Paternity Fraud on Dr. Phil

After getting home from a friend's house for Christmas, I caught the tail end of a show called Parent Trap (http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/962/). The part that I caught talked about this idea called "Paternity Fraud." Apparently, a gentleman, Carnell, was lied to by his ex-girlfriend, whom he recently separated with, about who the father was. Well, maybe she didn't lie but she did not inform him of the possibility of their being another paternal candidate. In any case, he assumes the role of a father and shares custody of the child with the mother and pays his child support dutifully. Then, after eleven years, he discovers that he is not the biological father based upon the result of two paternity tests. So he stops paying child support. The mother then files a lawsuit to force him to continue the child support and they get their day in court. Since he is clearly not the father, he should win, right? Nope. The judge says that he should have found out sooner.

There was an attorney on the show, Gloria Allred, who agreed with the judge because it is the interests of the child that need to be protected. She feels that Carnell should not be allowed to just up and leave the child who has believed this to be her father. The damage, she claims, would be irreparable. Now she might be right about the damage to the child but I don't think that is the only issue here. Obviously the child, like Carnell and each of us, has rights. The question, though, is do her rights supersede his. I don't think they do.

If you disagree with me on that, then let's change the situation a little bit and see if you are still convinced that I am wrong. Let's assume Carnell didn't meet this woman until one month after she gave birth. Clearly in this situation Carnell knows he is not the father but he falls in love with this woman almost immediately after meeting her and within a month the three of them move in together. They raise the child to call Carnell 'Daddy' and live together happily for eleven years. Then one day Carnell decides that this life isn't for him and just leaves. While you may think this action is wrong, do you think he has the right to do so? I believe most everyone would say he does have that right. So if you think he should pay in the first example but don't in the second, then I ask you "What's the difference?".

During the show Carnell and Gloria kept pointing the fingers and who did what wrong but I don't that should be where the focus is. The question is more about rights. Now everyone agrees that we all have rights but when push comes to shove it seems to me that it's always about "MY RIGHTS" and we forget about the other person's rights. There will always be times when my rights bump up against another person's rights and sometimes one does trump the other. Therefore, does this child, who has done nothing wrong, have the right to demand (through her mother) that this non-biological father, who also has done nothing wrong, to continue to pay child support? Does the child's rights trump his? When they both have done nothing wrong, then how can they? So while my heart goes out to this girl and I do feel that Carnell may have a moral obligation to continue what he has been doing, I do not believe that he has a legal responsibility here. He has to freedom to choose.