saying you need to pay for little Johnny’s knee surgery, but guess what? You don’t have any kids named Johnny..the DOCTOR’S OFFICE made the mistake of charging the wrong Daddy. Of course what is in little Johnny’s best interest is that the surgery is paid for. So in the best interest of little Johnny would you pick up the tab, or would you do the logical thing - call the DOCTOR’S OFFICE and tell them they sent the bill to the wrong daddy? does the DOCTOR’S OFFICE then have the right to say, “Oops, we did make a mistake.Sorry! But yknow, in the BEST INTEREST OF LITTLE JOHNNY, we decided YOU should pay the tab and NOT his real daddy” Doesn’t make sense does it? The DOCTOR’S OFFICE is WRONG for charging you for someone else bill aren’t they? Yeah, well replace DOCTOR’S OFFICE with LYING MOTHER AND U.S. JUDICIAL SYSTEM and the picture should come in pretty clear - If the genes don’t fit, you must acquit!

P.S. - @#$* a time limit, wrong is wrong no matter how much time has passed - Best solution require by law to take DNA tests, that eliminates this issue altogether

P.S.S. - Ian Danforth, I got a couple of hospital bills for my kids, if you would like to do your duty, even though your not the biological dad, and pay these bills in the best interest of my children. Thanks - I’ll mail them to you. What’s your address? LOL : )

My nephew is going threw a divorce and he just found out that his soon to be exwife is pregnant with another mans baby can he still get the divorce if the child isn’t his.He lives in Texas

However, as is customary nowadays, many politicians and judges seem completely unconcerned that men can be defrauded in this way with impunity even though the discovery that someone else is the father of their children must be one of the most devastating psychological shocks that a man can experience. Nevertheless, in many parts of the western world the legal system has been so corrupted by its officials that judges can now force men who discover that they have been deceived with regard to their paternity to continue to pay child support for children who are not theirs, and to be compelled to do so for many years into the future.The bogus arguments in support of this blatant and utterly reprehensible piece of chicanery that treats such men as if they were utterly worthless and completely undeserhee million ving of any consideration at all, rest, as usual, on the fraudulent claim that the ‘interest of the child’ is best served by treating them in this atrocious manner.

Furthermore, by forcing men to pay financially for the children of women who have defrauded them, women are simply encouraged into deceiving both their partners and their children. How can this possibly be of benefit to children? - particularly given that they will likely discover the fraud in the future when DNA testing becomes commonplace for various reasons. - particularly given that they will likely discover the fraud in the future when DNA testing becomes commonplace for various reasons.Indeed, the interests of society as a whole cannot possibly be served at all by politicians who are quite observably so morally corrupt that they are actually prepared to inflict grievous injustices upon citizens who have already been defrauded, and to do so for no other ostensible reasons than to protect their own narrow

After all, there can surely be no doubt that the major concerns of government officials when it comes to this matter are simply to do with saving themselves from having to pay out money to support the children of deceptive women, and to demonstrate their subservience to the feminist agenda - which promotes the view that it is mostly acceptable for men to be treated as if they were unworthy of any real consideration.That unfortunate men who have been selected and successfully duped by lying women should be further victimised by the state has nothing to do with ‘the best interest of the child’ and everything to do with the saving of money and the female vote.

However, so immoral, so self-serving, and so CORRUPT has the western legal system become in its treatment of the male gender and in its willingness to defend the actions of lying and fraudulent women that the mantra ‘in the best interest of the child’ is usually only parroted by government officials to obscure the fact that they are, in reality, simply acting blindly in the interests of selfish women - whatever the consequences might be for anyone else.

Leave a comment