So,here is the situation:
I am married and pregnant by donor insemination
We plan to stay married because we love each other
My husband was out of country when I did the AInsemination so his could not sign consent form at my Dr Office
Now he is saying he doesn't want to sign the birth certificate because in case we separate later on he doesn't want to pay child support for a child it is not his(I agree)
I would not want to hold him responsible either,it is only fair
So,in NY State,its possible to still be married at birth but leave fathers name blank on birth certificate?
I know AOP will not be valid or Denial of Paternity cause ill still be marrried
I intend to state at birth that he is not the bio father
Any paternity lawyers *** and *** do not give moral speeches,only knoledgeable answers ***
Thank you

For one thing you can't dictate what answers you will receive this is a public forum.

Another thing is that since the child will be born during the marriage your husband is the presumed father and will be legally responsible for the child. Sorry but he can't have it both ways.

For one thing you can't dictate what answers you will recieve this is a public forum.

Another thing is that since the child will be born during the marriage your husband is the presumed father and will be legally responsible for the child. Sorry but he can't have it both ways.

Hmmmm...
In New York, a child "born to a married woman by means of artificial insemination performed by persons duly authorized to practice medicine" is the legal child of both spouses for all purposes -- inheritance, custody, financial support -- provided the couple complies with statutory requirements. First, both spouses must give written consent to the artificial insemination of the wife. This document must then be signed and notarized by the couple. Finally, the physician performing the insemination must provide a certification affirming the physician's performance of the service. Compliance with these requirements establishes the husband as the legal father of the child and terminates the sperm donor's right to claim paternity.

But see Laura WW v Peter WW
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2008/502930.pdf
Synopsis

At issue is the novel question of whether a husband can be
Deemed the legal parent of a child born to his wife, where the
Child was conceived as a result of artificial insemination by
Donor (hereinafter AID)1 during the marriage, but where the
Husband's consent to the AID was not obtained in writing.

The parties to this divorce action were married in 1995.
After two children were born to the marriage, defendant
(hereinafter the husband) had a vasectomy. In 2004, plaintiff
(hereinafter the wife) became pregnant again, as a result of AID,
With a third child (hereinafter the child). A few months into
The wife's pregnancy, the parties separated pursuant to an
Agreement which provided, among other things, that the husband
Would not be financially responsible for the child. However, in
Her subsequent complaint for divorce, the wife alleged that the
Child was born to the marriage.

Initially, we agree with Supreme Court that the provision
Of the settlement agreement absolving the husband of any support
Obligation with respect to the child is unenforceable. :eek:Despite
The fact that the parties stipulated to the terms of the divorce,
The court correctly recognized its obligation to protect the best
interests of the child, and appointed a Law Guardian. Indeed,
The agreement left the child fatherless without any hearing or
Analysis of the child's rights and interests. Given that "the
needs of a child must take precedence over the terms of the
agreement when it appears that the best interests of the child
are not being met," we agree that the parties' agreement – which
Preceded any determination of legal paternity – to leave the
Child without the husband's support cannot stand...


Generally "The best interest of a child" means nothing but the judge's broad discretion to break the law.
A judge may follow the law/"written consent is needed"/ or to rule "In the best interest of the child"/there is no consent,the husband was out of the country but... the child cannot be a ward of the state/.

Thus you cannot receive a straight answer here.The judge may rule as s/he wishes.That's the NYS legal truth.

Please don't tell us, all volunteers, what you do and don't want to hear. There is no such thing as a "paternity lawyer."

I'm actually IN NY and, yes, the husband is presumed to be the father. After that, if things fall apart, it's a case by case decision. From what I've researched the Judge will NOT leave a child who has been raised by a mother and presumed father without that father's support - and that includes financial support. Some of this also depends on the age of the child when the couple separates and divorces.

You can state whatever you want at birth but the husband is the presumed father.

Is the other question really about you or your sister?

You can state whatever you want at birth but the husband is the presumed father.

I respectfully disagree. In those conditions the husband CANNOT be deemed as a legal father by law.

I respectfully disagree. In those conditions the husband CANNOT be deemed as a legal father by law.

I never mind being corrected by you - now I have another question. If that is the law, how was the woman inseminated without husband's consent? Or didn't Doctor know she was married? Or something?

I haven't had time to read the whole case but I will -

Thanks for the update/correction.

Domestic Relations
Article 5
§ 73. Legitimacy of children born by artificial insemination. 1. Any child born to a married woman by means of artificial insemination performed by persons duly authorized to practice medicine and with the consent in writing of the woman and her husband, shall be deemed the legitimate, birth child of the husband and his wife for all purposes.

2. The aforesaid written consent shall be executed and acknowledged by both the husband and wife and the physician who performs the technique shall certify that he had rendered the service.

The statute fails to address the entire range of legal issues that can arise among those who conceive with the assistance of artificial insemination.Over the years, New York courts have adopted a rebuttable presumption that children born to married women are the children of the women's husbands. In addition, a common-sense doctrine known as equitable estoppel may prevent one member of a couple who has agreed to bring a child into the world through artificial insemination and agreed to share the rights and responsibilities of parenthood from later reneging on those promises.

