HACKENSACK DIVORCE LAWYER

Defendant was statutorily presumed under N.J.S.A. 9:17-43a(1) to be the father of a child born to his wife during their marriage and he was properly relieved of all financial obligations for the child when genetic testing established he was not the biological father. However, he is not entitled to recover from his ex-wife sums he paid for the support of the child from birth to the time that the presumption of paternity was rebutted. In spite of her deceit, the ex-wife is not liable for reimbursement of child support. She was not unjustly enriched, because responsibility for support runs from parent to child, not parent to parent. Requiring reimbursement would be contrary to the best interests of the child because that would result in depletion of resources for the child. If anyone has been unjustly enriched, it was the biological father : the putative father's remedy is against him, not the mother. J.S. v. L.S., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App.Div. 2006); New Jersey App. Div., December 18, 2006