Can a Father "by Default" Request a DNA Test Afterward

My question involves paternity law for the State of: ny

ok some people know my case here already, right dogmatique?....

just want to know based on ny laws if, once a father was declared by the court father
by default ( ex because he was avoid being
served, or wasnt present, or papers were sent
to wrong adress/ other) ,

can he later on dispute this judgement and order
a dna test to make sure the child is his?

I really appreciated.

Dunno why fathers think that running/hiding/avoiding service is going to accomplish much. Eventually they can be declared as father, even if they're not, because of their game playing.

If the court has determined that he's the father, after whatever process of service the court accepted as proper (such as service by publication if father was trying to evade service), then he'll remain the father, even if DNA says he isn't. The only person with standing to challenge that determination would be the ACTUAL father, under SOME circumstances (and even if that man steps forward, the court STILL may not find that swapping fathers is in the child's best interest).

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

Dunno why fathers think that running/hiding/avoiding service is going to accomplish much. Eventually they can be declared as father, even if they're not, because of their game playing.

If the court has determined that he's the father, after whatever process of service the court accepted as proper (such as service by publication if father was trying to evade service), then he'll remain the father, even if DNA says he isn't. The only person with standing to challenge that determination would be the ACTUAL father, under SOME circumstances (and even if that man steps forward, the court STILL may not find that swapping fathers is in the child's best interest).

---

I agree with this, but some default rulings can be vacated if the "dad by default" really wasn't actually served...if it was a service by publication or served at a last known address rather than actually being served in person.

I have never heard of it being overturned if the State in question allows for service to be perfected by publication or last known address.

Service in person is not a requirement in any State.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I have never heard of it being overturned if the State in question allows for service to be perfected by publication or last known address.

Service in person is not a requirement in any State.

---

I have seen several in my state. My state does allow service by publication and to last known address. However, our judges seem to avoid default rulings if at all possible as well when it comes to establishing paternity. They would rather see the real biological father identified. Its not really much in the best interest of a child to have paternity established for someone who is both not their biological father, nor involved in their life.

I am talking about situations where a last known address was used but someone can prove that they were actually living in another state at that time, or where service by publication/last known was used and the person could prove that they could have been served in person. Basically, people who were not dodging service, but had no idea what was going on.

Which is entirely different from the OP's situation.

He's ALL about dodging the issue. Unfortunately.

That aside, it's not uncommon here for Mom to show adequate proof that she's practiced her due diligence (which is perhaps worryingly easy to do), service was perfected via publication or LKA, and boom - default granted. If Dad finds out 5 years later? Out of luck, buddy. If he finds out 5 DAYS later? Well, at least he'd have a chance.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Which is entirely different from the OP's situation.

He's ALL about dodging the issue. Unfortunately.

That aside, it's not uncommon here for Mom to show adequate proof that she's practiced her due diligence (which is perhaps worryingly easy to do), service was perfected via publication or LKA, and boom - default granted. If Dad finds out 5 years later? Out of luck, buddy. If he finds out 5 DAYS later? Well, at least he'd have a chance.

---

I really do have a problem with that when it comes to paternity. Particularly for the child's sake. Its as bad in my eyes as mom lying to the child about who daddy is. Its the state lying to the child about who daddy is.

I don't think that's the case at all.

It's not the state's job to inform the child of the child's biological parentage, nor is it the state's responsibility to track down every possible "option" (in terms of Who's Yo Daddy). That falls SOLELY on the parents. What's the court supposed to do? Hold off declaring parentage every time a possible Daddy skips court?

There has to be a line drawn at some point. You don't have to like it, but it happens - and I suspect more often than you might realize.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I don't think that's the case at all.

It's not the state's job to inform the child of the child's biological parentage, nor is it the state's responsibility to track down every possible "option" (in terms of Who's Yo Daddy). That falls SOLELY on the parents. What's the court supposed to do? Hold off declaring parentage every time a possible Daddy skips court?

There has to be a line drawn at some point. You don't have to like it, but it happens - and I suspect more often than you might realize.

---

I don't disagree with a default ruling happening because someone didn't show for court. Honestly that's the only viable option if the party is a no show. I have a problem with someone being able to prove, years down the road, that they could not have possibly known about the paternity suit or the default ruling, and not being given a chance to have DNA confirm or unconfirm paternity. Its not even the child support portion of it that bothers me as much as the paternity portion.

Well, there's another side to that. It's also the putative father's responsibility to at least check up with the recipient of his little soldiers.

I'm not a fan of any default ruling (be it family or civil law). Alas, more often than not it is actually the respondent simply not wanting to face the music, so to speak.

The system isn't perfect. Again though, I suppose lines must be drawn in the sand. This is also which strikes a chord for me; I don't want to hijack the OP's thread further, but did you happen to come across a thread I started about paternity and lies?