a $750 tax refund, which it applied to support arrearages, and brought an action against him for civil contempt.
4. Harry denies any liability for child support payments on the grounds that he is not the natural father of little Harry, brought an action in equity against Sally and Joe, which is based on Sally's alleged fraud, and seeks reimbursement from them of all past and future 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 the child was not his but Joe's, that Sally failed before and during the marriage to reveal that the father was Joe, whom she later married and is presumably capable of supporting the child.
2. Whether Harry is time-barred from reopening the issue of paternity in 1997 for the purpose of having his support obligation, past or future, eliminated or reduced.
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 Our Cases
For nearly two centuries, Massachusetts courts have ruled that children born during a marriage were legitimate. They adopted the rule of common law in England that pater est quem nuptiae demonstrat, in the words of Lord Mansfield in Goodright v.Moss, 2 Cowp. 591, 592-594 "declarations of a father or mother cannot be admitted to bastardize the issue born after marriage." That presumption is set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. (1996), ch. 209C, sec. 6(a)(1). The first case holding that the presumption may not apply was RRK v. SGP, 400 Mass. 12, 507 N.E.2d 736 (1987), which allowed a father, who was not the real father but to whom a child was born during the marriage, to have standing under ch. 209, sec. 5(a) to raise the issue of paternity. In that case, unlike the present one, the family unit of mother and child had broken up before t...