Laura WW v Peter WW is clear "abuse of discretion" performed by the Supreme court.
You can read there "In 2004, plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) became pregnant again, as a result of AID,with a third child (hereinafter the child). A few months into the wife's pregnancy, the parties separated pursuant to an agreement which provided, among other things, that the husband would not be financially responsible for the child... The parties then entered a settlement agreement which reaffirmed the terms of the separation agreement and calculated the husband's support obligation based on two children. Thereafter, Supreme Court found that the provision in the separation agreement absolving the husband of his support obligation for the child was void as against public policy."

Great! I can see neither the Estoppel theory nor Statutory law applicable/except the old Lord Mansfield rule/.

I discussed that case with my students.They said the public policy of the New York State is clear,according to the NYS Supreme court-"Women,do what you want and we will make the men paying for it";);)
By an irony of fate... Laura said Peter was not the father,Peter said he was not the father,they both said they separated and agreed about child support but...


Everybody makes choices, and nobody should be entitled to special treatment because of those choices.
Equal results based on unequal treatment amounts to no kind of equality at all !!!

Greetings

YouTube - Lenny Kravitz - American Woman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzWHE32IxUc)

P.S. I like Lenny Kravitz

My understanding was that children born in a marriage are presumed to be the husband's - in NY. Now it looks like it's almost case by case. Sigh.
Yes-children born in a marriage are presumed to be the husband's .It is still valid .If a woman gave birth to a child whose biological father is not the husband and she does not want to disclose/or does not know who the father is/ ,then the husband will be forced to pay child support .If the mother wants the BF to be involved,then the marital presumption will be rebuted..
Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson from Supreme Court of Ky observed in Boone v Ballinger that
''Therein lies the irony: if a misled husband decides to “run” in order to avoid any parental support obligations, he would be prohibited from doing so and would remain financially bound to the child, but should he desire to “stay” and
Maintain a relationship with the child, Consalvi, literally applied, says that he cannot be the de facto custodian and is not entitled to custody or visitation."

That's from Ky but it is same in New York,too/ In Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D/
Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D. (2006 NY Slip Op 05238) (http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05238.htm)
That decision provides that courts will not allow an individual to walk away , even if it is subsequently uncovered that another resorted to fraud or artifice.
Here is how the Court put it:

Given the statute recognizing paternity by estoppel, a man who harbors doubts about his biological paternity of a child has a choice to make. He may either put the doubts aside and initiate a parental relationship with the child, or insist on a scientific test of paternity before initiating a parental relationship. A possible result of the first option is paternity by estoppel; the other course creates the risk of damage to the relationship with the woman. It is not an easy choice, but at times, the law intersects with the province of personal relationships and some strain is inevitable.


Shondel "misrepresented the paternity of the child for years" and during the Family Court proceedings represented that she had not had sexual relations with any other man during the relevant time, a statement proven false /Huh-Was she punished for committing perjury?/

Judge George Smith noted in his dissent, the Court appears to be advocating a policy that "a man never should take on a parental role unless he wants to be unconditionally responsible for the child's financial support."


And finally-The NY Statutes are also silent regarding situations where there is not written consent, or the woman is single. In these instances, New York case law governs.

Wait... I just want to make sure I have this straight:

SHE committed an act against the law (becoming artificially inseminated by donor without husband's signed agreement).

HE doesn't want to be held responsible.

SHE agrees that he shouldn't be held responsible.

The donor isn't going to be held responsible (nor should he be).

Therefore the child is left with ONE supporting parent, and in the case of a divorce if she needs to get state Welfare, the state would have no recourse to recover the funds from a father because she broke the law? Am I getting that right?

Wait...I just want to make sure I have this straight:

[QUOTE=Synnen;2750075]SHE committed an act against the law (becoming artificially inseminated by donor without husband's signed agreement).
Yes!

HE doesn't want to be held responsible.
Yes

SHE agrees that he shouldn't be held responsible.
Yes


The donor isn't going to be held responsible (nor should he be).
Yes


Therefore the child is left with ONE supporting parent, and in the case of a divorce if she needs to get state Welfare, the state would have no recourse to recover the funds from a father because she broke the law? Am I getting that right?
WOW-who is the father??
Legally-yes. In practice-no.
The SC stated that if a male was so stupid to be married then his wife was free to be impregnated by artificial insemination or by a lover and the husband would be obligated to pay child and spousal support notwithstanding he had never agreed to it. That's the public policy in the state of New York-get the first male and make him pay for all female choices.
I am sure it is gender neutrally and it is always in the best interest of adulteress….ooops-it is in the best interest of the child.


Do you think that an unwilling husband whose soon to be ex-wife is impregnated by Artificial insemination has to be forced by law to pay child support for her choice?

Synnen beat me to it - amazing. As a NY taxpayer I will be paying for this child. Wonderful.

The more I read the pregnancy boards and legal boards the more I think that getting pregnant, having a child outside a marriage, is the most selfish act a woman can perform. Someone else ends up raising the child so the mother can work OR someone else has to chip in because the mother can't support the child OR the State steps in. Yes, in some circumstances the mother does it all by herself but I'd love to see the statistics.

I'll brace myself for the hate mail.

Do you think that an unwilling husband whose soon to be ex-wife is impregnated by Artificial insemination has to be forced by law to pay child support for her choice??

Nope.

I think that SHE should lose the child at birth to the state to place for adoption.

There are PLENTY of adoptive parents who want an infant, and if the mother is committing crimes and leaving a child with no legal father and having issues supporting the child, SHE shouldn't be allowed to have the child either.