N.Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity'

[Tyrael]

N.Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity'

By John Caher

New York Law Journal
07-11-2006

He who acts like a father, is a father -- if not biologically than at least legally -- the Court of Appeals said Thursday in imposing "equitable paternity" on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a girl and acted accordingly.

The court in Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 40, upheld the trial court and the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, in ordering a man to pay child support on behalf of a child he did not father. In doing so, it recognized the legislatively endorsed concept of "equity paternity," or paternity by estoppel (see Family Court Act §§ 18 [a] and 532 [a]).

Shondel J. centers on a Guyana native who, while living in New York, met a woman in Guyana while visiting family in 1995. After the man, Mark D., returned to New York, the woman, Shondel J., informed him that she was pregnant and carrying his child.

Mark did not dispute his paternity. Instead, he helped pay for Shondel's pregnancy, visited the girl he thought was his and made her a beneficiary of his life insurance. He also signed a letter affirming his fatherhood so the child could obtain immigration papers. In 1999, he married another woman, and they have children.

The next year, Shondel moved to New York and lodged a paternity petition in Brooklyn, and Mark filed a separate visitation petition. A court-ordered DNA test proved that Mark was not the father.

At that point, Mark attempted to sever ties with the girl. But he was equitably estopped from disclaiming paternity and ordered to pay child support. The child support amounted to $78 weekly, plus retroactive support of $12,859. Mark has had no personal contact with the child since March 2000.

On appeal, Mark argued that the imposition of "equitable paternity" effectively saddled him with an involuntary adoption, in violation of the Constitution and contrary to public policy.

But the 2nd Department, and now the Court of Appeals, focused not on whether Mark got a raw deal, but on the best interests of the child.

"In allowing a court to declare paternity irrespective of biological fatherhood, the Legislature made a deliberate policy choice that speaks directly to the case before us," Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt wrote for the 5-2 majority. "The potential damage to a child's psyche caused by suddenly ending established parental support need only be stated to be appreciated. Cutting off that support, whether emotional or financial, may leave the child in a worse position than if that support had never been given."

Like the lower courts, the Court of Appeals found that Mark had in every way held himself out to be the child's father -- buying her Christmas and birthday presents, referring to himself as "daddy," introducing her to his family, and regularly communicating with her. Mark had claimed he had rarely seen or had contact with the child, but none of the courts hearing his case believed him.

"The issue does not involve the equities between the two adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child," Judge Rosenblatt wrote. "The Legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation ... [T]he mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."

All four women on the court -- Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Victoria A. Graffeo and Susan Phillips Read -- joined Rosenblatt. Judge George Bundy Smith dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Robert S. Smith.

'COMPLETELY INNOCENT'

The dissenters objected to the application of estoppel against a "completely innocent litigant" who was misled by the child's mother. They noted that the woman swore in Family Court that she had not had sexual relations during the relevant time span with anyone other than Mark, an assertion that DNA analysis proved was a lie.

They said the decision rewards people who make no effort to nurture or support a child who may be their own while penalizing people like Mark who immediately assumed responsibility.

"With this decision, this Court supports a public policy that says a man should never take on a parental role unless he wants to be unconditionally responsible for the child's financial support," Judge Bundy Smith wrote.

Judges Smith and Bundy Smith concluded that it could not serve the child's best interests "to have an order of filiation declare respondent to be her father, a man, who in addition to having no biological tie, has no interest in continuing a relationship with her or her mother."

Mark was represented by Ann L. Detiere of Manhattan. Steven P. Forbes of Queens argued for Shondel while Barbara H. Dildine of Brooklyn appeared as law guardian.

Link.

In the UK this would be "adoption by deceit". This is like a fraud, a crime.
DNA testing at birth needs to become a standard option.

Sometimes they use the "not best interest of the children" argument. However that doesn't fly when women commit abortion which is usually done out of selfishness.

All four women on the court -- Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Victoria A. Graffeo and Susan Phillips Read -- joined Rosenblatt. Judge George Bundy Smith dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Robert S. Smith.

That says enough. The female judges should burn in hell.

[Tyrael]

N.Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity'

By John Caher

New York Law Journal
07-11-2006

He who acts like a father, is a father -- if not biologically than at least legally -- the Court of Appeals said Thursday in imposing "equitable paternity" on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a girl and acted accordingly.

The court in Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 40, upheld the trial court and the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, in ordering a man to pay child support on behalf of a child he did not father. In doing so, it recognized the legislatively endorsed concept of "equity paternity," or paternity by estoppel (see Family Court Act §§ 18 [a] and 532 [a]).

Shondel J. centers on a Guyana native who, while living in New York, met a woman in Guyana while visiting family in 1995. After the man, Mark D., returned to New York, the woman, Shondel J., informed him that she was pregnant and carrying his child.

Mark did not dispute his paternity. Instead, he helped pay for Shondel's pregnancy, visited the girl he thought was his and made her a beneficiary of his life insurance. He also signed a letter affirming his fatherhood so the child could obtain immigration papers. In 1999, he married another woman, and they have children.

The next year, Shondel moved to New York and lodged a paternity petition in Brooklyn, and Mark filed a separate visitation petition. A court-ordered DNA test proved that Mark was not the father.

