Paternity Actions & Child Support

Paternity cases are often some of the most delicate matters our law firm handles.? While honesty is the best policy and we always hope the other party tells the truth throughout legal proceedings, we see first hand that this is not always the case. When one party is misleading or acts in a fraudulent manner, particularly in paternity cases, the emotional impact of such discovery is intensified.

?

We highly recommend that you seek legal help if you find yourself involved in a paternity action because time is of the essence in disputing an acknowledgment of paternity. In situations where the mother lies and the alleged father is in fact not the paternal father of the child, under Massachusetts law, a parent has only sixty days to rescind (cancel) an acknowledgment of paternity made out of court. ?The law places the burden on presumptive fathers to carefully consider what consequences may arise from acknowledging paternity. Therefore, there are instances where a nonbiological father may be ordered to pay child support regardless of his blood relationship with the child.

?

The policy reasons for such a stringent bar against belated denials of paternity are rooted in the best interest of the child and for promoting family stability. Where a father and child have a significant parent-child relationship, undoing an acknowledgment of paternity may be potentially devastating to a child. Paternity of Cheryl, 434 Mass. 23, 32 (2001). Thus, “consideration of what is in a child’s best interests will often weigh more heavily than the genetic link between parent and child.” Paternity of Cheryl, at 31. A party need not be biologically related to be considered a ‘parent’ for child support purposes. “Consequently, absent an adjudication of custody to the contrary, a parent… living in the home with his minor children and supporting those children, is a custodial parent.” See Dep't of Revenue v. C.M.J., 432 Mass. 69, 77 (2000)(internal citations omitted).

?

When a party is aware of the fact that he is not the biological father of the child, this does not support a claim of fraud on the court and cannot be used as evidence to support an argument against the other party for allegations of fraud and collusion. The landmark case on this issue, Paternity of Cheryl, held that the mother’s failure to disclose that the father was not the biological father of the child was not the proper form of fraud or egregious conduct requiring the order of child support be vacated. Conduct such as nondisclosure to the adverse party without more, does not constitute fraud on the court for purposes of setting aside a judgment under Rule 60(b).