I live in Michigan and my husband and I have been off and on for the last couple of years. During that time I became pregnant by a married man, he wants custody of the child once born what are his legal rights. My husband and I have agreed to raise the child together but the real father wants visitation does he have this right even though I am still married.

Of course he will, as soon as the baby is born he will file for a DNA test.

After that he will file in court for custody, or joint custody, or at least visits. You will then be able to file for child support if you have custody.

So this other man will be part of the child's life if he wants to be.

Does he want custody or visitation? The two are different. If a DNA test proves he is the father, then he has rights to be a part of the child's life. He also has obligations to support the child.

However, to exercise those rights he will have to petition Family court for them. The court will make a decision based on the best interests of the child.

Yes, he does. He is the father and, regardless of marital status he has all of the accompanying rights and responsibilities of a father.

Please-send me a PM-I will give you information and some useful links and lawyers.In your state the biological fathers do not have any rights if the mothers are married.Simply... I do not like to flood the forum.

http://www.theloveofmylife.org/numerick_vs_krull.pdf
http://gv70.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/20050823_c252840_44_252840opn.pdf
PLAINTIFF HAS NO STANDING TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY WHERE DEFENDANT SECRETLY MARRIED ANOTHER MAN AFTER THE CHILD WAS CONCEIVED. By Judge Susan L. Dobrich
Pickering v. Allore, No. 243836, April 1, 2004 (Unpublished)

Plaintiff Oscar Pickering appealed the court order granting summary disposition to defendant in plaintiff's action to establish paternity and legal custody of the minor child born to defendant Julie Allore. Pickering argued that the Paternity Act violates a father's right to equal protection. Acknowledging previous decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Girard v. Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231 (1991), Spielmaker v. Lee, 205 Mich App 51 (1994), Hauser v. Reilly, 212 Mich App 184 (1995), and McHone v. Sosnowski, 239 Mich App 674 (2000), plaintiff admitted that he lacked standing to pursue paternity, but contended that his action is distinguishable from Hauser and McHone because the defendant secretly married another man after the minor child was conceived. The Court of Appeals found no distinction, and affirmed the trial court order.

Domestic Relations Review

Plaintiff has no standing to establish paternity where defendant secretly married another man after the child was conceived. (http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/04dom007.htm)

Parentage Issues: Here We Go Again!
Here we go again. The Michigan court of appeals, in Whiting v Bolt, Docket No. 261495 (decided November 21, 2006 unpublished), reversed the trial court and held that because the biological mother had executed an acknowledgment of parentage with her ex-husband, with whom she was living at the time the child was born, that the acknowledgment trumps DNA and that the man alleging to be the child's biological father lacks standing to sue for an establishment of parentage, custody, and/or parenting time. The bio Dad had asked the trial court to revoke the acknowledgement of parentage and DNA testing established that the plaintiff was the biological parent.

Here's the “killer language” from the COA's decision:

“The Acknowledgement of Parentage Act permits a man and a woman, in place of adjudication under the paternity act, to legally acknowledge that the man is the father of a child.” Aichele, supra at 153. If a man acknowledges paternity in accordance with the act, he “is deemed to be the natural father of a child born out of wedlock.. . ” Eldred v Ziny, 246 Mich App 142, 148; 631 NW2d 748 (2001); see also MCL 722.1003(1). Under the Acknowledgement of Parentage Act, “a man and a woman can essentially stipulate to the man's paternity.” Aichele, supra at 154-155. The execution of an acknowledgement of parentage “'establishes paternity,' meaning that 'the man signing as the father' has the 'same relationship' with the child as he would have had if the child were 'born or conceived during a marriage.'” Killingbeck v Killingbeck, 269 Mich App 132, 143; 711 NW2d 759 (2005), quoting MCL 722.1004. A man who properly executes an acknowledgement of parentage for a child is designated the child's legal father. Killingbeck, supra at 143-144. Therefore, when Bolt and Taylor-Bolt executed the acknowledgement of parentage in accordance with the Acknowledgement of Parentage Act, Bolt, not plaintiff, became the child's father in the eyes of the law. Because the child's paternity was established, MCL 722.714(2) precludes any further action to challenge paternity. Therefore, the child's paternity could not be challenged under the paternity act, and the trial court should have dismissed plaintiff's paternity suit.”

Barnes v Jeudevine: The Decision





The Michigan supreme court reversed the court of appeals' decision in Barnes v Jeudevine, in an opinion released on July 26, 2006. Docket No. 129606. As a result, Barnes, who filed an action seeking a determination of paternity of a child conceived while the child's mother was married to another man—a child whom he co-parented for 4 ½ years, and a child who believes that Barnes is his father—is denied the opportunity to establish legal parentage.

The majority opinion: The court was split 4-3 in its decision. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Weaver, held that a default judgment of divorce stating that it appears that “no children were born of this marriage and none are expected” is not clear and convincing evidence that the child was not an issue of the marriage. Thus, the marital presumption applies and Barnes is deprived of standing to sue to determine his legal parentage of the child.

Please-before posting in Family law-check the respective state law.In other way you does not post correct information.Tennessee IS NOT the whole USA.
BTW Tennesee recently limited rights of biofathers if the mother is married.