Ask Me Help Desk - Step fathers rights

My wife had an affair and became preganat in the process. He wanted her to get an abortion she refused. She came to me about it and I said I was against abortion, she movedout to an apartment. He would not leave his wife. My wife eventually came back had the baby we have worked things out and have since been Baptised and re did our wedding vows. He never paid child support for 2 years My wife tried to get him to tell his mother and father that he had a sonn his first but never would she finally sent a letter and now the world knows. He never saw him for 8 months after that. But has since been paying a small child support and having the child on weekends and some week days. Now that he is 10.5 and real good at baseball he wants his name changed and more time with him. As a stepfather I have been pushed to the side by the courts and margialised . I have no say. I have been there since birth and everyday since paid all medical dental and all things that a child needs. He wasn't even there when he was born I was. He came the next day after racing he gave him the first name his name for the middle and left the last name blank Why should he be able to change it now. In Washington state thanks

Main question: His is name on the birth certificate?

Generally, if the mother was married when the child is born, the husband is considered the child's father unless the legal father files a protest.

Since you say you are being pushed aside by the courts, I suspect you were not on the birth certificate and have not been declared the legal father. You missed a bet on this.

Now, you have no rights. Even though you have raised the child, you are not his legal father so have no standing.

My name "last name" was on the birth certificate. He just took us to court had blood test to show he was the biological father. His name is being placed on the birth certificate now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepped-on

My name "last name" was on the the birth certificate. He just took us to court had blood test to show he was the biological father. His name is being placed on the birth certificate now.

Has he been declared the legal father now? Is he on court ordered child support?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepped-on

My name "last name" was on the the birth certificate. He just took us to court had blood test to show he was the biological father. His name is being placed on the birth certificate now.

So the court declared him the legal father? Did your wife file for child support? What about setting a visitation schedule?

Well the amount of child support he is suppose to pay is would be set by the court, as would what days he can visit. If your wife has not done that, she has seriously errored, if she merely let him pay what he wants.

After that, your wife will have to want this to happen, she will hire an attorney, who will get the bio father to sign over his rights to allow the adoption, then you will be able to adopt the child

Not sure exactly what the question is but stepparents have no rights. If you were married to the mother at the birth then you would have been able to place your name on the birth certificate as the child's father but you did not step up to the plate on that one or the mother refused (frankly, good for her if that occurred). If that had been done, in most states no matter what a DNA test revealed you would have forever remained the legal father of the child. It also sounds like adoption is not an option for you if the father is stepping up to the plate to be the father. I can sympathize with you somewhat on this issue but it's hard to do because I hear accusations coming from you that you believe he only wants something to do with the child because he's "good at baseball" implying that at some later point in life he could go pro and that is the father's objective in all of this. Perhaps he just finally grew up, faced pressure from his family (and rightfully should), etc. Either way, this man is the biological father of the child and both he and the child deserve him being a part of his life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by southerngal77

Not sure exactly what the question is but stepparents have no rights. If you were married to the mother at the birth then you would have been able to place your name on the birth certificate as the child's father but you did not step up to the plate on that one or the mother refused (frankly, good for her if that occurred). If that had been done, in most states no matter what a DNA test revealed you would have forever remained the legal father of the child. It also sounds like adoption is not an option for you if the father is stepping up to the plate to be the father.

A lot of this isn't correct. Fisrt off being married makes a person the presumed father no matter what DNA has to say about it. In many states There is either a time limit for challenge or there can be no challenge. The fact that OP was married at the time makes him the presumed father of the child. In cases where a challenge is accepted by law then he could lose rights but at birth they are already given to him. Should he lose those rights by way of challenge he later could adopt the child. So nothing is forever until it passes the courts muster and the laws of the prevailing state.

You are completely right Cali and I stand corrected.
Under Washington State Statutes (RCW26.26.166,sections 1. a,I, iii) he would have only been the presumed father of the child due to being born during the marriage if:

RCW 26.26.116
Presumption of paternity in context of marriage.

(1) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(a) He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;

(b) He and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within three hundred days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity;

(c) Before the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is, or could be, declared invalid and the child is born during the invalid marriage or within three hundred days after its termination by death, annulment, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity; or

d) After the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child have married each other in apparent compliance with law, whether the marriage is, or could be declared invalid, and he voluntarily asserted his paternity of the child, and:

(I) The assertion is in a record filed with the state registrar of vital statistics;

(ii) Agreed to be and is named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate; or

(iii) Promised in a record to support the child as his own.

(2) A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by an adjudication under RCW 26.26.500 through 26.26.630.

Since OP seems to be stating that there is no father on the BC then the following could apply:

RCW 26.26.525
Proceeding to adjudicate parentage--No time limitation: Child having no presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated father.

A proceeding to adjudicate the parentage of a child having no presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated father may be commenced at any time during the life of the child, even after:

�� (1) The child becomes an adult; or

�� (2) An earlier proceeding to adjudicate paternity has been dismissed based on the application of a statute of limitation then in effect.

RCW 26.26.530
Proceeding to adjudicate parentage -- Time limitation: Child having presumed father.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, a proceeding brought by a presumed father, the mother, or another individual to adjudicate the parentage of a child having a presumed father must be commenced not later than two years after the birth of the child.

�� (2) A proceeding seeking to disprove the father-child relationship between a child and the child's presumed father may be maintained at any time if the court determines that:

�� (a) The presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception; and

�� (b) The presumed father never openly treated the child as his own.

[2002 c 302 � 507.]

