May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Categories [more]
General (1983)
Lawyer 2 Lawyer (283)
Latest Blogs
This Month's Posts [more]
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Links of Interest [more]
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Quote of the Day - Society suffers when justice is not provided by the system, and money interests seem to take precedence over the well-being of families and taxpayers. It shouldn't be this difficult to get fairness, especially when the truth can be so easily obtained with a legal DNA paternity test. - Carnell Smith
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo

Genetic Testing Good Enough To Prove Man Wrongly Named As Father Isn't, But Not Good Enough For A Refund

Terry Burton had a child she named Tyler James, and listed Taron James as the father.  When Tyler was born in 1992, Taron was in the Persian Gulf with the armed forces and denied being Tyler's father.  Taron even offered to pay for genetic testing to prove he was not the father.

Mother declined the testing, something MIPTC has cautioned about before.

Not to be dissuaded, however, Mom sued Taron and obtained a default judgment against him for child support, and the court ordered Taron to pay $121.00 per month.  Taron paid it but played no role in Tyler's life, and continued to deny he was Tyler's father.

Frustrated with making the payments, Taron sued to contest paternity.  This time, he obtained an order for genetic testing, which conclusively proved he was not the father.  Vindicated, he sought the return of his $121.00 monthly payments for the last seven years from Tyler's Mom, Ms. Burton.

The Court of Appeal held that California Family Law Code section 7648.4 prevents Taron from recovering the money he wrongly paid in child support.  The Court ruled the legislature intended that in cases like this, the wrongly declared father can't get his money back.  The statute, the Court says, is designed to protect the child at the expense of the wrongly named father.

The familiar ring of the "best interests of the child" can be heard loudly in this case.  Taron argues that while that may be the case, since it was Terry who wrongly named him, she should be the one to pay him back.

You know what they say:  it all flows downhill, except when it's in the air.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 15:59 Comments Closed (0) |
 
Share Link