Why Do Some People Lie About Paternity? The Psychology Behind One of the Cruellest Forms of Deception

Falsely Accused Network

6 days ago

8 min read

Imagine discovering that the child you have raised, loved, protected and supported for years is not biologically yours.

The birthdays. The Christmas mornings. The school runs. The sacrifices made to give that child a better future.

Now imagine discovering that the person you trusted most may have known the truth all along. Not for days or weeks, but for years.

That is the reality that can confront victims of deliberate paternity deception. And it raises a question that receives far too little scrutiny: why would someone knowingly deceive another person about something as fundamental as the biological identity of their child?

This article examines the possible motivations, including fear, money, shame, self-preservation and control, and asks a harder question: at what point does protecting your own interests become the deliberate removal of someone else's right to make informed decisions about their own life?

First, an Essential Distinction: Uncertainty Is Not Deception

Not every case of misattributed paternity is deliberate fraud.

A mother may genuinely believe her partner is the biological father. She may be mistaken about conception dates, or may not realise that another man could be the father. Some cases involve abuse, sexual violence, trauma or other circumstances that demand real sensitivity.

A DNA result establishing non-paternity does not, on its own, prove dishonesty. Nor does it prove that the mother knew.

At Paternity Fraud UK, we believe allegations of deliberate deception should be supported by evidence: for example, communications, admissions, or proof that the mother knew paternity was uncertain and chose to conceal it.

There is a world of difference between being mistaken and knowingly allowing someone to build their life around a falsehood. Everything that follows concerns the second situation: cases where the deception is deliberate.

1. Fear of Losing the Relationship

One possible explanation is fear. A woman who has had an affair and become pregnant may fear that admitting doubt about paternity would end her relationship. Her partner may represent stability, security or a future she desperately wants to keep. So, rather than face the consequences, she chooses silence.

Fear may explain a dishonest decision. It does not excuse it.

The person deceived is denied something fundamental: the chance to decide for himself whether to stay, accept the circumstances and raise the child knowing the facts. That decision is made for him. And the longer the deception continues, the more devastating the eventual discovery can be.

2. Financial Security

This is one of the most uncomfortable potential motivations to discuss, but it deserves examination rather than automatic dismissal.

Consider a hypothetical. A woman becomes pregnant and knows there is a genuine possibility that her long-term partner is not the father. He has a stable income and a home; the other potential father does not offer the same security. She allows her partner to believe the child is his.

He pays for food, clothing, childcare, holidays and school activities. He may work extra hours or turn down opportunities. All because he believes he is supporting his biological child. Years later, DNA evidence shows that he is not.

The financial consequences may be substantial, but the deeper injustice is the loss of informed choice. Many men knowingly raise children who are not biologically theirs, and do so with great love. But consent obtained through deliberate deception is not an informed decision.

An important caution: financial motivation should never be assumed simply because a man discovers he is not the biological father. Proving deliberate deception and proving a financial motive are separate matters.

3. Shame and the Desire to Maintain Appearances

For some people, maintaining appearances becomes more important than the truth. An affair threatens a marriage. A pregnancy may expose infidelity. Family and friends may judge. Concealment becomes an escape from accountability.

But the consequences rarely stop with the couple. Grandparents may believe they have a biological grandchild. A child may grow up with an inaccurate understanding of their ancestry. A biological father may never learn that he has a child.

One person's determination to avoid embarrassment can become another family's lifelong burden. And when the truth emerges, it may expose not just an affair, but years of opportunities for honesty that were repeatedly passed over.

4. Self-Preservation: The Lie That Becomes Harder to Admit

Not every prolonged deception begins as a calculated plan. Sometimes a person conceals uncertainty because they are frightened or overwhelmed. Then the child is born, the partner bonds with the baby, and the years pass. Admitting the truth becomes more frightening than ever.

What began as a single dishonest decision becomes a continuing pattern of concealment, often accompanied by rationalisations: the truth would hurt the child; the family is happy; too much time has passed.

This raises a fundamental moral problem. Who gave one person the authority to decide that another is better off living a lie? Every additional year brings more memories, more financial commitments and more decisions made without the facts.

5. Control: When Information Becomes Power

A person who knows the biological truth while their partner does not holds information capable of changing that partner's life: whether to stay, whether to marry, whether to buy a home, whether to have more children, and whether to commit years to raising a child under a mistaken belief.

Where the deception is deliberate, one person is controlling information the other needs in order to make informed choices. That is a serious breach of trust.

However, not every case should be labelled coercive control or psychological abuse. Controlling or coercive behaviour is a specific criminal offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, and whether particular conduct meets that definition depends on the facts. What can be said is that knowingly manipulating someone's understanding of parentage is capable of causing profound harm.

6. “I Did It to Protect the Child”

Perhaps the most emotionally powerful justification is that revealing the truth would harm the child: that the child already has a loving father, and that disclosure would destabilise the family.

There is truth in part of this. Fatherhood is about far more than DNA. A man who has raised a child may remain that child's father in every meaningful emotional and social sense, whatever a laboratory result says.

