on in equity against Sally and Joe, based on Sally's fraud, and sought reimbursement from them of all past and future child support payments.
1. Whether the ex-husband (Harry) of the natural mother (Sally) is required to support a child born during their marriage, even though he can prove that: (a) the child was not his; (b) the mother did not reveal to him before or during the marriage that the father was someone else (Joe) whom she later married; and (c) Joe is capable or supporting the child.
2. Whether Harry is time-barred from reopening the issue of paternity in 1997.
3. Whether Sally or Joe committed fraud against Harry and if so, if Harry's action against Sally and/or Joe is barred by the statute of limitations.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Harry's Case
Under Massachusetts law, the natural parents (Sally and Joe) have a legal duty to provide support to their children (little Harry) and in cases where they have the financial capacity to provide such support, a non-natural father (Harry) has no duty to support the child, even if the latter was born during his marriage with the mother.
Under the common law in England prior to the enactment of the Bastardy Statute of 1576, illegitimate children had no right of support or to inherit property from their natural parents. That Act imposed a duty of support on the natural parents. Under the common law which developed thereafter, a child born during marriage was presumed to be legitimate. In Goodright v. Moss, 2 Cowp. 591, 592-594, 98 Eng. Rep. 1257, 1258 (1777), Lord Mansfield (King's Bench) said: "the law of England is clear that the declarations of a father or mother cannot be admitted to bastardize the issue born after marriage." This presumption became part of the common law of Massachusetts. Shuster says that "the marital presumption of paternity had its beginnings in policy considerations favoring the amelioration of the stigma of illegitimacy at a time ...