Welcome

Featured

Yes, it is suppose to look this way, out of focus. Think about it.

Paternity Fraud DNA  offers national and international testing availability, a laboratory accredited by the AABB, formally known as the American Association of Blood Banks, the highest quality testing process, non invasive DNA sample taking (swabs), confidentiality, fair prices, easy pay, and staff knowledgeable about DNA testing and wrongful or fraudulent paternity. Paternity fraud is also known as “child identity theft”.

Most of the tests we conduct are “legal DNA tests” to determine paternity for a variety of reasons, most frequently, though not exclusively, for child custody, child support, military benefits, and immigration. Our services are not available in New York.

This site is packed with information about wrongful paternity. We suggest that you read the “Frequently Asked Questions” then the “Story“. Reading “Birther Quotes” shines a brighter light on the problem which you can get more information about in the sections “News Articles” and “Links“. We hope that after you have read those that you will consider contacting  your legislator(s) and demanding that DNA paternity testing be required for all live births which would greatly reduce the amount of wrongful and fraudulent paternity determinations; or, if you prefer, reduce the number of “Duped Dads” and increase the number of children who will know their true biological identities.

Please give us a call if you have any questions.

LEGAL DNA test results is the best evidence. Don’t wait until It’s too Late!

PaternityFraudDNA, 932 C Street, San Diego, CA 92101 (Downtown in the East Village)

Call us: 619-354-DNA1 (3621)

Pinay wins paternity suit vs Korean in landmark ruling

Pinay wins paternity suit vs Korean in landmark ruling

Posted at 06/23/2014 12:15 PM | Updated as of 06/23/2014 12:15 PM

MANILA, Philippines – A court in Seoul has ruled in favor of two boys raised by their Filipina mother in a paternity suit against their Korean father, South Korean media reported.

The ruling marks the first time a Korean court has acknowledged the existence of Korean-Filipinos or “Kopinos”, which are those born to a Korean father and Filipino mother.

Most of these Kopinos, estimated at between 10,000 to 30,000, were abandoned by their father and are in the Philippines.

The Korea Times reported the Seoul Family Court ruled the Korean man was the biological father of the two boys on the basis of a DNA test and their birth certificates from the Philippines.

The names of the people involved in the lawsuit were not identified to protect their privacy.

The lawsuit was filed by the Filipina, in behalf of her children, against a Korean businessman in December 2012.

Court documents quoted by the media said the Korean businessman, who is married and has children in South Korea, went to the Philippines to run a business. The Korean had two boys with the Filipina, and lived with them for several years.

However, the Korean returned to Seoul 10 years ago and abruptly cut off contact with the woman and the children.

The Korea Times said the ruling, if upheld by the Supreme Court, would allow the Filipina to demand child support from the father.

News agency Yonhap quoted the Filipina’s lawyer Cho Dong-shik as saying the woman filed the case not just because of child support.

“I understand she wants to have the two boys included in the man’s official family registry and be raised in South Korea,” Cho said.

Preserving Paternity Fraud, Thank You Governor Gray Davis Thanks for Nothing

Wednesday, 28 August 2013 07:50

PRESERVING PATERNITY FRAUD

Preserving Paternity Fraud

California Governor Gray Davis had the chance to free thousands of falsely condemned men last week. He chose federal funds instead.

Davis vetoed the California Paternity Justice Act (AB 2240), which would have helped thousands of California men who were wrongly assigned paternity in default judgments, and who have been compelled by the state to pay years of child support for children whom DNA tests have shown are not theirs. In Los Angeles County in 2000, for example, 79 percent of paternity judgments were decreed by default. Most of these men had no idea they were “fathers” until their wages were garnished.

Technical instructor Bert Riddick of Carson is one of the men AB 2240 would have helped. Ten years ago, Riddick was erroneously named by an ex-girlfriend as the father of her child. By the time Riddick realized what had occurred, the statute of limitations for challenging paternity had passed. Riddick, his wife and their three children have fallen from the middle class to homelessness because he is forced to pay $1,400 a month in child support and arrearages. Like many paternity fraud victims, Riddick has never even met the child he is supporting.

