Legion World Forums LEGION OUTPOST Mission Monitor Board Quislet's Super Law Firm...of Space!

I disagree.

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.

I'll let this stand over night for others to comment. Then I'll post the actual outcome.

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.

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.

Motion denied!

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.

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?

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.

Oh, and I believe paternity tests can only exclude potential fathers, but can't establish with certainty that someone is in fact the father.

Nice discussions people.

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.

Here's another case:

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)

Possession is 9/10 of the law. Sam gets the fox.

Ditto

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?

Pity? Based on his "shooting" it's unlikely he'll ever catch one that way!

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.

The instant a wild animal is brought under the control of a person so that actual possession is practically inevitable, a vested property in it accrues to him which cannot be divested by another's interfering and killing it.

Max pursued the fox to its exhaustion. The chase brought the animal into control.

Max's fox.

Well, this happened in colonial times (or around the time of the Revolution) The land was just unowned forest.

Sam did get the fox. The court ruled that if Max had injured the fox, then he would have had a proprietary interest. But because he didn't, he had no legal claim.

OK, this wasn't an actual court case but a hypothetical from my Ethics class.

As you know (or should know) Lawyers have the duty to keep what is said to them in strictest confidence. The main exception is this:

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b).

(b) A lawyer may reveal such information:

(1) to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm, or in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, or to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another;

So the hypothetical goes like this:

A client of yours comes to you and says that her boyfriend was arrested for being in a barroom fight. She asks you to go help him. In the police station, he tells you that he is HIV positive. He wants to know if that would change the charges against him for the fight. He also tells you that he hasn't told anyone yet.

The question: Do you tell his girlfriend - your client about his HIV status?

I'm much more interested in knowing how HIV status could change criminal charges for someone, but the way I would interpret this scenario is that nondisclosure of HIV status in a relationship is neither a criminal nor a fraudulent act. It's certainly not a crime to have consenting, unprotected sex.

So, while unprotected sex with this man would/could result in your client contracting HIV, I don't think you could justify telling her. A case could be made that nondisclosure of HIV status is fraudulent, but I think that gets into invasion of medical privacy.

Sucks, but I think you have to be quiet.

In a sense, that was his question. It was put in there to make sure that you understood that he was telling you (the lawyer) this in relation to representation.

A further question is whether this guy is a client of yours (you haven't agreed to represent him yet) and whether the confidentiality duty still attaches.

People have been convicted for spreading HIV. Some Googling gave me this article.

Here's the Washington State statute.

Should the lawyer tell the girlfriend? I'd say yes, after discussing it with the barroom brawler. Maybe the lawyer can convince the guy to tell her himself. Regardless, the woman should be informed, because HIV could cause substantial bodily harm. (Does consensual sex depend on both parties being fully informed?)

I'm not sure if the fact that he hasn't formally accepted the man as a client makes a difference in this case. Does that mean you can tell a lawyer stuff, then he can decide to not take you as a client and rat you out? If that's the case, shouldn't the guy be informed first that anything he says won't be confidential until he is a client?

I think the lawyer would first advise the client that he could be charged with spreading HIV if he didn't tell her, and that he, the lawyer, would be ethically bound to tell her if he didn't.

I'm still very concerned with this "charged with spreading HIV" stuff.

From what I've read, it is mainly about someone with HIV knowingly, deliberately spreading it to others.