Court Opinion

ID: 9847862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:08:56.136974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:40.471259
License: Public Domain

Blackburn, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
Although I agree with the judgment of the majority, I write separately to point out the absurdity of the present state of the law that requires a putative father to pay child support after he has scientifically proven that he is not the biological father. As I stated in Smith v. Dept. of Human Resources, 226 Ga. App. 491, 493 (487 SE2d 94) (1997), “the law should not punish a purported father for failing to insist on a paternity test when he has no reason to believe that he is not the father.” Not only has the putative father been cuckolded, the law adds injury to insult by requiring him to pay child support even after he establishes that he is not the biological father. Once non-paternity is scientifically established, courts cannot ignore such fact by relying on policies developed when no such proof was possible. To create a fiction in this matter does not make the male the biological father of the child; it simply makes him the victim of the law. It also makes an ass of the law. While the courts may preach their false policy, they lose the respect of any citizen with common sense. The legislature should address this issue.
I am authorized to state that Judge Ellington joins in this special concurrence.
*13Katherine S. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
David E. Ralston, for appellee.