The new information (namely, that Joe is not Suzy's father) voids the contract he made with Mary 7 years ago, since that contract was entered into under false pretenses. The fact that Mary may have been discouraged from determining Suzy's biological father is not his problem.
A contract is not legally binding if entered into under false pretenses.
-------------------- White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll let this stand over night for others to comment. Then I'll post the actual outcome.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In order to have a paternity test or any other medical treatment/testing done on a minor (Suzy is only 7), one must be the parent of the child and sign paperwork attesting to that. Joe must have signed such papers in order to have the test done. By doing so, he was attesting that he was in fact, the parent.
If he did not believe himnself to be the parent at that point, then he had no legal standing to contract with the lab in order to have such tests done and he illegally entered into a contract with the lab. The results of that test were therefore void because he entered into it under false pretenses and was not entitled to "profit" from that contract (by receiving the results of the paternity test.)
Because of this, the court should not recognize the results of the test as a valid result. Therefore there is no proof that Suzy is not his daughter and the court has already ruled on the need to order such a test.
I would think that besides losing the case concerning paternity, he might also be guilty of contempt by contravening an express order of the court in this case that no paternity test would be done.
-------------------- "Hey Jim! Get Mon out of the Zone!! And...when do we get Condo back?"
From: Paragon City on patrol | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems unlikely that a court would find it in the best interest of the child to (1) sever a parent-child relationship that Suzy has known all her life and (2) discontinue financial (and other tangible or intangible means of) support. I'll agree with Lad Boy; Joe may not be the biological father, but he is the legal father.
posted
Is there such a thing as a 'common-law parent'?
By not challenging his paternity years ago and in-fact acting like the daddy of Suzy all these years, I think Joe is on the hook as the papa regardless of actual biology.
From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Joe signed the paternity papers. He could have requested a paternity test at the time, but waived his rights (if that's a right). Mary did not outright deceive him, although she obviously hid the possibility that there was could be a different father. So, eyes wide shut, he became the legal father and should be required to continue support payments.
Little Suzy should sue Joe for emotional damage, or something like that. But that's another case.
BTW, can paternity tests be in error - or are they 100% accurate?
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
I suppose I find the argument that he has effectively taken on the responsibility of being Suzy's father by acting as such for all these years, and is thus obligated to continue financial support. However, I'm not completely convinced that it's in the child's best interest to have someone who is not her biological father be forced to continue to play the role of her father against his will.
I guess the ideal scenario would be to locate the actual biological father, and if he is willing and able to do so, have him take over the responsibilities of paternity. Barring that, Joe should continue to do so.
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
Oh, and I believe paternity tests can only exclude potential fathers, but can't establish with certainty that someone is in fact the father.
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eryk, I think DNA testing can prove paternity close to 100%. Of course, what did happen was that Joe was ruled out as the father.
Initially I and the whole class were of the "Well he isn't the biological father so he should have to pay" side of the argument.
One point the professor made (as did a couple of you) was the effect on Little Suzy of Joe suddenly not being her dad. Although in thinking about this case last night, I also thought of just what Eryk said about how good a father Joe will actually be considering what he had already done.
The clincher that changed things for me was when the professor showed us the paternity form. Right were you would sign is a big warning saying "Don't sign if you have any doubts about the paternity. Signing will bind you to legal obligations regarding the child. If you have any questions regarding your paternity, have a paternity test before signing." (or words to that effect)
So the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that Joe is the legal dad and is legally required to provide chld support.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Max went fox hunting with some friends. Spotting a fox, Max shouted "Tally-ho" and gave chase. MAx chased the fox for about a half an hour, occassionally taking shots at it, but not hitting it once. Then Max lost track of the fox.
Sam was in the forest communing with nature. Suddenly a fox jumped into his lap. Sam thinks "Hey there is a bounty for foxes and I just made a fast five dollars." Just then Max rides up and says "Hey! That's my fox! My friends can tell you how I have been chasing it for over a half an hour." Sam replies "I don't see your name on the fox."
The land upon which Max was hunting and Sam caught the fox is unowned.
So who's fox is it?
(Note: The real case was financed by the fathers of Max & Sam and cost more than the fox was worth)
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kid Prime: Possession is 9/10 of the law. Sam gets the fox.
Ditto
-------------------- "Hey Jim! Get Mon out of the Zone!! And...when do we get Condo back?"
From: Paragon City on patrol | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In thinking about this one I realized that most people will just go with Sam. Can anyone think of a reason to give the fox to Max?
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pity? Based on his "shooting" it's unlikely he'll ever catch one that way!
-------------------- "Hey Jim! Get Mon out of the Zone!! And...when do we get Condo back?"
From: Paragon City on patrol | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd also say Sam gets the fox, since the land is "unowned" (does that mean government land?) and nobody owns the fox, so it's finders keepers.
That's until the SPCA files an amicus brief on behalf of the fox.
For Max to get the fox? Maybe the practice of fox-hunting, that he was part of an organized hunt (not just walking by and spotting the fox), that he demonstrated intent to capture the fox by pursuit and shooting gives him prior claim to the fox - so Sam was interfering with Max's obvious, declared and legal intent. If a jurisdiction promoted fox-hunting, they might have a law which favours the hunters.
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Nice discussions people.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
