Let's say that a man meets a woman. Man falls in love with woman. Woman tells the man that she loves him, envisions him in her future, etc. Man completely trusts this woman with his life. However, it turns out that the woman was in a lesbian relationship the entire time. It was an elaborate setup where the woman and her roommate acted as if they hated one another, and were merely friends who turned into hateful roommates. It turns out they were in a relationship akin to marriage.

One day the man receives a call from the woman. The woman informs the man that she lied about her relationship with her roommate. The woman claims that she was in a relationship with her roommate, and is getting back with her roommate. The woman requests no further contact from the man. Of course, this conversation happens roughly a week after the woman's last period was due. It becomes increasingly apparent upon reflection that the man was unwittingly used to impregnate the woman and provide a child for their lesbian partnership.

What sort of legal avenues can the man pursue in order to secure custody of the child immediately upon its birth? In addition, is a judge more likely to grant custody of the child to the man or the morally deprived woman? (She is clearly a morally deprived person for unwittingly using somebody to bring a partially unplanned child into this world, especially when there are plenty of sperm donors out there who are wittingly providing their sperm).

Thank you. Please let me know if this question would be better off in another category.

You check first of all to see if your state has a putative father registry. If it does, get on it.

Next, you get a lawyer. You have NO rights whatsoever until the child is born, but once the child IS born, you go to court to settle custody, visitation, and child support issues.

Most courts won't deprive a child of EITHER parent. Most courts will also not take a newborn infant away from his/her mother.

Morally deprived or not is YOUR opinion. Some people would say you were BOTH morally deprived to have had sex outside of marriage. Yup, she used you. You didn't exactly scream "No! Rape!" when you were having sex with her, though. It takes TWO people to make a child. If you didn't want one, you should have made SURE of birth control or just kept your pants on--and I'm betting that's how a court will see it as well.

Let's say that a man meets a woman. Man falls in love with woman. Woman tells the man that she loves him, envisions him in her future, etc. Man completely trusts this woman with his life. However, it turns out that the woman was in a lesbian relationship the entire time. It was an elaborate setup where the woman and her roommate acted as if they hated one another, and were merely friends who turned into hateful roommates. It turns out they were in a relationship akin to marriage.

One day the man receives a call from the woman. The woman informs the man that she lied about her relationship with her roommate. The woman claims that she was in a relationship with her roommate, and is getting back with her roommate. The woman requests no further contact from the man. Of course, this conversation happens roughly a week after the woman's last period was due. It becomes increasingly apparent upon reflection that the man was unwittingly used to impregnate the woman and provide a child for their lesbian partnership.

What sort of legal avenues can the man pursue in order to secure custody of the child immediately upon its birth? In addition, is a judge more likely to grant custody of the child to the man or the morally deprived woman? (She is clearly a morally deprived person for unwittingly using somebody to bring a partially unplanned child into this world, especially when there are plenty of sperm donors out there who are wittingly providing their sperm).

Thank you. Please let me know if this question would be better off in another category.



Let's just say (to use your words) that the man cannot and will not get custody of the child unless/until he can prove the mother is a danger to the child in some way. Being a Lesbian does not endanger the child.

I'm curious to know why the woman chose to "trick" this particular man into fathering her child - what does he have to offer?

Let's see - the man and woman have sex. She's morally depraved but he's not? Maybe the man - and I realize this is a "just say" situation and not anything you're going through - should check out his sexual partners more thoroughly and be grateful she was a Lesbian and not HIV positive.

Let's say that a man meets a woman. Man falls in love with woman. Woman tells the man that she loves him, envisions him in her future, etc. Man completely trusts this woman with his life. However, it turns out that the woman was in a lesbian relationship the entire time. It was an elaborate setup where the woman and her roommate acted as if they hated one another, and were merely friends who turned into hateful roommates. It turns out they were in a relationship akin to marriage.

One day the man receives a call from the woman. The woman informs the man that she lied about her relationship with her roommate. The woman claims that she was in a relationship with her roommate, and is getting back with her roommate. The woman requests no further contact from the man. Of course, this conversation happens roughly a week after the woman's last period was due. It becomes increasingly apparent upon reflection that the man was unwittingly used to impregnate the woman and provide a child for their lesbian partnership.

What sort of legal avenues can the man pursue in order to secure custody of the child immediately upon its birth? In addition, is a judge more likely to grant custody of the child to the man or the morally deprived woman? (She is clearly a morally deprived person for unwittingly using somebody to bring a partially unplanned child into this world, especially when there are plenty of sperm donors out there who are wittingly providing their sperm).

Thank you. Please let me know if this question would be better off in another category.

The father(assumably, you) can file in court for visitation and joint custody. Most states want an infant with the mother at birth due to breastfeeding and other things of that nature.

