Man Owes Nearly $53K In Child Support Of Kid He Thinks Isn't His

In the case of Conway v. Cruse, an Omaha, Nebraska man has come to court determined to clear his name and escape a crushing financial burden he says he never should have owed in the first place. For two decades, he has been paying child support for a young woman who is now an adult. Today, he is fighting to prove that he is not, and never has been, her biological father.

The man, identified as Conway, says his life has been overshadowed by a debt he believes is built on a falsehood. According to court records, Conway was ordered to pay child support shortly after his breakup with Cruse, his former partner. At the time, he says, he trusted her when she claimed he was the father. No DNA test was performed before the order was issued.

For years, Conway made payments, sometimes on time, sometimes falling behind when financial hardships hit. Over time, interest and penalties piled up, creating what he describes as a “mountain” of debt. Now, with the child long since grown, Conway wants the court to recognize that the original order was based on a false assumption and to relieve him from what he sees as an unjust financial obligation.

“I’ve been paying for 20 years for a child that’s not mine,” Conway told the court. “I’m not trying to run from responsibility — if she was mine, I would have been there. But the truth matters. And I shouldn’t have to keep paying for a lie.”

Cruse, the child’s mother, disputes Conway’s claims. In her testimony, she insisted that Conway was indeed the father and that the child support order was justified. She pointed to their relationship at the time of conception and said that Conway had accepted the role of father in the early years. She also noted that he never contested paternity when the order was first established.

To Conway, that early acceptance was a mistake born of misplaced trust. He says he had no reason to question Cruse’s word until years later, when comments from friends and certain details about timing raised doubts in his mind. By then, the child support debt had grown, and he feared the legal system would not be on his side.

In recent years, advances in DNA testing have made it easier for men in Conway’s position to challenge old paternity determinations. However, many states, including Nebraska, have strict rules about when such challenges can be brought. Often, once a child support order is finalized, overturning it requires extraordinary circumstances — especially if the child is no longer a minor.

Conway’s attorney argued that the absence of any paternity test at the time of the original order should be considered a fundamental flaw in the case. “There was no proof, no scientific evidence, just an assumption,” the attorney told the judge. “For 20 years, my client has been treated as if that assumption were fact. We’re here to set the record straight.”

Cruse’s legal team countered by emphasizing the importance of stability in family law. They argued that allowing old cases to be reopened decades later could create chaos and harm for the children involved, even after they reach adulthood. They also pointed out that Conway’s failure to contest paternity at the outset effectively waived his right to challenge it now.

Beyond the legal arguments, the case is steeped in emotion. Conway says the financial strain of the child support order has shaped every aspect of his adult life — from where he could live, to the jobs he could take, to his ability to support his other children. “I’ve been living under this weight for so long, it’s hard to even imagine what freedom would feel like,” he said.

Cruse maintains that the support was necessary and just, ensuring her daughter had the resources she needed to grow up. She also suggested that Conway’s late challenge is motivated more by resentment over the money than by any genuine search for truth.

The court is now tasked with deciding whether Conway can proceed with DNA testing to establish or disprove paternity. If allowed and if the test confirms he is not the biological father, it could open the door for him to seek relief from his remaining debt. However, even in such a case, the court may determine that past payments cannot be refunded, as they were made under a valid court order at the time.

Observers note that cases like Conway v. Cruse highlight the tensions between fairness to the alleged father, the needs of the child, and the legal system’s interest in finality. While science now offers answers that were unavailable decades ago, the law often prioritizes stability over reopening old wounds.

For Conway, the hope is simple: to be free of a debt he believes should never have existed, and to have the truth — whatever it may be — officially recognized. For Cruse, the stakes are equally personal, tied to her credibility and the history she has maintained for over twenty years.

As the judge considers the next steps, both sides wait for a decision that could either end a long-running chapter of conflict or cement it permanently in the record. The case stands as a reminder that when questions of paternity are left unresolved at the start, they can resurface decades later with consequences that ripple through lives long after the child has grown.

Full version here: