Replies

California Law Enables Paternity Fraud

A California Court of Appeals ruled that Taron Grant James who was forced to make child support payments based on a paternity judgment later proven fraudulent is not entitled to reimbursement. James was named as father on the birth certificate of a child born to Tami Burton in 1992—even though he couldn’t have been the father since he was deployed in the Gulf War during the time of conception.

Ultimately, with the assistance of California authorities, Burton was able to bilk James out of $12,000, damage his credit rating, and put him through years of legal hassles.

Writing for the court, Justice Paul Boland said that while the impact on James may have been harsh and unjust, the law has worked as intended. “The law is intended, first and foremost, to safeguard the child,” Boland explained. “The Legislature balanced the competing interests of the declared father and the child and concluded a right of reimbursement should not be allowed.”

“Basically, California law says that any woman can name any man the father of her child,” Boland continued. “Until that man can conclusively prove he is not the father he will be required to make child-support payments. Even if it takes years to rectify the matter, as it did in this case, the man will not be reimbursed any of the money taken from him. To do so could harm the child, who is the most innocent of victims.”