A 65 yr old man didn't give wife permission to get pregnant. Does he still have to be the father?

Good question. Where do they live, and did the husband ever have sperm frozen for future use by himself and his wife?

Yes, interesting, albeit weird question.

The courts tend to subscribe to the rubric that a woman has total control over her body, reproductive-wise. So I suspect (more than suspect actually: I am sure of it.) she doesn't need her husband's permission to get pregnant.

It's an open question whether the medical professional who assists in the artificial insemination has any liablility to the woman's husband.

The real question is whether he will be responsible for child support. The law presumes that a man is the father of children born to his wife within wedlock. He might, if push came to shove, get that presumption overturned by the court. There might be a statute of limitations involved.

A related question is the child's right to inherit, with a similar solution.

Yes, interesting, albeit wierd question.

The courts tend to subscribe to the rubric that a woman has total control over her body, reproductive-wise. So I suspect (more than suspect actually: I am sure of it.) she doesn't need her husband's permission to get pregnant.

It's an open question whether the medical professional who assists in the artificial insemination has any liablility to the woman's husband.

The real question is whether he will be responsible for child support. The law presumes that a man is the father of children born to his wife within wedlock. He might, if push came to shove, get that presumption overturned by the court. There might be a statute of limitations involved.

A related question is the child's right to inherit, with a similar solution.

Some states have already addressed this as a matter of law. And it boils down to being no presumption if it is done without the knowlage of the husband. It is on that basis that the time for challenges have been accepted beyond the date of expiration when there has been blatant cheating and a coverup.

Some states have already addressed this as a matter of law. And it boils down to being no presumption if it is done without the knowlage of the husband. It is on that basis that the time for challanges have been accepted beyond the date of expiration when there has been blatant cheating and a coverup.

While I agree I can remember a weird case in Pa-

In Turczyn v. Turczyn, PICS Case No. 99-0424, Monroe County Common Pleas Court Judge Edward D. Reibman ruled that a woman who gave birth to quadruplets she conceived with donor sperm through artificial insemination without her husband's knowledge or consent has the right to child support.

While I agree I can remember a weird case in Pa-

In Turczyn v. Turczyn, PICS Case No. 99-0424, Monroe County Common Pleas Court Judge Edward D. Reibman ruled that a woman who gave birth to quadruplets she conceived with donor sperm through artificial insemination without her husband's knowledge or consent has the right to child support.

That was an interesting read. In this case I agree with the judge. Since the husband signed the birth certificate. I believe the outcome would have been different had the circumstances been different.

Ref:
Sperm donor ordered to support quads (http://fathersforlife.org/fatherhood/estoppel.htm)

That was an interesting read. In this case I agree with the judge. Since the husband signed the birth certificate. I believe the outcome would have been different had the circumstances been different.

Does it mean that in your point of view if a female lies, she will have to be rewarded and a mislead male will have to be slavered paying child support for a child who he never fathered nor agreed to artificial insemination?;)

Tiat for tat neg. There are plenty of LAWYERS on my side of this debate.
I am expecting the newest revenge from that person because she has never had legal arguments...

GV70, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
IS THAT FROM SOME ANCIENT THREAD YOU DREDGED UP??
How is asking whether it might be his sperm used in the artificial insemination 'stupid' and worthy of a negative?
I looked up some blankety-blank legal arguments from various states, and didn't feel like listing them all until we knew more, not knowing if they applied to this OP.

Does it mean that in your point of view if a female lies, she will have to be rewarded and a mislead male will have to be slavered paying child support for a child who he never fathered nor agreed to artifical insemination?;)

No, what it means is if lets say a woman cheats at a time the married couple is trying to get pregnant and then convinces the husband its his child when it is not. And later DNA proves it is not then there shouldn't be an order of support against the husband. It should be ordered against the bio father.

When it comes to the case you pointed out it seems that after her becoming pregnant he "accepted" the pregnancy. And later signed the birth certificate. Otherwise if he had rejected it and filed for divorce then he wouldn't have been charged with child support. The entire basis of the case wasn't about paternity but about estopple. Those are 2 very different legal definitions.