But that does not justify the deception. Children have their own legitimate interests in knowing their origins, including accurate family medical history. And discovering that important information was deliberately hidden can raise difficult questions of identity and trust.

The real choice is not between protecting a child and telling the truth. It is about handling a sensitive truth responsibly, honestly and with proper support. A child should never be used as the justification for indefinitely denying another person knowledge of biological reality.

The Damage Is Not Just Financial

Public discussion of paternity deception often focuses on money: child maintenance, housing costs and years of expenditure. Those issues matter. But they are not the whole story.

Imagine questioning every significant memory of your family life. Wondering who knew, and when. Questioning whether the relationship was ever genuine.

Then consider the child, who may suddenly learn that the man they believed was their biological father is not, and who may fear losing that relationship. And consider the biological father, who may have been denied knowledge of his child's existence.

Research supports these concerns. A 2005 review led by Professor Mark Bellis identified family break-up and violence among the possible public health consequences when paternal discrepancy is exposed. Disclosure itself can carry risk, which is why it should be handled carefully and with support.

Experiences differ. Some relationships survive. Some families rebuild. Some men continue raising children they discover are not biologically theirs. Others find the consequences overwhelming. There is no single correct response, but every person affected deserves to be taken seriously.

How Common Is Misattributed Paternity?

The most frequently cited evidence is that same 2005 review, published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health by Professor Bellis and colleagues at Liverpool John Moores University. The researchers separated two kinds of study:

Populations not selected because paternity was disputed: across 17 studies, rates ranged from 0.8% to 30%, with a median of 3.7%.
Men already disputing paternity: across 16 studies, the median was 26.9%.

These figures need careful handling. The authors noted that few studies were designed to measure population rates, and that most of the data were collected for other purposes and could either overstate or understate the true level.

Most importantly, none of these figures measures deliberate deception. Misattributed paternity and knowingly false paternity claims are not the same thing, and the research does not tell us how many mothers knowingly misled their partners.

What the research does show is that unexpected biological parentage is a real issue with potentially significant consequences, and one that deserves serious investigation rather than ridicule.

Source: Bellis MA, Hughes K, Hughes S, Ashton JR. Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:749–54.

What Does the Law in England and Wales Currently Allow?

The law does recognise paternity deception, although the routes can be complex, costly and highly dependent on the facts:

Establishing parentage. Under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, a person may apply to court for a declaration as to whether or not someone is the parent of another named person. Courts can also direct scientific tests to establish parentage under section 20 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969.
A civil claim for deceit. In P v B (Paternity: Damages for Deceit) 2001] 1 FLR 1041, the High Court held that the tort of deceit can apply between cohabiting partners in relation to paternity. Damages were awarded in A v B (Damages: Paternity) [2007] 2 FLR 1051, and in [FRB v DCA [2019] EWHC 2816 (Fam) the court concluded that the tort can also exist between married couples.

Deceit is a tort of intention. A claimant must generally show a false representation, made knowingly or recklessly, which they relied upon and which caused them loss. That is why evidence of what the other party knew matters so much.

These are general points, not legal advice. Anyone considering action should take advice from a qualified solicitor about their own circumstances.

Why Should the Person Deceived Bear the Consequences?

When deliberate deception is established, why should the person misled simply be expected to accept the consequences? Why should the loss of informed choice be treated as insignificant? And why should someone who knowingly concealed the truth be able to argue that their motives somehow cancel out the harm?

There are genuinely complicated questions here about compensation, parental responsibility and, above all, the welfare of the child. They deserve careful consideration. But complexity should not become an excuse for indifference.

At Paternity Fraud UK, we believe the law and public policy should take deliberate paternity deception seriously. That means meaningful discussion of legal remedies, access to reliable DNA testing, accountability, and proper support for affected families.

Conclusion: A Reason Is Not an Excuse

Perhaps someone lied because they were frightened. Perhaps they wanted financial security, were ashamed of an affair, or convinced themselves that silence was best for everyone. Perhaps they simply believed they would never be found out.

Understanding these motivations matters. But understanding a motive is not the same as accepting it as a justification.

Fear does not create a right to deceive. Financial insecurity does not create a right to misrepresent parentage. Shame does not create a right to conceal the truth indefinitely. And protecting a relationship does not justify depriving someone of the information they need to decide whether they want to remain in it.

Nobody can guarantee that every relationship will survive the truth, or that discovering it will be painless. But deliberate deception replaces informed choice with manipulation. It can take years of a person's life and set them on a path they might never have chosen had they known the facts.

The most disturbing aspect of deliberate paternity deception is not simply that someone has been lied to. It is that their right to decide the course of their own life may have been taken from them.

We believe the truth matters. We believe children deserve honesty about their origins. And we believe people who have been deliberately deceived about parentage deserve to be heard.

The question should never be only why someone chose to lie. It should also be why society remains so reluctant to confront the damage a deliberate lie can cause.

Paternity Fraud UK

Campaigning for greater awareness, accountability and support for those affected by paternity deception in the United Kingdom.

Website: www.paternityfrauduk.org

Email: paternityfrauduk@gmail.com

This article contains commentary and discussion of potential motivations, not findings about the motives of any particular individual. It does not constitute legal advice.