Also, your argument of "moral deprivation" is going to be laughed out of court. You, sir, ejaculated inside of her - you were not married. There's two sides to the coin.

Addendum: What if the woman in question poked holes in the man's condoms? Does that change anything?

Let's just say (to use your words) that the man cannot and will not get custody of the child unless/until he can prove the mother is a danger to the child in some way.

Are we really to believe that somebody who pokes holes in somebody's condoms, conceals their sexual orientation and past sexual history, etc. is more capable of raising a child than the stable man in question? Clearly the woman has some serious psychological issues to contend with.

I'm curious to know why the woman chose to "trick" this particular man into fathering her child - what does he have to offer?[/QUOTE]

Good family history? Shares common characteristics (brown hair) with her partner?

Addendum: What if the woman in question poked holes in the man's condoms? Does that change anything?

What's your proof?

Nope. Doesn't change a thing.

He's STILL responsible for child support, still has to file for custody, child support, and visitation.

The take of the courts is this: It doesn't MATTER who tricked who into the pregnancy; if you absolutely did not want kids with that person, you should not have been having sex with that person. THEIR interests are SOLELY on what is best for the CHILD.

And BOTH parents paying for and raising the child, unless one parent is a danger to the child, is generally what is in the best interests of the child.

Nope. Doesn't change a thing.

Is it admissible for making the case as to why the father should be granted custody of the child instead of the mother and her partner?


The take of the courts is this: It doesn't MATTER who tricked who into the pregnancy; if you absolutely did not want kids with that person, you should not have been having sex with that person. THEIR interests are SOLELY on what is best for the CHILD.

Surely what is best for the child would be granting custody to the individual who is NOT running around poking holes in people's condoms, exposing people to health risks in the process? If somebody has no regard for the health of their sexual partner, let alone their own health, what kind of parent are they going to be?

What's your proof?

Laws of probability.

heh.

Sorry, your laws of probability aren't proof.

I got pregnant using THREE forms of birth control. Correctly. The ONLY form of birth control that is 100% is abstinence.

A judge would laugh at that argument.

And no--just because she supposedly did this heinous thing that you accuse her of but have no proof of doesn't have ANY bearing on whether she would be a good parent.

Danger to the child is more like: Drug abuse, alcoholism, leaving the child unsupervised for large periods, not feeding the child (neglect), or emotionally, physically, or mentally abusing the child.

She will probably get physical custody at first for the simple reason of breast feeding.

What is best for the child is that BOTH parents in this situation get counseling to get over their bitterness at each other and their lack of shame at misleading someone into believing they had a chance at a life together.

Frankly, with the attitude you portray HER as having, and the attitude YOU have, I hope that the state throws up their hands and gives the child to a nice, loving, adoptive couple and closes the adoption records.

And no--just because she supposedly did this heinous thing that you accuse her of but have no proof of doesn't have ANY bearing on whether or not she would be a good parent.

What if a witness can be produced who swears under oath that the woman in question told her that she poked holes in the man's condoms, and faked the entire relationship so that she could unwittingly be provided with a baby?

Clearly somebody like that, somebody who is willing to put their own health at risk, cannot be trusted with providing safety and good health to a child, right? If she neglects her own health, how can we trust her not to neglect the child?

I don't get a flu shot every year, and haven't been to the dentist in three years.

Are you telling me that I wouldn't be a good mother, and should have any kids I have taken away from me because I neglect my own health?

And yeah... get any witness you like. She'll get a witness that swears that she never told a lie in her life, and that YOU broke up with HER because she had an affair with her roommate. Character witnesses are a dime a dozen. Unless you can produce a video of her poking holes in the condoms, and cackling madly that she was going to trick you on the soundtrack, you've got NOTHING. Once again, the only defense for an unplanned pregnancy is rape. Did she rape you? Can you prove it? No? Then you should have kept your pants on.

Puh-leeze.

Once again--the issue here is NOT which of you wronged the other. The issue is "what is in the best interests of the child?" The best interests of the child, in nearly EVERY case that does not involve abuse, is to have a relationship with BOTH parents.

Do you smoke? Drink? Drive a car? Fly occasionally? Eat sushi? Ride the train? ALL of these things could lead to DEATH! You're risking your life and health! You can't DO that and be a good parent!

Do you see how ridiculous your argument sounds?

You are NOT going to get sole custody with that argument.

Again--have you seen a lawyer about this? You're GOING to need one.

You do not see the difference between undertaking normative tasks that involve risk (e.g. driving a car) and undertaking deceptive, immoral activities with much higher levels of risk (e.g. poking holes in somebody's condoms, exposing yourself and your partner to who knows what)?

Clearly somebody who participates in the latter has some mental health issues to deal with. There is no need of it in the year 2010 with so many willing sperm donors available to choose from.

I refuse to believe somebody with that type of state of mind can be trusted with sole custody of a child, and I find it hard to believe any judge would feel differently.

