Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Family Law (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=120)
-   -   Does the baby daddy have rights? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=360264)

  • Jun 1, 2009, 12:20 PM
    drcookie1
    Does the baby daddy have rights?
    I have a friend who has a baby by a man who is not her husband. Her husband signed the birth certificate. Does the biological father have any rights or can he sue for such rights and insist on a DNA test? A blood test has already indicated he is the father, not her husband
  • Jun 1, 2009, 12:23 PM
    nikosmom

    A blood test and DNA test are the same thing. If he has already been determined to be the bio father then of course he has rights. Unless he has agreed to the new spouse adopting the baby but he can exercise his rights for visitation.
  • Jun 1, 2009, 12:26 PM
    ScottGem

    This depends on the state and time elements. In most states, the husband is presumed to be the father especially if he signs the birth certificate. The bio father will then have a limited window to challenge the assignment of legal paternity.

    There is a sticky at the top of this forum about putatative father registries. I suggest you show that to the father.
  • Jun 1, 2009, 06:15 PM
    GV70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nikosmom View Post
    A blood test and DNA test are the same thing. If he has already been determined to be the bio father then of course he has rights. Unless he has agreed to the new spouse adopting the baby but he can exercise his rights for visitation.

    Wrong!
    A blood test and DNA test are not the same thing.
    He does not have any rights except to file for paternity but I doubt a court to order testing if the mother and her husband/ and presumed father by law/ resist...
  • Jun 1, 2009, 06:46 PM
    cadillac59

    It would help to know what state you are in because there is considerable variation on how this situation is handled from state to state (GV70 post a pretty informative outline once on varying state laws applicable to the rights of non-husband bio-dads who impregnate married women--I can't recall the thread but I thought it was pretty good).

    In California, for example, this bio-dad would be out of luck unless he can avail himself of one of a number of statutory presumptions of paternity, like having signed a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity, or having taken the child into his home and held the child out as his own. And whether the mom and husband were living separately and apart at the time of conception can cause a different result. If the child were conceived while the mom and husband were living together as husband and wife, and the bio-dad has no presumption of paternity at all going for him, I think he might be totally out in the cold.

    So, the answer is highly fact-driven and varies depending upon where these people are.
  • Jun 1, 2009, 06:57 PM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cadillac59 View Post
    (GV70 post a pretty informative outline once on varying state laws applicable to the rights of non-husband bio-dads who impregnate married women--

    I think you are referring to the sticky on putatative father registries that I referred to.
  • Jun 1, 2009, 06:57 PM
    Fr_Chuck

    You need to clarify

    1. what country do you live in, rules from US or India or Canada are all different

    2. if the US, what state, the laws vary greatly

    3. What type of "blood" test was done, was it court ordered, do did it.

    5. Who is asking, is the husband trying to get out of obligations, in case of divorce to pay child support

    6. how old is the baby now, in some states it is different between one , two or three years
  • Jun 1, 2009, 09:30 PM
    cadillac59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem View Post
    I think you are referring to the sticky on putatative father registries that I referred to.

    No, it wasn't that. It was an overview on various state laws on the rights of dads who father children of married women married to other men. You know, one of those deals.

    I don't recall how other states approached it, but I know there was considerable variation. Of course I know California's approach but that's about it (and I think ours was a minority view if I am not mistaken).
  • Jun 1, 2009, 11:36 PM
    nikosmom

    I think I misread the question and for that I apologize... I read it that the child was born before being married and that the new husband later signed the birth certificate- but not as the friend had an affair and conceived the child while already married. So yes, in the latter situation, I understand that the husband is legally the father. I read it that the OP's friend was trying to cheat the bio father out of his rights.

    Also most people use the terms blood test and DNA test interchangeably. Although blood is not the only way to test DNA, it is an accurate means of paternity testing. Here the OP said the ex had already been tested and determined the bio father.
  • Jun 2, 2009, 09:01 AM
    JudyKayTee
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nikosmom View Post
    Also most people use the terms blood test and DNA test interchangeably. Although blood is not the only way to test DNA, it is an accurate means of paternity testing. Here the OP said the ex had already been tested and determined the bio father.



    Agree with what everyone has said but I find - and it's posted here - that "prospective fathers" use the term "blood test" and "DNA" interchangeably.

    Gets confusing but it happens on a regular basis.

    Otherwise - interesting how this varies from State to State. In NY you really have no rights as the father unless and until the child is born, DNA comes in and there is proof positive. The mother is sort of the "carrier" and gets to go wherever and whenever she wants and, of course, gets to take the baby with her!

    This brings me to another question - maybe a discussion question (and I'm deadly about discussions on the legal thread so this may have to be removed) but it makes no sense to me that the mother might be able to be kept from moving BUT if she wants an abortion the alleged father has no rights. Likewise (and there was a thread on this not too often) if HE wants the abortion and SHE does not, he cannot force it.

    ?
  • Jun 2, 2009, 09:49 AM
    stevetcg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JudyKayTee View Post
    Agree with what everyone has said but I find - and it's posted here - that "prospective fathers" use the term "blood test" and "DNA" interchangeably.

    Gets confusing but it happens on a regular basis.

    Otherwise - interesting how this varies from State to State. In NY you really have no rights as the father unless and until the child is born, DNA comes in and there is proof positive. The mother is sort of the "carrier" and gets to go wherever and whenever she wants and, of course, gets to take the baby with her!

