Does the US Supreme Court Justice support our position against paternity fraud?
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 06/25/87 RIVERA v. MINNICH
1987.SCT.2906, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473, 55 U.S.L.W. 5075
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
JUSTICE BRENNAN …
In such cases, what I wrote over 35 years ago is still true: “in the field of contested paternity . . . the truth is so often obscured because social pressures create a conspiracy of silence or, worse, induce deliberate falsity.”
Cortese v. Cortese, 10 N. J. Super. 152, 156, 76 A. 2d 717, 719 (1950). Recognition of this fact, as well as of the gravity of imposing a parental relationship upon a defendant, should lead us to require a more demanding standard of proof than a mere preponderance of the evidence.
The person alleged to be father has a legitimate interest in not being declared the father of a child he had no hand in bringing into the world. It is important to him that he not be required to provide support and direct financial assistance to one not his child. There is a legitimate concern on his part with not having a stranger declared his legal heir thereby giving that stranger potential interests, inter alia, in his estate, and Social Security Benefits. He has an interest in not being responsible for the health, welfare and education of a child not his own.
What do you think, does it support an anti-paternity fraud position?
Carnell Smith – Director & Founder
US Citizens Against Paternity Fraud (US-CAPF)