At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
How to tell that the father is not the biological father
Hello!
I am new here and I beg you for your pardon if it is not hte right place for my post!
I'm writing on behalf of my sister who has a 10 yr. old son by accident. She was sleeping with 2 different men at the same time and became pregnant. She was relatively sure of who the father was and he assumed the role. Well, now that the child is older, it's very evident that he is not the father because there are no physical similarities. Now the biological father wants to be part of this child's life. The man that has raised him is not okay with this. Now, the child does not know that the man raising him is not his father.
The biological father lives 2.5 hrs. away and would like to see him 1-2 times per month. We will need to break the news.
What is the best way to do this and what do you say without causing emotional problems for this child and his legal father?We were told by counselors to have both fathers, mother, and child see a counselor and have the counselor tell the child the news with everyone present. What are your suggestions?
Another question-What will be the legal consequences of such action if the legal father resists ?
Thank you in advance!
...because no judge would change physical custody and make the kid go live with him perminantly.
Here is an example how American court system works/ especially in Ohio/
Synopsis of
Goeller v. Lorence, 2006-Ohio-5807 C.A. No. 06CA008883
Plaintiff-Appellant Ben Goeller (“Goeller”) has appealed from the
judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which dismissed his complaint seeking companionship with a minor child,Bryan Goeller(“Bryan”).
Bryan was born on June14, 1993. Bryan’s mother, Rondi, was married to Goeller at the time of his birth.Rondi died as a result of a brain aneurysm when Bryan was only four months old.
....
For the first eleven years of his life, Bryan resided with Goeller. It was Lorence who intruded upon Goeller’s family unit, asserting that he had fathered a child with Goeller’s then wife.
Following the hearing,the trial court granted Lorence’s motion, awarding him legal custody of Bryan.Thus, for the first time, at age 11, Bryan no longer lived with Goeller and began living with Lorence.
What absolutely amazes me in these cases is the downright selfishness on the part of the biological father.
If a biological father's rights were severed, without him knowing, to clear the way for an adoption (and this does happen--the birthmom lies and says she doesn't know who the father is, or the attempt is made to contact him and fails), and he came back 10 years later and wanted to overturn the adoption because "he didn't know" about the baby--people would think he was a horribly cruel man for breaking up that family.
If a biological mother "changes her mind" a mere 4 months after an adoption goes through, and wants her baby back, because her mother was the one who "forced" her to choose adoption because her mom would have kicked her out if she hadn't, but she loves her baby and wants to raise the child--people would be all over that as a "Tough! you signed those papers! How DARE you dash this other couples' hopes and dreams!?"
Basically--it's amazing that a bio father can get away with this when there was no adoption--just the belief that paternity actually WAS the father who was raising the child. Men who go back TEN YEARS LATER and want "their" child are the height of selfishness. They are not thinking in terms of the best interest of the child--they are thinking "That child is MINE! And since he's MINE! I WANT him!!" How could it possibly be in the best interest of the child to introduce a complete stranger as their "real" dad? And then to have that person usurp the place of the man who HAS been all that a father is to this child?
This is why I think that ALL back support should have to be paid in full before ANY contact with the child is given.
ZThe reason that i said no judge would change his physical custody perminantly is because he is currently living with his mother. in the case gv posted above the mother was dead [different from the case at hand]. i don't disagree that the legal system can be 'funny' but i have never seen a judge take custody from the mother to the bio father just because he hasn't been around... in fact i've seen just what i stated that the bio dad got visitation, and child support obviously, but it took 1.5 years to build up to weekends with the dad and two weeks in the summer and that kid was 8.
califdadof3 agrees: I agree exept on the last statement about child support being paid in full. That alone could be a life sentence. The way some states calculate child support it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.
I think Synnen wanted to say that if a father did not play quickly, he waived his rights on base someone else assumed all obligations toward the child. And if he wants to regain his rights-he has to pay.
The man who assumed all obligations has to be compensated in two ways.
1-For all expences during the time he was responsible to the child
2-For all emotional damages / SC of NJ-C.M. v M.P FM 13-984-98A/
/ This case examines the "Heart Balm" Act, the "outrageousness" required for a Ruprecht emotional distress claim, and whether such a claim extends to a non-spouse who is concededly the biological father of such children.
However, in the instant matter, J. M. is not seeking recovery for the loss of C.M.'s "bounty, love, and affection" Quite differently, J. M. looks to recover for emotional distress resulting from the dissolution of his relationship with children he raised as his own. He seeks damages for his splintered relationship with his alleged children, not for his dissolved martial relationship. Therefore J. M.'s claim is not for "alienation of affections", and thus is not barred by the "Heart Balm" Act./
First of all there is a fine line between what you want and what you get. In reality child support and visitation are tied in some ways but are actually 2 seperate issues. I agree on the damages part etc. Its just it would be a dangerous principle setting to have a father denied visitation just solely on arrears. In most divorce cases you will find that the NCP is usually in arrears by the time the first and actual court date where a decision can be made on custody and support. With that as a model then no visitation would be allowed until all arrears are caught up. That wouldnt be in the best interest of the child.
If it makes you feel any better--I don't mean that fathers of ALL stripes should be held to this standard--just the ones who disappear for half a child's life, then show up when they've finally grown up enough, and want every single right they should have been earning all along.
I ALSO feel that a mother that denies a father access to his child through petty means or by omission voids all back child support "due" to her/her child. In the instance where she never even TELLS him about the child, he may owe her back support (according to her and the state), but SHE owes HIM all those years of visitations--every other holiday and 2 weekends a month, or whatever--CONSECUTIVELY. Give HIM custody, if he wants it, to make up for the fact that she deliberately hid his child from him, and NOW wants money.
Granted, NONE of this is good for the child, in the end. How about single parents in general just grow up and start acting like adults, with the best interests of their child in mind, rather than the viciousness that goes with "He doesn't want ME anymore, and broke up with me, so I'm taking his child away" or the pettyness of "she won't let me see my kid, so I'm not paying support".
Bah, I'll get off my soapbox now. I'm just tired of people wondering why kids are the way they are, when so many parents act like little kids fighting over a toy instead of like parents raising a child, even if they can't be with each other.
I feel worried myself he will want to act immediately.
GV70 is right-I can see two competing rights here-the right of the natural father against the right of the real father/ as said Synnen/.
If it makes you feel any better--I don't mean that fathers of ALL stripes should be held to this standard--just the ones who disappear for half a child's life, then show up when they've finally grown up enough, and want every single right they should have been earning all along.
I ALSO feel that a mother that denies a father access to his child through petty means or by omission voids all back child support "due" to her/her child. In the instance where she never even TELLS him about the child, he may owe her back support (according to her and the state), but SHE owes HIM all those years of visitations--every other holiday and 2 weekends a month, or whatever--CONSECUTIVELY. Give HIM custody, if he wants it, to make up for the fact that she deliberately hid his child from him, and NOW wants money.
Granted, NONE of this is good for the child, in the end. How about single parents in general just grow up and start acting like adults, with the best interests of their child in mind, rather than the viciousness that goes with "He doesn't want ME anymore, and broke up with me, so I'm taking his child away" or the pettyness of "she won't let me see my kid, so I'm not paying support".
Bah, I'll get off my soapbox now. I'm just tired of people wondering why kids are the way they are, when so many parents act like little kids fighting over a toy instead of like parents raising a child, even if they can't be with each other.
I couldn't agree with you more. Great prespective.
Linear Mode
