Finally, Finally, Finally an Important Point about Paternity Fraud
March 19th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesA tiny bit of vindication. For years I've been telling skeptical reporters two rarely-mentioned things about paternity fraud:
1) Many victims of marital paternity fraud want to raise "their" children, but are thwarted by the family law system.
2) Many misguided women's advocates portray "duped dads" who do try to terminate their parental rights as coldhearted brutes turning their backs on the children who love them. However, I've pointed out that many of these "duped dads" try to terminate their parental rights because the children's mothers have already unofficially "terminated" their parental rights.
In my co-authored column 'Duped Dad' Bill Could Foster Closer Ties (Denver Rocky Mountain News, 2/7/07) I wrote:
"In many cases, however, paternity fraud claims arise after the duped dad has been pushed to the margins of the children's lives during a divorce or separation. Sometimes the mother even attempts to use the fact that the man is not the biological father as a way to get the family court to limit or deny him visitation time, while still demanding that he pay child support. Perhaps a Gandhi or a Saint Joseph might be content to pay their exes a large portion of their income in such situations, but they may be the only ones.
"[Journalists who write] about paternity fraud, misses an important point—many duped dads still want to parent their nonbiological children, provided they are allowed a meaningful role in their lives. Some duped dads even wage long, expensive legal battles to remain in the lives of the children with whom they have bonded. Paternity fraud receives substantial media coverage, but these men rarely make the news stories."
Regarding my first point above, the new Louisville Courier-Journal article Ky. cases pose question: What defines a father? Lawsuits test extent of rights (3/18/07) discusses the case of Ren Hinshaw. Hinshaw is "fighting to retain joint custody of a child he helped raised and loves as his own, even after finding out the boy is not his biological child." According to the article:
"'He is my son, and I am his dad,' Hinshaw said in an e-mail to the newspaper.
"The child's mother says Hinshaw should have no right to custody...
"Hinshaw was in the delivery room when the boy he thought was his son was born in 1999.
"He cut the umbilical cord and later changed the boy's diapers, taught him to talk and volunteered at his school, according to court records.
"Hinshaw, a technology consultant at the University of Louisville's Kornhauser Health Sciences Library, described the boy in court records as the most important thing in his life.
"But when the child's mother, Jacqueline, divorced Hinshaw in 2003, she disclosed he wasn't the biological father and asked Jefferson Family Court to deny him custody.
"Judge Virginia Whittinghill ordered a counselor to meet with the child. She concluded he had bonded with Hinshaw and that it would be 'very devastating to him if he was not in his life.' She described Hinshaw as the boy's 'psychological father.'
"Whittinghill not only granted Hinshaw's motion for joint custody, she also made his home the boy's primary residence and ordered his ex-wife to pay him $25,000 in attorney's fees.
"The Court of Appeals last September affirmed the decision, saying the case wasn't about paternity but 'the custody rights between a husband and wife as they relate to a child born and raised within the confines of the marriage.'
"Hinshaw's ex-wife, who has since remarried, is now asking the state Supreme Court to hear the case. She and her lawyer, Peter Ostermiller, declined comment, but in court papers they say that DNA should rule, even if the decision is not in the child's best interests.
"They also contend that Hinshaw had no standing to seek custody, just as the state Supreme Court held last year when it denied such rights to a lesbian partner who was not a child's legal parent.
"After two years as the boy's primary parent, Hinshaw said in court papers that his bond with the child has grown even stronger and that it would 'take a chunk' out of his heart if the child was taken away."
"'This is a bond that no person should put asunder,' he said."
Regarding my second point above, according to the article:
"For 11 years, Gary Denzik paid child support for the girl he loved and thought was his daughter. Then his ex-wife sent him a DNA test showing he wasn't the father after all.
"'It killed me,' said Denzik of Bowling Green. 'It was like hearing your child had died in a car accident.'
"Denzik got a court order stopping his payments and sued his ex-wife for fraud. A jury later found she knew all along he wasn't the father -- that he was a so-called duped dad -- and awarded him $54,770 in damages, the amount he paid in child support the past five years.
"The Kentucky Supreme Court narrowly upheld that verdict last June..."
"[Denzik] said he loved his daughter and visited her sporadically through the years as she moved from state to state with her mother.
"Then, in 2000, she turned 13 and her mother, Candy Blazar, told Denzik that the girl was the product of an extramarital affair with a former boyfriend.
"He said he decided to sue in part because she wouldn't let him see the girl anymore. He also said he wanted to 'draw a line in the sand -- to say a woman can't do this.'"
Read the full article here.
A couple added points:
1) The article also cites a 2005 study published in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health which "found that as many as 1 million of the 27.9 million fathers in the United States are caring for children who aren't theirs."
2) Andrew Wolfson did an excellent job on this piece, one of the best I've ever seen
awolfson@courier-journal.com.
3) Kudos, as usual, to paternity fraud crusader Carnell Smith, who is also quoted in the piece.
"));
17 queries. 0.444 seconds.