not a lawyer, but i hear things on radios and see things on the internet - i doubt if he had to sign anything. my understanding is that in many states, the child of a married couple is legally assumed to be the child of married male. the principle is of the law is set up for the benefit of the child - to assure that it is provided for, not to assure that adult males don't have to pay for children they didn't father.
To my knowledge he didn't sign anything.
I believe the principal of the law is less about benefiting the child and more about the state having someone to seek reimburse from if ever that child receives public assistance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk