Sunday, May 01, 2005
LEGAL FICTION STRONGER THAN SCIENTIFIC PROOF
Last month a Maine man received a letter from the Attorney General of Maine seeking $11,450 in back child support. He already had had his driver’s license revoked for non-payment. Unbelievably, as reported here, state-ordered DNA tests had established the man was not the father of the child in question and, because of that determination, he was told that he had no rights of visitation with a child whom he thought he had fathered.
“The wheels of justice turn slowly,” one might argue. The problem is, however, that a trial judge ruled three years ago that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that was not his. But despite the ruling, the State of Maine has apparently taken no steps to either identify the biological father or to collect support from him.
Well, at least Mr. Fisher received the opportunity to use DNA tests results to disprove paternity. One of our readers provided details for a South Carolina case wherein, because the way South Carolina Law is written and because of the statutory presumption of paternity, a man was ordered to pay support for the child of his ex-wife without ever getting the opportunity to litigate the issue of paternity using scientific evidence. This was a case wherein a legal fiction was allowed to trump the use of scientific evidence.
“The wheels of justice turn slowly,” one might argue. The problem is, however, that a trial judge ruled three years ago that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that was not his. But despite the ruling, the State of Maine has apparently taken no steps to either identify the biological father or to collect support from him.
Well, at least Mr. Fisher received the opportunity to use DNA tests results to disprove paternity. One of our readers provided details for a South Carolina case wherein, because the way South Carolina Law is written and because of the statutory presumption of paternity, a man was ordered to pay support for the child of his ex-wife without ever getting the opportunity to litigate the issue of paternity using scientific evidence. This was a case wherein a legal fiction was allowed to trump the use of scientific evidence.
