Family
Aug. 15, 2002
Bill Aids Default Fathers to Avoid Payments
SACRAMENTO - A controversial measure that would permit judges to set aside many paternity judgments based on newly conducted DNA tests cleared a major hurdle Tuesday.
AB2240, introduced by Assemblyman Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, would allow men who have been declared biological fathers through default child support judgments to challenge those judgments with new genetic test results at any time until a child turns 18.
The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 4-2.
Wright's proposal would be a major departure from current law, which allows men to challenge paternity judgments only until a child's second birthday.
After a child turns 2, even DNA testing that proves a man is not the biological father won't free him from an obligation to pay child support, state appeal courts have ruled.
That situation is unfair to men wrongly named as fathers and forced to pay child support, Wright and the bill's proponents argue.
"There is a [biological] father someplace," Wright said. "There is nothing to stop a court from going and finding him."
But opponents of Wright's bill, who include women's advocates and some family law attorneys, say any injustice to men is outweighed by the needs of children to continue receiving child support.
If a man has been named as a father, that judgment should remain in place for the sake of stability, even if DNA evidence later shows he is not a blood relation to the child, they argue.
One vote against Wright's bill came from Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, a former family law instructor and practitioner.
"What makes a father?" Kuehl asked. "This bill says that donating a little bit of genetic material is what makes a father. And everybody thinks that's fair because if I didn't donate my genetic material, then I'm not a father."
But the law has for centuries recognized familial relationships, even when paternity was in question, for the sake of inheritance and other overriding social and legal concerns, she said.
"I'm going to err on the side of the ancient law, and I'm not going to support this bill today," she said at the hearing.
Wright accepted amendments that would make his bill apply only in cases of default judgments, where the man never appeared in court to either deny or admit he was the father.
In its original version, Wright's bill would have applied to all paternity cases, even if a man had previously accepted a child as his own and then found out he wasn't the biological father.
A sticking point Tuesday was whether the bill would apply in all default cases or only those in which a man had not established a father-child relationship.
Opponents of the bill wanted Wright to accept an amendment that would have allowed support orders to be overturned only where there was no familial relationship.
Wright refused, pointing out that his bill still gives judges the discretion to maintain a child support order if they deem it in the best interests of the child.
While Wright's bill has ignited controversy in California, a dozen other state legislatures have passed or are considering similar measures.
Wright's bill previously passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee, 11-0, and cleared the Assembly floor in May by a final vote of 57 to 3.
AB2240 now is likely to go to the Senate Appropriations Committee because it requires the state to pay the cost of providing notice of court proceedings to the child's mother. There the bill faces an uncertain future because of the state's budget deficit.
If it clears the fiscal committee, it must be taken up on the Senate floor by Aug. 31.
Hudson Sangree
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com