Scotland's National Newspaper
96% of women are liars, honest
5,000 women polled
Half the women said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would
lie about the babys real father.
Forty-two per cent would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant,
no matter the wishes of their partner.
More ..
Paternity Fraud - Opposite -Ontario Courts Judgements
Two opposite judgements from the Ontario Court of Justice about paternity fraud in the Canada's most populous province, Ontario.
This is an article containing analysis by an experienced, well published, Ontario lawyer whose practice is restricted to family law.
These 2 recent paternity fraud cases were in the Ontario Court of Justice. This article was published in the June edition of the Law Times, a Canadian publication for lawyers.
Take a look at the judgements of Madam Justice June Maresca versus Mr Justice Peter R. W. Isaacs linked on the right side of this web page.
Paternity Fraud in Ontario, Canada
Two recent cases demonstrate the need for counsel
awareness and legislative action
By Gene C.
Colman, May 22, 2005, published in the Law Times
magazine of Canada. Gene Colman's website is
www.4famlaw.com
Two recent cases demonstrate the differing attitudes to
paternity fraud on the part of the judiciary. What is paternity
fraud? Paternity fraud occurs where the biological mother
knows (or has good reason to believe) that the father is
not really the biological father, yet she chooses to mislead
him as to his (non-existent) role in the conception of a
child. When the father finds out the truth (and this inevitably
occurs after a period of time when the father has treated
the child essentially as his own child), he may choose to
apply to the court to cancel any existing child support
order. Courts have not been consistent in their approach
to this challenge.
In her article entitled,
Mommy's little secret published in the 14 December 2002
edition of
The
Globe and Mail, medical columnist Carolyn Abraham reviews
much of the literature and reports on her conversations
with some key people in the field. She reveals some astonishing
statistics from apparently reliable sources. The bottom
line is this: Paternity fraud appears to occur in somewhere
between 5% and 15% of cases. In the case of one science
class project in Britain (that was not directed towards
the issue of paternity fraud but rather to genetics and
blood types), it was unexpectedly discovered that 30% of
the kids dads had been duped as to paternity! The Globe
and Mail article along with a plethora of other sources
can be found at
www.canadiancrc.com .
Justice June Maresca released her reasons on March 11,
2005 in the case of B.B. v. C.P.B., [2005] O.J. No.
1209 (O.C.J.), (Brampton, Ontario registry No. 579/03.)
The case report says the parties were married in 1998 and
separated in 2001 but that there were thirteen years of
marriage. (Therefore, it would appear that 1998 should read
1988. This may be significant given Justice Marescas emphasis
on the importance of the childrens own perceptions of their
relationship with their psychological father.)
In B.B., the father argued that had he known the true state
of affairs from the outset that he would never have never
formed a settled intention to treat the children as his
own. (See the [Ontario] Family Law Act, section 1
definition of parent: parent includes a person who has demonstrated
a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or
her family.) Justice Maresca cites legal authorities of
other courts that supported the fathers argument. Yet Her
Honour also refers to the Supreme Court of Canada decision
in Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242, 235 N.R. 1,
134 Man. R. (2d) 19, [1999] 4 W.W.R. 633, 193 W.A.C. 19,
168 D.L.R. (4th) 540, 43 R.F.L. (4th) 1, [1998] S.C.J. No.
79, 1999 CarswellMan 25 (S.C.C.) where the issue was not
biology at all but rather, whether the fellow who had fulfilled
the role of psychological father could unilaterally withdraw
from the paternal role that he had previously voluntarily
assumed. In any event, Justice Maresca, while she admits
that the facts in Chartier are very different from the facts
of this case (paragraph 15), nonetheless proceeds to rely
upon Chartier to come to the conclusion that once a father,
always a father. Accordingly, this father was not able to
avoid the child support claim.
