[GV70]

...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.

[Synnen]

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.

[stinawords]

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.

[GV70]

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./

[cdad]

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 separate 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 wouldn't be in the best interest of the child.

[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.

[VictoriaWillson]

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/.

[cdad]

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 perspective.

[qwerty77]

My opinion.
DNA test to prove who is the biological father - that will be helpful first.
Secondly the child has a right to know who their biological father is.
When I was 13 I discovered who I thought was my biological father was not. Only a few years ago I was able to discover who it was. Not knowing who was affected me in more ways than I could imagine. Different scenario here because my mother didn't want to disclose the fact she got pregnant through abuse, however the truth is always better to be out.
This child has a father who loves them, and to this child he will always be his real father as he's been there since birth. But the child has the right to know to be able to answer questions about themselves.
Hope it makes sense.

[this8384]

My personal opinion.
DNA test to prove who is the biological father - that will be helpful first.
Secondly the child has a right to know who their biological father is.
When I was 13 I discovered who I thought was my biological father was not. Only a few years ago I was able to discover who it was. Not knowing who was affected me in more ways than I could imagine. Different scenario here because my mother didn't want to disclose the fact she got pregnant through abuse, however the truth is always better to be out.
This child has a father who loves them, and to this child he will always be his real father as he's been there since birth. But the child has the right to know to be able to answer questions about themselves.
Hope it makes sense.

While your story is heartfelt, and I certainly don't want to discourage you from posting on this site, I need to point out a few things:
1) This is a law board. Our answers here must conform to the law. Opinions and/or guesses are not okay.
2) There is no legal right to "know" who your biological parents are. People have different reasons for not disclosing that information. Personally, I think people should know but that's for another board.
3) This thread is from 2008. I am sure that the OP has dealt with the situation by now and if not, I don't see that they have returned to the site since asking the question.

[qwerty77]

I was speaking of a moral right not a legal right. I stated as my opinion what I thought best for the child. One of the questions the poster asked was " what are your suggestions?" as well as asking for legal info.