Who said she'd get sole custody?

I'm just saying that what she did MAY be immoral, but ONLY if you can PROVE it.

You can't.

Therefore, it's hearsay, and didn't happen, and isn't admissible in court.

The part you aren't getting is that we don't necessarily condone her actions; we just know that a court isn't going to believe the "She used me to get pregnant then broke up with me and ran back to her lesbian girlfriend" line. Truth or not, that sounds pretty fantastic and out there--and like something a guy would use to get out of paying child support.

You will very probably SHARE custody.

What she's done isn't heinous enough to have her child ripped away from her--and if you can't prove it, then she hasn't done anything in the eyes of the court.

The way your story will LOOK like is this:
You BOTH had CONSENSUAL sex, it resulted in a pregnancy, she broke up with you, you're bitter, you accuse her of poking holes in the condom to stick you with child support while she gets a baby and goes back to her lesbian lover.

PLEASE read that last paragraph again from the point of view of an outsider. TRY to see it from someone's point of view besides your own.

No one is going to take that story seriously unless you have PROOF. Real, physical, absolute proof that SHE was DELIBERATELY poking holes in your condoms--that YOU didn't take the precaution of making sure she didn't have access to if you didn't want to be a parent.

You will not get sole custody of the child, ESPECIALLY of a newborn, based on the idea that she's an evil, immoral, crazy lady that did you wrong and risked her own health with a partner she could apparently trust--I mean, YOU trusted HER with access to your condoms, why shouldn't she trust you regarding your sexual history?

She took ZERO risks to her health if you were in a relationship where YOU trusted her and SHE trusted you to be honest about medical backgrounds/STDs.

So what would be the best ending to this story? If this were a movie... how would everybody like to see it end? Joint custody with the kid growing up and living happily ever after (In your heart, you know that will not happen. There is a reason why society is so f'd up... it has to do with failed marriages and children not getting undivided, loving care from their father and mother). A fight that results in the kid ending up in the care of a loving, adoptive couple (Again, not realistic)? The woman suffering a traumatic miscarriage, and living the rest of her days feeling like she has been punished for her sins?

With the child placed for adoption with a loving couple that didn't have bitterness toward each other, with the birthparents being involved in the child's life in the form of occasional visits and letters/pictures a couple times a year.

With the child placed for adoption with a loving couple that didn't have bitterness toward each other, with the birthparents being involved in the child's life in the form of occasional visits and letters/pictures a couple times a year.

That's not realistic. You would groan if the movie ended like that.

Tell us how it should really end...

Several issues, first you have no proof of any of this that will be allowed into court.

They can merely claim they were broke up but got back together,

Since 10 percent on average of condom use is not effective, merely getting pregnant while using a condom is not proof of anything

The women will unless proved with evidence that she is a danger to the child, get at least 1/2 custody of the child.

And in fact if the man starts saying the women is immoral for being a lesbian in today's courts, he will be the one more suspect than the women,

He needs an attorney since he will also be liable to pay child support, even with some joint custody, depending on income levels of both.

*** Note, we do not delete posts unless they violate rules of policy.

You have gotten some very good answers, following general legal practice.

Addendum: What if the woman in question poked holes in the man's condoms? Does that change anything?


It will cause the Judge to literally fall off the bench in gales of laughter. What does this guy have that is so special that this woman wanted to have his child -

Well, we know it's not his spelling. Impregnant?

Laws of probability.


I would recommend that you retain a good Attorney - you have no idea what the legal system is about.

So what would be the best ending to this story? If this were a movie...how would everybody like to see it end? Joint custody with the kid growing up and living happily ever after (In your heart, you know that will not happen. There is a reason why society is so f'd up...it has to do with failed marriages and children not getting undivided, loving care from their father and mother). A fight that results in the kid ending up in the care of a loving, adoptive couple (Again, not realistic)? The woman suffering a traumatic miscarriage, and living the rest of her days feeling like she has been punished for her sins?



Time to close - OP doesn't want to listen, other people have questions while he is tying people up with stupidity, this has turned into a blog.

Time to close - OP doesn't want to listen, other people have questions while he is tying people up with stupidity, this has turned into a blog.

I agree. Can we just delete this entire question and thread? It is ridiculous.

Closed at the OP's request.

I agree. Can we just delete this entire question and thread? It is ridiculous.

I'm going to add something here because I can. Yes this is ridiculous and I have some grave doubts that this was a real situation. I am even wondering if you are writing a book and needed some input. But this is a law forum, so asking how we would like it to end is inappropriate.

I would also say that a court would look at the mother not as morally bankrupt, bu as someone so desperate to have a child she would choose this way. That would mean her commitment to the child might even be stronger. I would also think a court would look at the father as trying to get reveng efor being used in this manner.