Paternity Fraud

[screwdup]

My question involves paternity law for the State of: Pennsylvania
Two and a half years ago I was raped while away from home. When I returned home to my boyfriend I tried to pretend it didn't happen. I couldn't fell apart, we broke up. 2 months later I found out I was pregnant. I didn't know until an ultra sound that it was in fact the boyfriend, but we had both moved on, so I didn't tell him. My fiance at the time signed the BC, and acknowledged paternity, even though we both know he can't have children. Two years later, my fiance at the time and I are on rocky ground, I regret the decision to keep out the biological father, so I told him. At first he was supportive, now he is just threatening me with fraud, and wanting to completely take the child, is that possible. What rights does he have? I'm scared I am going to loose my child, I realize the mistake I made and feel sorry, I am willing to discuss visitation, be he wants sole custody, would I loose for fraud? I'm not even asking either for child support because of the mistakes that I made. Am I in trouble?

[LawResearcherMissy]

Until paternity is legally established through DNA testing, your ex-boyfriend is a legal stranger to the child. He has ZERO rights at the moment.

No, he cannot simply take your child away from you because you didn't tell him you were pregnant. No, not telling him you were pregnant is not enough for the courts to award him sole custody. He can bluster all he wants, but that's all it is. Bluster.

Retain counsel. If you're discussing visitation, the first thing that needs to happen is that DNA testing must be done to establish paternity. THEN you can work out visitation and custody. Unless you're strung out on drugs, mentally unstable, unemployed and living in squalor, it is HIGHLY improbable that the court would award him sole custody.

Once paternity is established, you should seek child support. Support is not about him being a blustering fool or you making a mistake in not telling him. Support is about ensuring that your child's needs are met. Don't cheat your child out of that.

[GV70]

My question involves paternity law for the State of: Pennsylvania
My fiance at the time signed the BC, and acknowledged paternity...

Until paternity is legally established through DNA testing, your ex-boyfriend is a legal stranger to the child. He has ZERO rights at the moment.

No! There are three ways to establish legal paternity in Pa.One of them is a man to sign BC. It is legal determination./but it does not give automatically visitation or child support rights and obligations/
He has legal rights and the court will be obligated to consider his visitation and custody wishes.

[GV70]

Pa 231/chapter1910/Rule 1910.15. Paternity.
(a) Acknowledgment of Paternity. If the action seeks support for a child born out of wedlock and the alleged father is named as defendant, the defendant may acknowledge paternity in a verified writing. The conference officer shall advise the parties that pursuant to Section 5103(d) of Title 23 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes an acknowledgment constitutes conclusive evidence of defendant’s paternity without further judicial ratification....

[LawResearcherMissy]

The biological father did not sign the birth certificate. He needs to pursue paternity testing, the court isn't going to consider anything until he does.

[GV70]

The biological father did not sign the birth certificate. He needs to pursue paternity testing, the court isn't going to consider anything until he does.

Legal and biological fatherhood are different legal terms. In Pa there is 60 days time limit to contest a paternity acknowledgment.After that this acknowledgment is final and enforceable.He does not need to pursue paternity testing.

[LawResearcherMissy]

I think you missed an important point in the OP's post. It's the biological father who is seeking custody, not the fella who signed the birth certificate.

Since he's not the legal father, he hasn't any rights to the child at all right now. If he wants any, he has to seek paternity testing, and given that he is aware that the child is biologically his, he need only file suit alleging fraud to set the test in motion.

The 60 day limit is not absolute in this regard. Fraud, duress and simple mistake are enough to get the suit filed and heard, and proof of fraud or duress are enough to grant a motion to vacate the original acknowledgment of paternity.

[GV70]

I think you missed an important point in the OP's post. It's the biological father who is seeking custody, not the fella who signed the birth certificate.

Yes, It was ambiguous...
According to Pa legislation and Court practice BF is out.
Example:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
2007 PA Super 288 R.W.E.vs.A.B.K. AND M.K.
Syllabus:
Appellant R.W.E. appeals from an order entered on December 5, 2006,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, rescinding the
acknowledgment of paternity executed by Appellant and A.B.K. (Appellee
Mother) and adjudicating M.K. (Appellee M.K.) as the biological father of the child.1 Upon review, we reverse the December 5, 2006 order.
The child in this case is J.R.K. (D.O.B. 11/12/2004).
At the hospital, within days of the child’s birth, [Appellant] executed an “Acknowledgment of Paternity” form as provided by the Department of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(a).The child at issue was born out of wedlock.Appellee Mother and Appellant, at that time, made an agreement that Appellant would be the father of this child. The parties continued to reside together until approximately November of 2005.

The genetic test revealed that the probability of paternity for Appellant was 0.00%.
Additionally, although we understand the intention behind the trial
court’s decision to rescind the acknowledgment of paternity in favor of the biological father, the law, in this instance does not provide for that result.This is not the typical situation where a putative father attempts to revoke his previously accepted parental duties because he later discovers that he was fraudulently induced into accepting this role.This situation is unique in that both Appellant and Appellee M.K., the biological father, are attempting to claim legal responsibility for this child.

The Court cited Klingensmith v. Kuhn, 2006 Pa. Dist. & Cnty.
A child’s legal father is not merely a matter of biology. It is also
the person who accepted parental responsibility voluntarily and
early, and who, through his consistent commitment to the child,
meets [the child’s] basic needs. Legal parenthood is not merely
based on an act of procreation. It can also be earned by an
adult who meets the child’s needs and is committed to the child.

In addition, it would allow a
third party to disrupt at any time a stable parent-child relationship based on an allegation of fraud because he was not informed previously of his status as the potential biological father.


In conclusion, we find that the trial court erred in its determination
that the acknowledgment of paternity should be rescinded...Accordingly, we
reverse the December 5, 2006 order rescinding the acknowledgment of
paternity executed by Appellant and Appellee Mother and adjudicating
Appellee M.K. as the biological father of the child.

[GV70]

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA also held that:
" fraud consists of “anything calculated to deceive, whether by single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture.” Martin v. Hale Prods., 699 A.2d 1283, 1287-88 (Pa. Super.1997)"
Fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact must be established through clear and convincing evidence.

The test for fraud is: (1) misrepresentation, (2) a fraudulent utterance, (3) an
intention by the maker that the recipient will thereby be induced to act,
(4) justifiable reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation, and
(5) damage to the recipient as a proximate result. N.C. v. M.H., 923 A.2d
499, 503 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). Further, fraud consists of
“anything calculated to deceive, whether by single act or combination, or by
suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct
falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or
gesture.” Martin v. Hale Prods., 699 A.2d 1283, 1287-88 (Pa. Super.
1997)Our review of the record reveals no evidence that
Appellee Mother or Appellant made a fraudulent utterance or
misrepresentation to Appellee M.K. concerning whether or not he was the
father of the child in order to induce Appellee M.K. to act in a certain way in
reliance on this misrepresentation. Additionally, although Appellee M.K.
testified that he had no contact with Appellee Mother for two years before
she notified him that he may be the father of the child, we do not find
Appellee Mother’s silence to rise to the level of fraud.