DNA test doesn’t stop Oklahoma man's child support liability
Under state law, fathers can’t question paternity after two years
BY WENDY K. KLEINMAN
Comments 
21
Published: December 29, 2008
When an Oklahoma man’s ex-wife told him she was pregnant, he asked if he was the father.
Multimedia
More Info
Laws elsewhere
Paternity issues nationally have resulted in court cases and legislative changes. Georgia passed a law in 2002 allowing men to end child support payments if DNA testing proved they were not the father. Since then, courts there have not only allowed men to end their child support responsibilities, but also required women to repay child support they have received.
Paternity issues nationally have resulted in court cases and legislative changes. Georgia passed a law in 2002 allowing men to end child support payments if DNA testing proved they were not the father. Since then, courts there have not only allowed men to end their child support responsibilities, but also required women to repay child support they have received.
State limits
DHS only performs genetic testing within the first two years of a child’s life, which is the state limit on contesting paternity.
After the two years, "it comes into the best interests of the child and protecting the child to ensure that there’s a source of reliable support,” said Jeff Wagner, spokesman for the DHS Child Support Enforcement Division.
The child the Oklahoma man pays child support for is nearly 5 years old.
Looking forward
State Rep. Ben Sherrer, D-Choteau, filed a bill last session that would have changed the contest period after hearing from a constituent in a similar situation.
The bill would have given presumed fathers one year from the time they discover they are not the parent to contest paternity. The bill died in committee and Sherrer did not refile it for this session.
He said the problem is rare but perplexing.
"It creates a little bit of a clash in policy issues because we don’t want to leave a child without a father ... but I think it’s a pretty bad public policy to support fraudulent acts (if the mother knew the father might be someone else),” Sherrer said.
Stepping up
The man who contacted The Oklahoman has visitation rights but said he has not been allowed to see the child since Thanksgiving. He either wants custody of the boy or will step aside if the biological father comes forward.
"I want what’s in the best interest in the rest of his life,” he said.
Related Topics:
Law, Health and Fitness, Medicine, Political Policy, Politics, Family Law, Child Custody, Health Care Issues, Genetic Testing
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Lke Tom says: "call your reps". Perhaps it can be the start of a return to normalcy.
Lke Tom says: "call your reps". Perhaps it can be the start of a return to normalcy.
Even if a child is not the biological child of a father, the state's interest is extorting money from a man using the threat of losing his licenses or liberty? People need to march on Frankenstein's castle in each county and burn it to the ground if that is the state's contention. The monster must die. The lying mother is a co-conspirator to the extortion and should by statute lose custody of the child. The actual father who is not receiving visitation or has his relationship blocked by the lying mother should also be compensated by the mother. I have seen a child support enforcement Petition in Cherokee County where it states that ONLY "John Doe" could be the father of child "Daddy Unknown." Simultaneously, there are Petitions stating only Jack Doe, Harry Doe and Tom Doe are the fathers, thus the attorney who signed off on the Petition is lying and should be disbarred for out-and-out lying in at least 75% of those circumstances.
That is akin to convicting a person in court that is not guilty.
Women who perpetrate such fraud should be prosecuted.. In addition to being prosecuted, the man wrongly named as "father" should recoup from the mother for any money paid her under the guise of "child support" with interest added.
Oklahoma law (Chapter 10, article 77, article 2), in part says: "A man is presumed to be the father of a child if: 1. He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage; 2. He and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within three hundred (300) days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, dissolution of marriage or after decree of separation:, etc. This means that unless the "father" demands a court involved paternity finding, he is responsible for any child she chooses to give birth to including one that results from her adultery and lies.
Assuming paternity is bad policy when there is a scientific test that is readily available and becoming more reasonably priced that can PROVE it one way or the other. Why does the state rely on "presumption" when proof is available? The answer is "money".
Even in cases where the mother and true biological father have later married -- the man originally identified as the legal father has still been forced to pay child support to the mother. This is insane!