Ohio Court: No Remedy for Paternity Fraud

Two cases with some striking similarities but with vastly different results.

The first is here.  It’s a paternity fraud case out of Ohio in which the defrauded man sought to get damages for his wife’s failure to inform him that he might not be the father of a child born to her.

Ronald and Angela Burel were married in 1997.  She gave birth to a child that same year.  The two were divorced in 2001.  During all that time, and in fact before they were married, Angela was having a sexual affair with a physician at the hospital at which she worked. 

At no time did Angela divulge this affair to Ronald or the fact that the doctor, Houston Johnson, might be the father of the child.

In 2007, Ronald sent DNA samples from himself and the child to a private testing laboratory and learned that he was not the child’s father.  He confronted Angela with the information and she admitted that Dr. Johnson must be the father.  She also told Johnson about his paternity.

Ronald sued Angela under a number of legal theories seeking damages and restitution of monies paid for supporting the child.  The trial court dismissed all of his claims.  On December 17, 2010, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s dismissals. 

In short, in Ohio, a man in Ronald Burel’s situation has no legal remedy for the wrongs done to him.

Strangely enough, both courts ruled that he was in fact the child’s parent even though DNA testing proved conclusively that he was not.  They did so because the child was born to Angela during the course of her marriage to Ronald and in Ohio as in every state (as far as I know) the husband is the presumed father of a child born to a married woman.

What’s odd about that is that he’s the presumed father.  That means that he’ll be considered the father until the presumption is rebutted by evidence proving that he’s not.  And of course that’s exactly what happened in this case.  DNA evidence absolutely rebutted the presumption of Ronald’s paternity.  So how do the courts figure he’s the dad?

The only explanation is that the court considers him the father up until the time it’s proven that he’s not, i.e. until he learned he wasn’t in 2007.  In other words, as long as a married woman can successfully conceal the truth from her husband, the State of Ohio will call him the child’s father whether he is or not.

What goes unsaid by the appellate court is the fact that in Ohio, again as in every state, there is no duty on the part of a mother to tell the truth about paternity.  The court emphasized that neither Angela nor Johnson knew the paternity of the child.  That’s of course true.  It’s also too facile by half.

The simple fact is that Angela knew that sex can result in pregnancy and she knew that she’d had sex with two different men roughly nine months prior to the birth of the child.  Knowing those things she elected keep the truth from Ronald – that there were two possible fathers of the child.  She had that information; Ronald did not.

Had she told the simple truth that was known to her, Ronald could have had the genetic testing done shortly after the child was born and 10 years of heartache would have been avoided.  Dr. Johnson could have taken up his parental responsibilities and Ronald could have gone his own way.

But Ohio law does not require a woman to tell the truth about paternity or possible paternity.  It’s her call.  If she wants to deceive her husband or boyfriend, the law gives her the green light.  It does so irrespective of the long-term consequences of her lie.  It does so irrespective of the rights of the defrauded husband or boyfriend and it does so irrespective of the rights of the actual father.  It does so irrespective of the best interests of the child in knowing the identity of his/her biological father.

The solution to this problem is simple.  Women should be required by law to tell the truth about paternity.  That includes informing all the possible fathers that a child may be theirs.  As with Angela Burel, she and she alone knows who they are and she and she alone is therefore able to provide the information with which paternity can be properly established.

State laws should be changed to require mothers to provide true and accurate information about who may be the father of her child.  If a woman fails to do that, no man should have his parental rights diminished or parental duties established until he acquires accurate information about his paternity.

Since this piece is long enough, I’ll do a second one on the other case.