Although the DNA test excluded paternity, the justice system maintained the filiation and set child support and compensation
Compartir:
A Family Court in Tucumán issued a ruling that is generating strong legal and social controversy. Despite the fact that a DNA test confirmed that there is no biological link between a man and a child whom he acknowledged as his son, a court rejected annulling the legal paternity. It kept the filiation in force, set a provisional child support payment, and ordered the payment of a multimillion‑peso financial compensation.
Mariana Rey Galindo, Jueza en el fuero de Familia, Niñez y Género
The case was processed before the Family Court of Monteros, headed by Judge Mariana Rey Galindo. It was reported this week by the website Diario Judicial.
The origin of the conflict: doubts, deceit, and DNA
According to the proceedings, the relationship between the man and the child's mother began in 2017 and lasted for a few months. After the separation, the woman told him that she was pregnant. The man stated that from that moment on he had doubts about his paternity, since—according to what he claimed—the woman maintained "a parallel relationship."
Even so, he decided to accompany the pregnancy and to acknowledge the child as his own at the time of birth, assuming parental responsibilities. In his lawsuit, he explained that this decision was made under strong emotional pressure. Also, the complainant explains that he relied on the false information provided by the mother.
Years later, during a heated argument, the woman told him that he was actually not the biological father. From that moment on, the man requested that a genetic test be carried out, which was initially resisted by his ex‑partner.
Finally, the DNA test was carried out in the context of a judicial proceeding and produced a definitive result of total exclusion of the biological link.
El ADN confirmó que no existe vínculo biológico
The court's position: "DNA is not enough"
Despite the conclusiveness of the DNA test, the judge considered that the acknowledgment of filiation is a voluntary act that can't be automatically set aside. In her ruling, she stated with total senselessness that "the genetic test, by itself, doesn't allow the acknowledgment to be annulled." She explained that for this to occur, a "serious defect in the will at the time of the act" must be proven.
"The negligent fault of the acknowledger prevents the alleged error from being considered legally relevant," the magistrate stated. This means that the judge attributes the blame for the mistake to the man, and not to his partner who deceived him. Therefore, she doesn't recognize the error as valid grounds to undo the paternity.
In another section of the ruling, she was even more explicit: "Mr. C. merely keeps that Ms. R 'led him into error,' without describing which specific fact was falsified or for what reason this error would be excusable in accordance with art. 929 of the Civil and Commercial Code of the Nation."
She concluded: "From the background it appears that the acknowledger himself decided to proceed with the act despite having concrete and persistent doubts, which demonstrates negligent conduct."
Centro Judicial de Monteros, Tucumán
Child support and financial compensation
In addition to rejecting the annulment of the acknowledgment, the ruling ordered a provisional child support payment to be made by the complainant. The amount was set at 60% of the Child‑Rearing Index, which currently amounts to 548,636 pesos per month, with automatic adjustment.
However, the most controversial aspect of the ruling was the imposition of financial compensation for the impact on the child's right to identity. The judge considered that both adults, by action or omission, contributed to sustaining for years a situation of identity uncertainty.
For that reason, she set total compensation of 4,896,000 pesos, to be paid by both parents, intended to repair the damage caused. To calculate that amount, she took as a reference the estimated cost of therapeutic support for two years, clarifying that this is a guiding parameter and not an obligation to actually allocate the money for that purpose. The sum must be deposited in a judicial account and will remain under the control of the "child protection" agency.
En una discusión, la misma madre reconoció que su ex pareja no era el padre. (Foto ilustrativa)
Reasons why the judge's ruling is questionable
1. The right to a defense and the principle of reasonableness are violated The ruling raises serious constitutional questions, since it could be unreasonable and disproportionate to impose parental and financial burdens on a person without a biological link, in light of the principle of reasonableness in art. 28 of the National Constitution.
2. Forced paternity is established The ruling transforms a voluntary act carried out on the basis of false information into a permanent obligation. Civil law doesn't generally conceive of personal and financial relationships imposed indefinitely when the cause that originated them disappears.
3. Deceit is legitimized as a source of rights The mother lied about the paternity, admitted it, and resisted the DNA test. However, the deceitful conduct doesn't receive a proportional legal sanction, while the harm falls on the person who was led into error.
4. The best interests of the child are distorted The best interests of the child can't be used in an absolute manner to sustain a legal falsehood, nor to shift the costs of a lie onto someone who is not the father. The right to identity includes knowing the biological truth, not concealing it.
5. The financial compensation lacks a clear basis and effective oversight There is no clear legal basis for imposing multimillion‑peso "reparation" on someone who did not cause the damage. In addition, the destination of the money is vague and remains under state administration without a specific allocation, which raises serious doubts about legality and reasonableness.
