Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

H and W were married on November 5, 1988. Two children were born during the marriage: Nicholas, born June 20, 1989, and Jessica, born January 19, 1991. After an argument in April 1990, W went to a bar and met F, whom she had known before. Later they engaged in sexual intercourse. When she discovered she was pregnant, W did not tell H about her brief affair. H raised Jessica as his daughter and had no reason to doubt he was her biological father until nine and one-half years later when W said during an argument that F was the father. H called F and told him what w had said. Taken aback by the call, F said he had no idea what W was talking about. H and W separated. Eventually, W told Jessica that H was not her father. Reconciliations were tried, but things were stormy. W was unable to support her children financially or emotionally. She applied for and received public assistance. The Ocean County Board of Social Services filed a complaint against H for support of the two children. At an appearance before a hearing officer, H raised the issue of paternity of the children and requested they be tested. H then filed a separate motion for paternity testing of the children. The results disclosed that H was the biological father of Nicholas but not Jessica. The judge then modified the support order to require that H only pay support for Nicholas. W called F and asked for support, but he refused. W then filed a paternity complaint claiming that F was Jessica's father and demanding he submit to genetic testing and pay support. H then filed a motion for a reduction in child support, for joint custody of both Jessica and Nicholas and for an order compelling W to produce Jessica's biological father for a support hearing. The court eventually ordered the test, and the results indicated a 99.9 percent probability that F was Jessica's biological father. Judge Waldman issued a comprehensive written opinion in which he held that as Jessica's biological father, F was responsible for her support. He also found that F was unable to pay the entire amount of her support because of his income and the financial demands of his family, including his other children. He directed F to pay $75 per week. He found H to be Jessica's psychological father and found, based on his income and expenses, that he should pay the remaining amount of Jessica's necessary support of $75 per week. F appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.