What is a balanced solution to when a father discovers he is not the DNA father?

Suppose a man's girlfriend or wife suspects he is the father of her kid and tells him he is. He signs the birth certificate. Then a year later, he gets suspicious, has a DNA test, finds out it is not his, and then no longer wants the kid. What should be done in that case that balances his rights, the kid's and mother's financial well being, and is accepted by the tax payers?

In most states, he has to pay for the next 17 years. Even if no law says that, judges in all 50 states often set aside DNA evidence and say they have to rule in the best interest of the child, which is for him to pay. Most states have a 2 year or 60 day statute of limitations, or even make it permanent once the birth certificate is signed. If the husband checks the DNA only after his ex gets full custody, it is too late for him.

On the opposite extreme, some guys want to sue the mother for any aid they gave her, even though she clearly has no money.

A less extreme view is that if he ever finds out, he is simply free to go but should not sue. I think that could suddenly put the mother in a bad spot. She should at least be given up to a year or 2 of notice so she can alter her employment situation.

What do you think is a fair compromise in this case?

The Colorado legislature says that up till age 5, the father can bail, but the next day after, he is on the hook for the next 13 years if he bails. I don't like that sudden big jump, since guys will bail a day before, and women may act nice until the day after. That currently is the most generous state for men.

California temporarily had a law that let men escape at any point with a DNA test. It was on the books for about 4 years before being overturned. I think the real unstated reason was no one wants any single mom to be dependent on a guy for her next month's rent. That makes her too weak in the relationship. I think him having to pay for 18 makes him too weak. So I propose my sliding scale:

Here is my compromise, which I would like your input on:
1. Starting with 90 days of child support at birth if he calls it off then, she should be eligible for an additional day for each day he continues to father the kid. So after 4 years, he owes 4 years and 90 days past the date of ending it. He won't risk insulting her by demanding a test, but he will have opportunities eventually, and should only be responsible for the number of days he waited.
2. Maybe it should be capped at 5 years from the date he leaves the kid, so if he leaves at age 5, she is still covered till age 10 years and 90 days.
3. He can't sue retroactively. If he is so concerned, he should have got a test earlier. Also, she should not be able to sue retroactively either. She can only sue going forward.


Does that sound any fairer than the 3 status quo solutions?


I wonder in most court cases, if the judges are really one sided, or if they are just picking one of 2 extremes and would have agreed to a middle ground if asked.