The appellant in this case has filed an appeal for final paternity judgment. The court was tasked to determine whether the trial court was mistaking in ordering retroactive child support to the child from beginning on the day he was born. The appellant has cited the statute of limitations to prevent retroactive support. A New York Family Lawyer said that the appellant also indicated in his motion that the retroactive support should not be ordered in this case since the actual financial support was given by the other parties. The appellant also contended that the mother of the child has provided evidence as to the amount of support or has made any clear specifications about the child’s needs. Upon review of the facts of the marital agreement and judgment of the trial court, the appeals court has affirmed the decisions. The court has also declared the retroactive support as rightful. The motion of the appellant was denied.
The appellant and the mother of the child had engaged in sexual relations when they were still dating. The mother of the child was only 19 when she found out that she was pregnant. The mother informed the appellant that she was pregnant and asked if would like to see his child after he pays financial support. The appellant told the mother that she would not want the appellant around the child.
When the child was born sometime later, the mother consulted a legal counsel and proceeded to contact the appellant and the father. A New York Criminl Lawyer said that the mother wanted the appellant to recognize the child as his own and pay for her maternity expenses, insurance and financial support. The mother also demanded that the father pay for her legal fees. The appellant also hired a lawyer and filed a motion denying the child was his own.
The mother filed another paternity case against the appellant after the child was nine years of age. The appellant again denied paternity and cited legal remedies to prevent her from seeking past financial support.
During the duration of the proceedings, the appellant had finally acknowledged paternity and allowed the court to decide on the child custody, support and visitation rights. In the final judgment of the court, the appellant was named as the biological father of the child. The appellant was ordered to pay support every month and follow the guidelines set by family law. The court also ordered the appellant to pay retroactive support including legal fees incurred by the mother. The court has computed the amount to be paid starting from the birth of the child up to the current date of proceeding.
One of the defences of the appellant was the belief that the mother of the child had abandoned her desire to have him acknowledge their child. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that according to the review of law, this belief is not considered to be a compelling circumstance since the appellant had prior knowledge that the mother asserted his paternity many years ago. The fact that the mother informed him that the child was his is already considered proof of his paternity. The appellant had failed to do something that would support his denial.
According to the law, engaging in sexual relations leading to a child’s birth provides a burden to both parties. The mother of the child was only a teenager when she got pregnant by the appellant. The mother was only depending on her parents for her needs. The appellant at that time was working as a manager of his family business. The court noted this information due to the fact that the appellant was already earning by the time the child was born. It was also noted that the mother had supported herself and her child during those early years. This establishes the need of the child and mother for financial support. Therefore, the retroactive support is awarded them.
Child custody cases can be stressful. If you are in need of a knowledgeable Queens Family Lawyer, you must contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates to get a legitimate referral and legal advice.