Similarly, Darin Reeves of Rancho Santa Margarita has paid over $50,000 in child support and welfare reimbursements to support a child he did not father. In June 2000, California’s 4th District Court of Appeals ruled that Reeves, who has a child of his own to support, would have to continue paying. Since 1995, Reeves has spent $11,000 in legal fees fighting the erroneous paternity finding.

Davis could have freed thousands of these innocent men and their families by signing AB 2240. The bill would have helped men assigned paternity in default judgments by extending to three years from the date of discovery the period during which such judgments may be challenged through DNA testing. The bill would have allowed courts to vacate default paternity judgments which are shown to be erroneous, thus relieving falsely identified fathers of further child support.

Instead of justice, Davis chose money.

Under federal guidelines, states must identify the fathers of children whose mothers are receiving benefits or risk losing federal incentive money. In addition, states receive federal funding on child-support orders. Because federal rules do not require DNA testing to prove paternity, states have no incentive to demand accuracy in establishing paternity.

In explaining his veto, Davis said that if AB 2240 became law the state might not meet federal requirements on collecting child-support payments, putting California at risk of losing $40 million in federal funds.

Opponents of the bill included NOW, the National Center for Youth Law and the San Diego-based Children’s Advocacy Institute. An institute official praised the veto, saying “we’re glad that the governor put children first.”

These critics overlook the fact that when a father is forced to pay support for a child who is not his, his own biological children suffer greatly. If Davis had signed AB 2240, children of falsely identified fathers would not have been deprived of support. Mothers in these cases would do what they should have done all along: disclose the true identity of their children’s fathers so the state can then approach them to establish paternity and pay child support.

Riddick was devastated by Davis’ veto.

“Davis and his supporters say they did this for the children. Let him come to my house and explain to my children why this is good for them.

“The system lies to children about their own parentage and Gov. Davis thinks that’s OK. The system defrauds thousands of innocent men and wounds their families and Gov. Davis thinks that’s OK. The system puts money ahead of truth and justice and Davis thinks that’s OK. What kind of message is this sending to our children?”

Article originally appeared in the Orange County Register Oct. 3, 2002

Written by 

About the Author: Dianna is a nationally recognized expert on families, stepfamilies, and divorce related issues. Dianna is an authority on domestic policy as it pertains to men, women and children. A long time political analyst, lobbyist, and spokesperson, Dianna has testified all over the country on legislation that affects families and served as the Chairman of the Family Law Reform Committee in Los Angeles, CA.

Dianna has made numerous local and national television appearances, including the Today Show, The John Walsh Show, CNN, CNN Financial Network, Fox News Live, Montel Williams, MSNBC, and more. She’s made hundreds of radio appearances, including NPR, Radio America, Talk America, ABC Radio, CBS Radio, BBC, the Jim Bohannon Show, the Dennis Prager Show, the Mike Gallagher Show, the John & Ken Show, the Bill Handel Show, the Jason Lewis Show, Tom Leykis Show, and more.

Dianna has written columns for or been quoted in hundreds of major newspapers and magazines, including Time Magazine, Redbook, the ABA Journal, Playboy, Smart Money, Black Enterprise, Insight magazine, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Newsday, Orange County Register, Detroit News, Washington Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post, Newark Star Ledger, Miami Herald, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Sacramento Bee, Tulsa World, Houston Chronicle, San Diego Union Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, New York Sun Times, Chicago Sun Times, Cincinnati Post, Seattle Times, and the Associated Press.

Dianna is the former editor of Fathers & Families magazine and former Radio Show Host of a weekly radio show broadcasted in 40 markets on Radio America out of Washington DC. Dianna authored the social policy article “Child Support and Second Families” in the book “Choices in Relationships: An Introduction to Marriage and the Family” published by Wadsworth Publishing Company.  Visit her Facebook page – click here 

Glenn Sacks, MA is a columnist and media commentator who focuses primarily on gender issues and family law.  His website http://www.glennsacks.com

Childless man released from child support debt

One recent child support case, among many, supports the premise that something is seriously wrong with the family court system. According to CNN (8/11/09), Mr. Frank Hatley, of Georgia, spent a year in jail for owing back child support reimbursement although he is childless. The system knew that Hatley was not the father, yet incarcerated him anyway because he had mistakely signed a form…one piece of paper. Hatley was recently released from jail after his case came to the attention of a human rights group who intervened on his behalf.” http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/11/georgia.child.support/index.html