The sentence we analyze in this post is of great interest because it deals with a relatively infrequent but undoubtedly very striking issue: the concealment of the true paternity of a child and the consequences of the possible deception by the mother towards the person she believes to be the biological father. This is a sentence issued by the Provincial Court of Badajoz, which studies the claim of a man who believed he was the father of his partner’s child and later proved through a genetic test that he was not.
For this reason, he claims not only to eliminate any reference to him with respect to the filiation of the child, but also a compensation for moral damages due to the deception of his former partner.
We will tell you all the details of this case: we would love to know your opinion.
If you have any doubts about any matter related to Family Law, please contact our team of lawyers.
The facts of the case: doubts about paternity
The couple began an on-and-off relationship in 2019.
In 2020 she had relations with another person and, shortly thereafter, warned that she was pregnant, without communicating it to the plaintiff.
Six months into the pregnancy, and shortly after a breakup with the plaintiff, she uploaded a photo of her condition to the WhatsApp application, with an ultrasound scan, at which time he, who was in Mallorca, contacted her.
At the time of giving birth, the plaintiff was at the delivery and, after the birth, they moved back in together.
A year later, in 2021, she sued her partner for mistreatment, being convicted of a crime of injury in the family environment. The cohabitation then broke down and it was then that the plaintiff decided to take a paternity test, with negative results. Once it was proven that he was not the biological father of the child he believed to be his son, he sued his ex-partner for a declaration that he was not the biological father of the child, ordering the rectification in the Civil Registry of the child’s description and any reference to his paternity.
In addition, he requested compensation for moral damages. The mother claims that her ex-partner denied this in his answer to the lawsuit.
Specifically, the mother alleges that her ex-partner voluntarily assumed paternity of the child and that he always maintained doubts on this point.
He also claims that it was only after they stopped living together that he decided to change his mind and contest the filiation, and that she told him that she could not assure him of paternity because she had started another relationship.
He also says that she insisted that he take the test after the birth of the baby but that he did not want to because, in any case, whether or not he was the biological father, he would take care of the child.
He also denies having acted with malice and accuses his ex-partner of not having presented any evidence to support the concealment or deception claimed.
For his part, the plaintiff clarifies that his claim has nothing to do with the fact that his ex-partner had a parallel sexual relationship, but with the deliberate concealment of not being the biological father of the child.
Furthermore, he accuses his ex-partner of having acted with coldness and bad faith, since, even knowing that he was not the biological father of the child, he filed a claim for child support and allowed the child to be registered in the Civil Registry under the surnames of the person who was not his father, as well as to stipulate a visitation regime.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office, for its part, considers that the fraudulent concealment of paternity by the respondent is proven and argues that the knowledge of the biological reality has created unquestionable moral damage to the appellant, which needs to be repaired.
The resolution of the case: no deception
The Court is fully in favor of compensating for moral damages in these cases when there is deceit on the part of the partner, despite the fact that, as the judgment itself states, we cannot speak of a peaceful and uniform issue, not even if we look at the case law of the Supreme Court.
From all the rulings of the Supreme Court, according to the ruling, it is clear that this is a controversial issue, since there are different rulings that deny the possibility of being compensated for this type of action. On the contrary, the Provincial Court defends that the family is not a space forbidden to moral damages.
Not everything is valid within the couple’s relationship.
Our legal system does not expressly enshrine a principle of civil immunity within the family.
Certainly, not every injury in a couple’s relationship will be compensable.
Living together is not easy and there is no right to be loved forever, but, from a legal point of view, not everything that happens at home can be allowed to stay at home.
It is precisely the patriarchal family model, which encouraged impunity, that must be overcome.
The family is the basis of social organization and plays a fundamental role in the development of the personality.
It is the best school, allows to build the identity of the person, protects their autonomy and always protects the most needy.
Unfortunately, however, it is no stranger to harm, injustice and suffering.
The maintenance of family peace cannot justify everything.”
Delving into this criterion, the sentence assures that “deception, the concealment of true paternity is a serious fact, since there are few legal assets as important in the life of a person as the filial relationship.”
There is no closer bond than that between parent and child.
It is undoubtedly an emotional and psychological shock for anyone to suddenly learn that your child is not yours.
That experience is certainly hard.
Even the Supreme Court does not question it: it admits the moral damage, although it considers that it is not illicit.
However, after examining the evidence, in this particular case, deceit is ruled out: “We cannot confuse concealment with ignorance”, the judges state, and in this case, “the plaintiff’s interrogation has been very revealing”.
He has stated that, at the beginning, although he had doubts about paternity, he thought it was his and that is why he acknowledged it.
So much so that she did not think it appropriate to take a paternity test.
She also stated that, after the birth, they were living together, but with time, problems arose between the couple and her doubts increased.
He said that, as a result of the complaint and his conviction for abuse in February 2021, he opted to take the test a few months later, in July 2021.
Therefore, this version “is substantially consistent with that given by the mother”.
“She has acknowledged that she had doubts about paternity and that she suggested a test, which he refused.”
In short, “from the first moment she had doubts as to whether the child was his biological son.
When he could have done so, he did not even think it appropriate to take a test.
We are talking about simple ignorance“.
And what is punishable in case of moral damages in this type of situation “is deception, not mere ignorance.”
He represented to himself the possibility that he was not the biological father, but he trusted that he was and so he recognized him as his own, thus becoming his father.
But in that hypothetical judgment the mother had no influence.
She did not make [el demandante] believe that the child was hers.
There is no proof of this alleged concealment.
We are simply dealing with a case of repentance of one who, from the beginning, knew that the child could have been conceived by a third person.
In these circumstances, there is neither fraud, nor deceit, nor civil liability, with which we confirm the sentence of instance.
What do you think about this case?
If you need legal help in any matter related to Family Law or you want to make a consultation, please contact our team of lawyers, please contact our team of lawyers..