Justice Peter R.W. Isaacs of the same court (albeit presiding
in Woodstock) reached the opposite conclusion in a decision
released on March 1, 2005: K.L.B. v. J.M., [2005]
O.J. No. 998 (O.C.J.), (Woodstock Ontario Registry No. D257/01).
The parties had resided together only for two and one half
months for some time before the child was born. Unlike Justice
Marescas case, the father had never resided with the mother
after the child was born. The child was born on 4 May 2001
and the father certified the childs birth registration and
consented to an order dated 20 December 2001 wherein he
was granted joint custody and paid child support. However,
notwithstanding his nagging doubts about paternity dating
back even to December 2001, the father waited until October
2002 to surreptitiously have genetic testing carried out.
The result was that he was not the father at all.
Faced with the test results, the mother then confessed to
having been raped and withholding that information previously.
The father immediately terminated all contact with the child
and promptly moved at the outset of 2003 to have his child
support obligation cancelled.
Justice Isaacs seemed to be somewhat miffed with the deceit
practised by the mother. His Honour wrote at paragraph 20:
This withholding of important information related to paternity would amount to deceit to the extent that the case law considers sufficient in order to rescind any obligation of paying child support.
And at paragraph 23, His Honour wrote:
The mother's omission of disclosing all relevant information about conception in the face of the respondent's questions is tantamount to deceit. She perpetuated that falsehood allowing the respondent to assume responsibilities that he might have rejected if he had known the truth. She did this despite his repeated and ongoing questions about paternity. He was forced to take unilateral action to provide some certainty about paternity and, since learning the truth and being advised as to his legal rights, he has ceased all contact with the child.
In the result, the support order was cancelled going
forward but because the father was found to have delayed
somewhat when he previously had his suspicions about paternity,
His Honour would not order any repayment of the interim
support order and the judge declined to make a costs order
in favour of the father.
These two March 2005 decisions, both from
the Ontario Court of Justice, simply cannot be reconciled.
This writer suggests that one of those cases has to be legally
incorrect. Yet, from a strictly humanitarian policy perspective,
one could argue that a thirteen-year track record (as in
Justice Marescas case) would militate in favour of fixing
such a father with continuing liability. On the other hand,
Justice Isaacs decision addresses the situation of the father
taking action as early as seventeen months after the childs
birth and where the time was so limited, policy might dictate
a more lenient approach with such a father.
However, fraud is fraud. What is the correct legal manner
in which we are to apply the [Ontario] Family Law Acts
approach to settled intention?
The Canadian
Children's Rights Council maintains that there should
be government paid mandatory non-invasive paternity testing
at 13 weeks into a pregnancy. Paternity testing done right after birth only costs governments $50 per baby
Letting every parent know the actual biological truth at
a very early stage is one option. There are others. This
writer suggests that we do require public discussion as
to the most fair and humane way to address paternity fraud
and that the legislature should take up the challenge in
order to provide the courts with more definitive direction.
Australian Attorney General - "... the most significant reforms to the family law system in 30 years"
- The Australian Attorney-General - Philip Ruddock MP
Media Release 099/2005, 25 May 2005
EASIER, QUICKER, SIMPLER: A CLEARER PATHWAY IN FAMILY LAW
Parties in family law cases will have an easier, quicker and simpler way to commence proceedings, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced today.
Mr Ruddock said a new combined registry would be established
as a result of cooperation between the Family Court of Australia,
Federal Magistrates Court and the Attorney-General's Department.
"The combined registry is a key part of the package of the
most significant reforms to the family law system in 30
years," Mr Ruddock said.
Part of the new Australian Family Law concerns paternity fraud and the repayment of child support received by mothers that deceived a man.
Men that have been duped into paying for children that aren't their biological children automatically get their child support payments back and the cost of raising those children since the child's birth.
The government department that collects child support on hehalf od child support recipients is responsible for getting the money back from the perpetrator of the fraud as well as the man's portion that was paid to raise the child based on government calculations of the cost to raise a child.