Can You Recover Child Support After Paternity Fraud

Paternity law often sits at the crossroads of fairness to parents and protection for children. In 2004, the California Court of Appeals addressed for the first time whether an unmarried man who supported a child believing he was the biological father could later recover those expenses through an unjust enrichment claim after genetic testing revealed he was not the biological parent.

The case of McBride v. Boughton did more than resolve one man’s dispute. It established a precedent that continues to shape California family law and remains highly relevant for men facing questions of mistaken or fraudulent paternity today.

Background of the Case

On October 21, 2004, the court considered whether Richard McBride, an unmarried man, could recover child support expenses from Garianne Boughton, the mother who represented that he was the child’s father.

• McBride and Boughton were romantically involved but never married.
• In 1996, Boughton informed McBride she was pregnant with his child. Acting on that representation, McBride returned to California from Chile and provided support.
• By 1998, Boughton had left McBride’s home but agreed to have custody of the child for ten days each month.
• In 1999, she restricted his visitation further, prompting McBride to file a paternity proceeding. Genetic testing revealed McBride was not the biological father.

Following the test results, McBride pursued a claim for money damages under unjust enrichment, seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred while supporting a child who was not biologically his.

Understanding “Unjust Enrichment” in California Law

“Unjust enrichment” in California is not a standalone cause of action but a principle underlying restitution law. Courts often describe it as synonymous with restitution, meaning one party should not unfairly benefit at another’s expense.

• Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 779 clarified unjust enrichment as a principle rather than an independent claim.
• First Nationwide Savings v. Perry (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1657 emphasized that restitution requires proof of enrichment at the other party’s expense.

At first glance, McBride’s claim appears strong: he incurred financial costs, while Boughton benefited from his support. Yet the court denied recovery.

Why the Court Rejected McBride’s Claim

The California Court of Appeals highlighted two overriding public policies:

1. Parental support obligations: Under California Family Code §3900, both parents have a continuing duty to support their minor children.
2. Stability of family relationships: Courts prioritize the child’s security, discouraging legal disputes that could destabilize family structures.

In balancing fairness to McBride with these broader public policies, the court concluded that restitution was not available.

The Role of the California Family Code

California’s statutory framework reinforces the court’s reasoning:

• §7570–7577: Establishes procedures for voluntary declarations of paternity.
• §7630: Governs actions to establish or challenge parentage.
• §3900: Mandates parental duties of support.

These statutes show that California law prioritizes the best interests of the child over financial disputes between adults, aligning with the court’s decision to deny McBride’s unjust enrichment claim.

Public Policy, Paternity Fraud, and the Putative Father Doctrine

The decision also intersects with the putative father doctrine, which recognizes men who assume a parental role even without biological ties. Courts balance this with the doctrine of equitable estoppel, where a man who has held himself out as a father may be prevented from denying responsibility later.

The ruling also discourages what is sometimes called paternity fraud litigation, where men attempt to recover child support after discovering non-paternity. California courts generally resist such claims, emphasizing the need for children to have stable parental relationships.

Procedural Guidance for Men Facing Paternity Questions

For unmarried men in California, the lesson is clear:

• Early verification: If paternity is uncertain, request a DNA test soon after birth.
• Legal steps: File an action under Family Code §7630 to establish or contest parentage.
• Voluntary declarations: Be cautious before signing a declaration of paternity (§7570–7577), as it may create enforceable obligations.
• Termination of obligations: If tests disprove paternity, you may petition to end future obligations, but cannot usually recover past expenses.

This procedural roadmap demonstrates that timing is critical: delays can lock men into obligations that are difficult or impossible to reverse.

Broader Legal Comparisons

California is not alone in prioritizing child stability over reimbursement:

• Texas: Permits the disestablishment of paternity but limits reimbursement claims.
• New York: Courts emphasize equitable estoppel, often preventing men from denying paternity if they acted as fathers.
• The United Kingdom and Canada both recognize mistaken paternity disputes, but tend to prioritize protecting children over reimbursing parents.

This comparative lens shows California aligns with a broader legal trend: children’s interests supersede financial fairness arguments.

Timeline: From 2004 to Today

Since McBride v. Boughton, California has not reversed course. While statutory reforms have expanded genetic testing rights and streamlined parentage actions, the principle that restitution for past child support is barred remains intact.

Advances in DNA testing technology now enable faster and more affordable verification, thereby reducing the risk of long-term mistaken paternity. Yet, the public policy reasoning from 2004, which supports obligations and family stability, continues to guide California courts in 2025.

Practical Lessons for Parents and Families

• Men should be proactive in confirming paternity. Waiting too long can create emotional and legal obligations that are difficult to undo.
• Mothers should recognize that misrepresentations can damage trust and complicate custody disputes, even if restitution is not an option.
• Families should approach paternity disputes with legal guidance to protect both the adults’ rights and the child’s stability.

FAQs About Paternity, Restitution, and Family Law in California

Can a man sue a mother for lying about paternity in California?

He can challenge paternity legally, but he cannot recover past child support under unjust enrichment.

Do I still have to pay child support if I’m not the biological father?

If paternity is disproven, future obligations can usually be terminated. However, past payments are not reimbursed.

What if I already signed a voluntary declaration of paternity?

You must act quickly to challenge it. California allows rescission within a limited timeframe under Family Code §7575.

Does California law recognize paternity fraud?

California law does not provide a specific cause of action for paternity fraud. Disputes are resolved under family code provisions and public policy considerations.

What role do the child’s best interests play?

They are central. Courts consistently hold that stability for the child outweighs financial fairness between adults.

Get Legal Help with Paternity and Custody Disputes

Paternity disputes are among the most emotionally charged issues in family law. Whether you suspect paternity fraud, need guidance in establishing custody, or want to protect your rights, expert legal advice is essential.

Reape Rickett, a trusted California family law firm, has decades of experience handling complex cases involving paternity, custody, and financial obligations. Our attorneys understand how courts interpret cases like McBride v. Boughton can help you navigate the law while safeguarding your family’s future.

Contact Reape Rickett today to schedule a confidential consultation and receive the guidance you need in your family law matter.