Appeals court grants paternity test for doctor

A doctor whose wife cheated on him and then became pregnant with a son for whom he now pays child support is entitled to a paternity test, a state appeals court has ruled.

Dr. Mark Hudson, of Finleyville, appealed to state Superior Court after an Allegheny County judge barred him from introducing DNA evidence showing he was not the father of the boy he thought was his son. Common Pleas Judge Kathleen Mulligan also ordered him to continue paying $2,800 monthly in child support for two children, even though he claims he fathered just one of them.

"She committed the fraud, and she was being rewarded," Hudson said of his ex-wife, Dr. Nicolette Chiesa. "That was the worst message. It said it was OK to cheat, have a child and pass it off as someone else's."

Hudson, who since has remarried, said the decision is a win for victims of paternity fraud. He's hoping the court-ordered test will result in halving his child-support payment.

In unanimously reversing Mulligan's decision, the Superior Court ruled that Hudson established a case for paternity fraud.

Hudson "operated for more than a decade under the false pretense that he was" the boy's biological father, Superior Court Judge Mary Jane Bowes wrote. "It is undisputed that this subterfuge was a direct result of (Chiesa's) misrepresentations by omission and intentional misstatements to (Hudson). Furthermore, a review of the record infers that (Hudson) would not have held (the boy) out as his own had it not been for (Chiesa's) fraudulent conduct."

Mulligan wrote in October in her opinion that while she had little sympathy for Chiesa, the boy should not be punished for the mother's actions.

Chiesa "conceded that at the time of conception, she had sexual relations" with both Hudson and another doctor and "failed to disclose" her extramarital relationship, the Superior Court said in its opinion.

Chiesa's attorney did not return a call for comment.

Hudson said a DNA test he commissioned in 2004, after he was told his wife had an affair, showed another man had fathered the boy, who is now 12.

The Superior Court said its decision was nearly identical to a case it ruled on in 2003, saying it would not allow the system "to punish the party who sought to do what was righteous and reward the party who had perpetrated a fraud."

"It's another case that supports the issue of paternity fraud," Hudson said. "It's theft."