Will a blood typing test prove good enough in court that a child is not the husbands child?

Answer 1

Your question brings two very separate answers.

First, most courts now do accept DNA testing as proof of paternity.

Blood testing (for Blood Type) has very little to do with establishing proof of paternity.

Second, however, even though courts rely more today on DNA testing to prove paternity, husbands must be aware of an historical law that is still upheld today. This law basically states that any child born during the time of a marriage is assumed to be the husband's natural offspring. That means that, no, a husband will not accomplish much even if he can prove that a child born during the marriage is 'not his' per DNA. In some courts, the "lie" may go against the woman's veracity-- the court's opinion of her truthfulness. But even then, most courts and court workers also know how difficult it is for any woman to be 100% sure of paternity when she has had sex with two men during the same ovulation period. So she may not have intentionally 'lied', even if she was mistaken.

In short, knowing a child is not the husband's child is not likely to cause a Court to relieve him of the responsibilities associated with being 'a father', because the child was born during the marriage and bears the husband's surname. This law effectively protects the child, so the child will have a consistent sense of belonging to one family.

And, if Courts ever changed this Law, it would result in total chaos in the family court system! It wouldn't just affect decisions of child support (which is why the man typically wants a review of paternity status), changing the law could result in numerous parents seeking to make the court remove the child's connection to the husband or ex-husband by changing the child's last name. If names were so easily allowed to be changed based on true-paternity-during-a-marriage, then those children would also have to address the name issue at school, with receiving medical and dental care, and in *every* legal use of a surname, such as: health insurance, State Aid to Dependent Children, Veterans' Benefits to dependent children, medical/dental and hospitalization records (including as a newborn!), etc.! And most importantly, it would require Little Susie or Little Johnny to go through an identity and belonging crisis, because "just who do I belong to if Daddy is now not my Daddy?"

So even if it seems wrong to pay child support for a non-biological child, if the child was born to you during a marriage, it's just much more humane and simpler if a man looks at all the issues and chooses to act like the child's father. Remember, the child did not make the mistake in "who's my daddy", and now that you've been the Daddy for 1 year, 5 years, 9 years...it's just better to continue being a loving Dad.