My mother filed  paternity suit[s] against a man who got out of the suits on legal technicalities. The judge dismissed the 2nd without prejudice--plaintiff could file again. Blood test [privately ordered] came back 1 wk after case dismissed [prior to settlement] showing the man not excluded. A settlement was agreed to by my mother and the man for a small sum not to pursue him legally as heir [she agreed for me in this settlement]. It did not speak to paternity--but I don't have the document to know for sure. All I have been able to recover as evidence are the 2 dismissed cases and the blood test.
The settlement was never approved by the court and my paternity was never established. She was also on state assistance at the time and the state was not included in the case as an interested party. According to VT at the time, settlements were allowed and the only time they had to be approved by the court was if the state had an interest--this was not done.
He is listed on my b-cert [mother as informant] and, consequently, VT family court doesn't recognize him as my father. However, Vital Records and Probate Court state otherwise. So much so that to remove him from my b-cert would demand a court order or a dna test [which they can't enforce--goes back to Family Court].
The statute of limitations in VT on establishing paternity is 21. I'm 36. The statute allows the child to petition also. I understand the statute in relation to child support issues [$] and even inheritance. How can it limit a person "right to know"--origin, med history? Adoptees are challenging and succeeding in knowing their origin [b-certs] and the law should allow me to have the same rights [since my b-cert isn't proven to be true and I have no recourse to amend it].
I feel my rights are being violated based on age discrimination --Particularly since I had no knowledge of my rights to petition paternity within the allowable time frame. Right to know should have no limitation [it doesn't for adoptees] and this out of court settlement was used as a tool ---with the knowledge that he was not excluded as the father---to hide from:  the law,  what the state believed in for child's rights,  it's responsibility to me and morally  his responsibility to the truth. But apparently his right to privacy superseeds all this.
Any suggestions for someone who can't sacrifice her family's financial security to pursue her rights in an expensive court case? I'm looking for the truth [not money] and for rights of many others who, like me, want to finally have a voice instead of being tied to what other people decided for them!