[citation needed] Paternity fraud is distinct from other, unintentional misattribution, which may arise from simple error, an accident such as a mix-up during fertility treatment, or a sexual assault.
[3] A 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence, around the world, from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%).
[10] That ruling was later overturned in 2005 by the Victorian Court of Appeal finding that "intent to deceive" by his ex-wife had not been proven regarding misrepresentations made by Ms. Magill in birth forms about the children's paternity.
[13] Chief Justice Murray Gleeson in the 94 page High Court Ruling opined, "Without doubt the appellant's wife deceived him but the hurtful deception was in her infidelity, not in her failure to admit it.
"[14] Mr. Magill as part of the ruling was also ordered to pay the Child Support Agency's legal fees during the previous 18 months of litigation.
Judge van Rensburg, in deciding to deny the request, noted that Mr. Cornelio had wondered at the time of his separation if an affair by his ex-wife had actually been responsible for the twins.
"It was not until access was interrupted and Ms. Cornelio commenced proceedings seeking increased child support that the respondent began pursuing this issue," the judge remarked.
The legal action for annulment may be brought in the district court by a man whose paternity has been determined on the basis of either marriage or by some other authoritative decision.
[24] On 5 January 2015, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (decision 5A_619 of 2015[25]) decided on a case wherein a plaintiff challenged the paternity of his (alleged) daughter.
Knowingly making a false statement on a public document is a criminal offence, including naming someone who is not the biological father.
[27] The split in 2002 between a couple, identified for legal reasons as Mr. A and Ms. B, prompted Mr. A to pursue a parental contract to establish his non-married rights as their child's father.
[28] During 2007 in what was reported as the first known case of its kind to reach trial in Britain, the High Court ruled in favor of Mr. A awarding £7,500 distress damages with another £14,943 for holidays and meals out Mr. A spent on Ms. B (not the child).
The judgment fell short of listed suit amount because the London court did not allow damages for the child's material costs incurred because of Mr. A's enjoyment of the relationship.
The judge, Sir John Blofeld, said he was satisfied that Mr. A's motivation in coming to court was not as a lever for contact with the child but because he did not want "to be taken for a ride".
[30] In 2021, a man from Kingston upon Hull who had already paid £38,000 in child maintenance payments discovered that he was not the father of the girl he had been led to believe was his daughter by his ex-girlfriend and had helped raise for 14 years.
After public outcry and intervention from his local MP Emma Hardy, the CMS reviewed the case and agreed to waive his arrears.
[32][5] Paternity fraud activist Carnell Smith has raised awareness about the problem of men paying child support for children that aren't theirs.
[35] The complaint to establish paternity filed by the Bureau of Family Support Operations was based on information provided by Ms. Doe naming "Manuel Nava" as the children's father.
[36] In 2001, Mr. Navarro, having undergone a DNA test showing he was not the children's father, sued the County of Los Angeles asking to be relieved from the support order.
[39] Immediately after the ruling was issued, the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department announced that it would request that the case be depublished so it could not be used as a precedent by other men in Mr. Navarro's situation.
[46] During 2006, the Florida statutes changed, allowing a DNA test to be considered new evidence to contest a support order after the one-year time limit.