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<\/p>\n\n\n\n
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
JUSTICE BRENNAN …<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In such cases, what I wrote over 35 years ago is still true: “in the field of contested paternity<\/a> . . . the truth is so often obscured because social pressures create a conspiracy of silence or, worse, induce deliberate falsity.”\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u00a0world.<\/strong> 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\u00a0his legal heir<\/a> thereby giving that stranger potential interests, inter\u00a0alia, 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\u00a0own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What do you think, does it support an anti-paternity fraud position?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Cortese v. Cortese, 10 N. J. Super. 152, 156, 76 A. 2d 717, 719\u00a0(1950). Recognition of this fact, as well as of the gravity of imposing a\u00a0parental relationship upon a defendant, should lead us to require a more\u00a0demanding standard of proof<\/a> than a mere preponderance of the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n