Paternity Fraud

On June 1, 2012, the Iowa Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Dier v. Peters, no. 11-1581. Briefly, the Court found that a mother who defrauded a man into thinking he was the father of a child in order to gain money from him can be sued. But the case is certainly more complicated than that.

Facts

The lawsuit alleged that Peters, the mother, told Dier that he was the father of the child, even though she knew this was not true. Based on this assertion, Dier voluntarily provided money to Peters for her use and for the child's use. Dier later asked the court to determine custody of the child and, faced with the possibility of losing custody, Peters only then asserted Dier was not the biological father of the child. Two DNA tests confirmed he was not the father. Dier sought recovery of the money voluntarily provided to Peters, as well as the costs and attorney fees associated with the custody case. 

What is now allowed:

• A cause of action for fraud against a mother for misrepresenting the paternity of the child, when:
• The mother made a misrepresentation that the man was the father
• The man was not the father
• This assertion is likely to make the father act differently
• The mother knew this statement was false or had reckless disregard for the truth 
• The mother made the statement with the intent to deceive 
• The man justifiably relied upon the statement 
• The assertion was the proximate cause of the injury to the man
• The assertion caused damages to the man
• Even though the man can only reasonably rely upon the mother's statement that he is the father, the Court did not find that he must demand paternity testing. An action for fraud can still stand if he relied upon the mother's statement that he is the father.
• Any child support payments previously ordered but not yet paid are no longer due and owing after paternity has been disestablished. This is not new law, but stems from the Iowa Code predating this case. Still, it helps clarify the parameters of paternity fraud.
• Any child support payments ordered but due in future months are stopped. Again, this is not new law, but helps understand the big picture. 

What is still not allowed:

• Repayment of court-ordered child support payments already made. The father had the chance to argue about paternity when the child support was originally established.
• Attorney fees in the fraud action for having to defend himself in the paternity action; however, it may be possible to collect attorney fees in the underlying paternity action.

What remains unanswered:

• Can the mother be ordered to pay emotional distress damages for telling the man that he is the father while knowing it is not true?
• Does the case change if the child is old enough to be aware of, and affected by, the fraud case?