Baby Daddy Biden — Financial and Legal Implications of Fatherhood in Texas
If you father a child in Texas, do you have to pay retroactive child support and attorney fees? Do you have to turn over your financial information? The strange case of Hunter Biden's paternity case may create a precedent for the Lone Star State.
February 07, 2020 at 02:12 PM
5 minute read
Hunter Biden, aka Baby Daddy Biden, has found himself in a tricky situation: a paternity action. Last May, Lunden Alexis Roberts filed a paternity action in Arkansas requesting the court find that Biden is the father of her son (born in November 2018) and requesting child support. The court ordered DNA testing and found Biden is the father of the now 18-month-old child. Since that finding, Roberts has been requesting financial information from Biden in order to establish child support (these requests have raised eyebrows given the current political climate). Roberts' attorneys filed a motion asking the court to find Biden in contempt of court for not providing the requested financial information. Then, news surfaced in late January that Biden agreed to pay retroactive child support back to November 2018 and pay Roberts' attorney fees in order to avoid a contempt hearing.
So, what does this mean for the Baby Daddies of Texas? If you father a child in Texas, do you have to pay retroactive child support and attorney fees? Do you have to turn over your financial information?
First and foremost, in Texas, if you have had relations with a woman, and she thinks you may be the father of her child, or if you think you may be the father of a child, the first step is to file a suit to establish parentage. A Texas court does not have jurisdiction (meaning the ability to make a decision in your case) in a paternity case until the child is actually born. Once a suit is filed, the court will then likely order (or the parties can agree to) a DNA test to be performed by a reputable facility. The mother will be ordered to take the baby to the facility and the suspected father will be ordered to appear at the facility and give a DNA sample. The testing facility will then release the results to the parties, the court, and their attorneys.
If the DNA test reveals a man is not the father, the court will enter an order confirming he is not the father. If the DNA test confirms paternity, however, the court will proceed with establishing rights and duties, possession and access, and child support.
In Texas, child support is based on guidelines set forth by the law and calculated by multiplying a party's net resources (as defined by the Texas Family Code) by a percentage that is assigned based on the number of children for whom the obligor (the person paying child support) currently owes a duty of support and how many children are before the court. This is referred to as "guideline child support." While the court has discretion to go above the guideline child support, in most instances a party's net resources are capped at $8,550 for purposes of calculating that support (not including an obligor's statutory obligation to provide health insurance for the child and a portion of unreimbursed medical expenses).
In order to determine a party's "net resources," another party is permitted to request relevant financial information, including pay stubs, tax returns, bank statements, employment contracts, financial information sheets and other documents, as part of the legal discovery process. It appears that in Biden's case, he did not want to produce the requested financial information (for obvious political reasons). Because he did not want to produce it, Roberts' attorneys requested the court reprimand him and force him to produce it so they could properly calculate child support. The same risk applies Texas. If a party does produce the requested information, and the court finds that he or she needs to produce it, the court can hold that party in contempt of court (reprimands to include jail time) and order the party to pay monetary sanctions.
Under Texas law, a court can order a party to pay retroactive child support for a child for up to four years before the filing of a paternity action (this period can be rebutted based on various factors). So, if Biden had been subject to Texas law, the court could have ordered him to pay guideline child support dating back to the birth of the child. In addition to retroactive child support, a court can order a parent to pay for a portion of prenatal expenses (which can top $10,000). Child support obligations typically continue until the child reaches the age of 18 or graduates from high school, whichever comes later.
In sum, the financial obligations that come with being a Baby Daddy are not to be taken lightly. Whether you are Hunter Biden or the average person, those obligations can mean disclosure of financial information, 18 years of monthly child support obligations, payment of prenatal expenses, and medical support for a kiddo.
As a shareholder at KoonsFuller Family Law in North Texas, Sally Pretorius' practice focuses on divorce, including buy/sell and other entity agreements; complex property division; child custody litigation; and child support matters. She is board-certified in family law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has received many notable accolades, including being named among The Best Lawyers in America© in family law by Best Lawyers and Co., LLC (2018), as well as honored as a 2018 Top 50 Women in Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters. Visit koonsfuller.com to learn more.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readPatent Disputes Over SharkNinja, Dyson Products Nearing Resolution
Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
8 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250