In a case that is precedent setting for several reasons, a man who raised and paid child support for his son, later found out that the boy was not his, but the result of an illicit liason of his ex wife and a friend. The NJ Court of Appeals awarded the man the child support he paid, but since the man and the son have a good relationship (albeit very strained today probably), the court did not award any emotional or punitive damages.
I think this is an excellent ruling, but I have to wonder why the ex-wife was not also a party for the defendant, and why she should not also be penalized. For in signing her name to the divorce documents, she in essence committed fraud upon the courts. And is not the law written that you cannot profit from a crime, which she clearly is doing?
I feel sorry for the son and father (the one who raised him), but I have nothing but contempt and scorn for the ex wife and ex friend (who was made the Boy's Godfather no less). The boy now has to live with the fact that his mother cheated on his father, and did not have the decency to admit it until 30 years later. The father has a lot of anger, and in this case rightfully so. At a betrayal that extends far beyond the act of cheating.
It is a hopeful sign that perhaps father's rights are not being shoved to the back burner and trampled on as they have been in the past. But in exempting the mother from the lawsuit, the courts clearly made the statement that fathers are still second class citizens when it comes to their children.