At that point, Mark attempted to sever ties with the girl. But he was equitably estopped from disclaiming paternity and ordered to pay child support. The child support amounted to $78 weekly, plus retroactive support of $12,859. Mark has had no personal contact with the child since March 2000.

On appeal, Mark argued that the imposition of "equitable paternity" effectively saddled him with an involuntary adoption, in violation of the Constitution and contrary to public policy.

But the 2nd Department, and now the Court of Appeals, focused not on whether Mark got a raw deal, but on the best interests of the child.

"In allowing a court to declare paternity irrespective of biological fatherhood, the Legislature made a deliberate policy choice that speaks directly to the case before us," Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt wrote for the 5-2 majority. "The potential damage to a child's psyche caused by suddenly ending established parental support need only be stated to be appreciated. Cutting off that support, whether emotional or financial, may leave the child in a worse position than if that support had never been given."

Like the lower courts, the Court of Appeals found that Mark had in every way held himself out to be the child's father -- buying her Christmas and birthday presents, referring to himself as "daddy," introducing her to his family, and regularly communicating with her. Mark had claimed he had rarely seen or had contact with the child, but none of the courts hearing his case believed him.

"The issue does not involve the equities between the two adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child," Judge Rosenblatt wrote. "The Legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation ... [T]he mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."

All four women on the court -- Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Victoria A. Graffeo and Susan Phillips Read -- joined Rosenblatt. Judge George Bundy Smith dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Robert S. Smith.

'COMPLETELY INNOCENT'

The dissenters objected to the application of estoppel against a "completely innocent litigant" who was misled by the child's mother. They noted that the woman swore in Family Court that she had not had sexual relations during the relevant time span with anyone other than Mark, an assertion that DNA analysis proved was a lie.

They said the decision rewards people who make no effort to nurture or support a child who may be their own while penalizing people like Mark who immediately assumed responsibility.

"With this decision, this Court supports a public policy that says a man should never take on a parental role unless he wants to be unconditionally responsible for the child's financial support," Judge Bundy Smith wrote.

Judges Smith and Bundy Smith concluded that it could not serve the child's best interests "to have an order of filiation declare respondent to be her father, a man, who in addition to having no biological tie, has no interest in continuing a relationship with her or her mother."

Mark was represented by Ann L. Detiere of Manhattan. Steven P. Forbes of Queens argued for Shondel while Barbara H. Dildine of Brooklyn appeared as law guardian.

Link.

In the UK this would be "adoption by deceit". This is like a fraud, a crime.
DNA testing at birth needs to become a standard option.

Sometimes they use the "not best interest of the children" argument. However that doesn't fly when women commit abortion which is usually done out of selfishness.

All four women on the court -- Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Victoria A. Graffeo and Susan Phillips Read -- joined Rosenblatt. Judge George Bundy Smith dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Robert S. Smith.

That says enough. The female judges should burn in hell.

[Rebadow]

He who acts like a father, is a father -- if not biologically than at least legally -- the Court of Appeals said Thursday in imposing "equitable paternity" on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a girl and acted accordingly.

Translation: We just want your money, pal.

"The issue does not involve the equities between the two adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child," Judge Rosenblatt wrote. "The Legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation ... [T]he mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."

Translation: Now that we already have you paying, there's no chance in hell we'll let you go.


This is such bullshite. I'm so fed up with them trying to hide behind the "best interest of the child"™ phrase. Even when there's no doubt that women were lying, they protect them via children. Best interest of the child my arse. More like best use of the child.

"With this decision, this Court supports a public policy that says a man should never take on a parental role unless he wants to be unconditionally responsible for the child's financial support," Judge Bundy Smith wrote.

Again, what an impossible condition. Just how exactly is he to know this for sure? The last time I checked, he needed mother's permission for a DNA test - and given the fact that she knows she's a lying skank, she won't exactly be ready and willing. "You don't trust me? I'm so disappointed in you", blame and shame, blah blah blah.

I really don't know why we have crimes such as fraud then. After all, following this logic, parties should never take on a certain role unless they want to be unconditionally responsible for the consequences that will follow, even when deceit and and deception occurred.

[Rebadow]

He who acts like a father, is a father -- if not biologically than at least legally -- the Court of Appeals said Thursday in imposing "equitable paternity" on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a girl and acted accordingly.

Translation: We just want your money, pal.

"The issue does not involve the equities between the two adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child," Judge Rosenblatt wrote. "The Legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation ... [T]he mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."

Translation: Now that we already have you paying, there's no chance in hell we'll let you go.


This is such bullshite. I'm so fed up with them trying to hide behind the "best interest of the child"™ phrase. Even when there's no doubt that women were lying, they protect them via children. Best interest of the child my arse. More like best use of the child.

"With this decision, this Court supports a public policy that says a man should never take on a parental role unless he wants to be unconditionally responsible for the child's financial support," Judge Bundy Smith wrote.

Again, what an impossible condition. Just how exactly is he to know this for sure? The last time I checked, he needed mother's permission for a DNA test - and given the fact that she knows she's a lying skank, she won't exactly be ready and willing. "You don't trust me? I'm so disappointed in you", blame and shame, blah blah blah.

I really don't know why we have crimes such as fraud then. After all, following this logic, parties should never take on a certain role unless they want to be unconditionally responsible for the consequences that will follow, even when deceit and and deception occurred.