    This brings me to another question - maybe a discussion question (and I'm deadly about discussions on the legal thread so this may have to be removed) but it makes no sense to me that the mother might be able to be kept from moving BUT if she wants an abortion the alleged father has no rights. Likewise (and there was a thread on this not too often) if HE wants the abortion and SHE does not, he cannot force it.

    ??

    Sometimes there is benefit to having all the uterus. :)
  • Jun 3, 2009, 12:04 PM
    GV70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cadillac59 View Post
    It would help to know what state you are in because there is considerable variation on how this situation is handled from state to state (GV70 post a pretty informative outline once on varying state laws applicable to the rights of non-husband bio-dads who impregnate married women--I can't recall the thread but I thought it was pretty good).

    In California, for example, this bio-dad would be out of luck unless he can avail himself of one of a number of statutory presumptions of paternity, like having signed a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity, or having taken the child into his home and held the child out as his own. And whether the mom and husband were living separately and apart at the time of conception can cause a different result. If the child were conceived while the mom and husband were living together as husband and wife, and the bio-dad has no presumption of paternity at all going for him, I think he might be totally out in the cold.

    So, the answer is highly fact-driven and varies depending upon where these people are.

    Here it is:

    The paternity questions incl. biofathers v. marital/acknowledged,adjudicated and etc./ fathers are solved in three ways and all depend on the states law.In Alabama,California,Florida,Georgia,Iowa,Michigan,O klahoma,Pennsylvania,Texas,Kentucky
    And Wisconsin it is impossible to the biofather to assert his rights if a child was born
    And live in intact family and the mother and the marital /acknowledged/father resist to his claims.Other states adopted UPA/ the Uniform Parentage Act/ with some differences.The UPA allows biofathers to assert their rights but there is statutes of limitation - usually from 1 to 5 years after child was born.It has cognisize in Arkansas,Colorado,Illinois,Minnesota,New Jersey,New York,Washington , Massachusetts, and etc.and some of these states have to weight presumptions where two competing / marital and biological / fathers are and the best interest of child controls these presumptions.

    The third part of states are adopted the biological imperative.If the biological father is
    Proven he stays as a biological and also as a legal father without matter when,where and
    Why he asserted his rights and without the marital status of the mother also without to
    Allow the husband to have an opportunity to defend the marital presumption.These states
    Are Connecticut,Indiana,Maine,Mississippi,Ohio,Tenness ee.In these states the biological father can assert his right at any time.

    In Connecticut,Indiana,Maine,Mississippi,Ohio,Tenness ee the best interest of the child is irrelevant to paternity disputes./The Mississippi Supreme Court determined in May 2006 that a court can not consider a child's best interests when a father requests a DNA paternity test./



    Some news-Tennessee legislature has repealed the rights of BF if the husband and wife file a declaration objecting to DNA tests.
  • Jun 3, 2009, 04:23 PM
    cadillac59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GV70 View Post
    Here it is:

    The paternity questions incl. biofathers v. marital/acknowledged,adjudicated and etc./ fathers are solved in three ways and all depend on the states law.In Alabama,California,Florida,Georgia,Iowa,Michigan,O klahoma,Pennsylvania,Texas,Kentucky
    and Wisconsin it is impossible to the biofather to assert his rights if a child was born
    and live in intact family and the mother and the marital /acknowledged/father resist to his claims.Other states adopted UPA/ the Uniform Parentage Act/ with some differences.The UPA allows biofathers to assert their rights but there is statutes of limitation - usually from 1 to 5 years after child was born.It has cognisize in Arkansas,Colorado,Illinois,Minnesota,New Jersey,New York,Washington , Massachusetts, and etc.and some of these states have to weight presumptions where two competing / marital and biological / fathers are and the best interest of child controls these presumptions.

    The third part of states are adopted the biological imperative.If the biological father is
    proven he stays as a biological and also as a legal father without matter when,where and
    why he asserted his rights and without the marital status of the mother also without to
    allow the husband to have an opportunity to defend the marital presumption.These states
    are Connecticut,Indiana,Maine,Mississippi,Ohio,Tenness ee.In these states the biological father can assert his right at any time.

    In Connecticut,Indiana,Maine,Mississippi,Ohio,Tenness ee the best interest of the child is irrelevant to paternity disputes./The Mississippi Supreme Court determined in May 2006 that a court can not consider a child's best interests when a father requests a DNA paternity test./



    Some news-Tennessee legislature has repealed the rights of BF if the husband and wife file a declaration objecting to DNA tests.


    Yes, GV, thank you. That was very good.

    As a practical matter I'm not sure which approach I favor. About California's approach, you wrote: "In Alabama,California,Florida,Georgia,Iowa,Michigan,O klahoma,Pennsylvania,Texas,Kentucky
    and Wisconsin it is impossible to the biofather to assert his rights if a child was born
    and live in intact family and the mother and the marital /acknowledged/father resist to his claims." I'd fine tune this statement a little bit because we differientiate between whether the child was conceived during a time the parties were living separately and apart and cases in which the married couple was living as an intact family at the time of conception. A rebuttable presumption (FC 7611) applies in the case of the former and the so-called conclusive presumption (FC7540) in the latter.

    But yes, this is a very good overview of the law across the country.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:00 PM.