Paul George Is an Irresponsible Father, Says Judge

A lawsuit against Paul George says he has a daughter who was born on May 1 in New York. And now, according to the New York Post, a local judge is scolding the Indiana Pacer star for ducking the results of a paternity test and failing to fulfill his duties as a father.

"“Even though it is all but certain that [George] is the father of the 5-month-old baby girl at the center of this case,” Justice Matthew Cooper writes, “he has gone to every length imaginable to avoid taking responsibility for his actions.”"

Justice Cooper’s view stems from delays created by George’s legal motions, which seek a second paternity test and a transfer of the case from New York (where the child was born and Cooper works) to Florida (where the child was conceived). The Indianapolis Star reports that George’s desire for a second paternity test is “due to misgivings regarding the methodology used and accuracy of the prebirth paternity test.”

Though I’m sure the methodology questions have merit in the eyes of Paul George, these delays seem to contradict the spirit of his earlier statements on the matter.

In February, before the girl was born, Paul George told reporters that he would take responsibility if the child was his, per Jason Spells of WTHR in Indianapolis. In an official statement in February, he said that “if and when there is legal confirmation that I am the father, I will fully embrace my responsibilities. This is a personal matter that is still being sorted out.”

Instead, he may have a nearly five-month-old daughter who doesn’t know her father and hasn’t received the benefits of his child support. In late June, after George filed a suit for sole custody, the mother’s lawyer told the New York Post that “only recently [has George] had an interest in seeing the child.”

Paul George’s Custody Lawsuits

In June, the mother and Paul George both sued for sole custody. The mother’s suit claims, per the Indianapolis Star, that George has acknowledged that the child is his “verbally and in writing and, upon request, paid various medical and other expenses in relation to pregnancy.”

She also claimed that she should be granted sole custody because George “is not capable of care of the child as the child’s custodial parent due to, among other things, his professional obligations, his lifestyle and his residency away from the child. … [George] is in a travel status during the season and during the off-season.”

George’s suit for custody, which hinged on proof of paternity and grants the mother “limited parental time sharing,” offers a conflicting view, according to the Indianapolis Star.

It claims that Paul George “has the means and resources to be a fully involved parent and to capably care for the child” and that he “is the best parent to care for the minor child on a day-to-day basis and to make necessary [decisions] for her in all areas of her life.”

George’s suit also notes that the mother is “not capable of the care of the minor child” since she is “currently unemployed and has refused to seek or gain employment and is dependent upon others for the care of the child.”

In June, the mother’s attorney, per the New York Post, called this final aspect of Paul George’s suit “grossly insulting to women” as the mother is only unemployed “because she has a 2-month-old child.”