So it sounds like if this child is now 10 years old and if the mother were to contest it she would win. The waters are still muddy In my opinion because he did not list his name on the BC. I don't think it should be done of course in the best interest of the child but I stand corrected.

Man! Why can't my father live in Washington state? Lol Seriously, you are correct in nothing is final until it goes through the courts but the issue doesn't look good in this matter because he is not listed as the father on the birth certificate which the courts would take as him not accepting responsibility for the child. Also he states the biological father has been providing some support to the child and excersing his visitation rights. This issue would really need more information and the assistance of an attorney in the long run because it is muddy waters (marriage during birth but no father listed on BC).

My name was placed on the birth certificate as the legal father. The biological father has since taken us to court and had that change to his name. The birth cert. is being revised to show him as the father now. Once that is done he is going to try to change the boy's last name to his last name. He is 10.5 years old now and we don't think this is right. I did step up to the plate and gave him my last name. I accepted full responsibility for him whether healthy or not I was going to be there for the child

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepped-on

My name was placed on the birth certificate as the legal father. The biological father has since taken us to court and had that change to his name. The birth cert. is being revised to show him as the father now. Once that is done he is going to try to change the boy's last name to his last name. He is 10.5 years old now and we don't think this is right. i did step up to the plate and gave him my last name. i accepted full responsibility for him whether healthy or not i was going to be there for the child

Then that is a completely different story all together. It sounds like now the biological father has now been proved and shown to be the legal father of the child through court proceedings, which explains why the courts are not taking you into consideration. Since that has already transpired the statues and laws pertaining to such no longer applies to your case. Your wife (the mother of the child) will have to show up in court to protest the name change and possibly hire an attorney. The judge will decide whether to grant the request or not. Now that you have been removed as the legal father of the child you no longer have rights regarding the child but the mother can still fight the name change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepped-on

My name was placed on the birth certificate as the legal father. The biological father has since taken us to court and had that change to his name. The birth cert. is being revised to show him as the father now. Once that is done he is going to try to change the boy's last name to his last name. He is 10.5 years old now and we don't think this is right. i did step up to the plate and gave him my last name. i accepted full responsibility for him whether healthy or not i was going to be there for the child

Do you have an attorney? Under the statute southergal ciited, I don't see how the judge can rule in his favor. Here's the applicable law:

RCW 26.26.116
Under this statue it would appear you are the presumed father.

RCW 26.26.530
Proceeding to adjudicate parentage -- Time limitation: Child having presumed father.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, a proceeding brought by a presumed father, the mother, or another individual to adjudicate the parentage of a child having a presumed father must be commenced not later than two years after the birth of the child.

�� (2) A proceeding seeking to disprove the father-child relationship between a child and the child's presumed father may be maintained at any time if the court determines that:

�� (a) The presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception; and

�� (b) The presumed father never openly treated the child as his own

Under this statute, it would appear he cannot challenge paternity since he is 8 years past the deadline.

I suspect you did not have an attorney who cited these statutes. So get an attorney and appeal the decision immediately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by southerngal77

Then that is a completely different story all together.

I'm not sure that changes things. As I said in my response, it sounds to me like the judge acting in contravention to statute. This gives the opportunity to appeal the ruling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I'm not sure that changes things. As I said in my response, it sounds to me like the judge acting in contravention to statute. This gives the opportunity to appeal the ruling.

Only the OP knows & the whole story isn't being told, it's coming out little by little. Sounds like from the original post this was what the mother wanted since she made the effort to point out the father and all. "My wife tried to get him to tell his mother and father that he had a sonn his first but never would she finally sent a letter and now the world knows."

So perhaps they didn't fight it at all. Either way, sounds like she needs to make up her mind and decide who she wants to be the legal father. Right now it sounds like a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. She can't have her husband claim to be the legal father and then force the biological father to accept the child, pay child support and exercise visitation and then turn around and also want the step father to have rights. In my opinion it sounds like a heck of a mess & I feel for the child involved in in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by southerngal77

Only the OP knows & the whole story isn't being told, it's coming out little by little. Sounds like from the original post this was what the mother wanted since she made the effort to point out the father and all. "My wife tried to get him to tell his mother and father that he had a sonn his first but never would she finally sent a letter and now the world knows."

So perhaps they didn't fight it at all. Either way, sounds like she needs to make up her mind and decide who she wants to be the legal father. Right now it sounds like a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. She can't have her husband claim to be the legal father and then force the biological father to accept the child, pay child support and exercise visitation and then turn around and also want the step father to have rights. IMHO it sounds like a heck of a mess & I feel for the child involved in in.

What you have to understand is that by law he was the legal father but in accepting child support even not court ordered then a judge would accept it as being challenged. Under those rules the presumtion would pass to the one supporting the child. So if the ( married presumed ) father accepted it and went along then it shows the challenge as accepted and aknowlaged. Otherwise what you have is extortion. So if the judge heard the case laid out by that then it would seem some rules got skipped such as the 2 year challenge rule. And I can see how a judge would step in and change things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

What you have to understand is that by law he was the legal father but in accepting child support even not court ordered then a judge would accept it as being challenged. Under those rules the the presumtion would pass to the one supporting the child. So if the ( married presumed ) father accepted it and went along then it shows the challenge as accepted and aknowlaged. Otherwise what you have is extortion. So if the judge heard the case layed out by that then it would seem some rules got skipped such as the 2 year challenge rule. And I can see how a judge would step in and change things.

You're right. I forgot about this quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepped-on

but has since been paying a small child support and having the child on weekends and some week days.

By accepting support and allowing visitation, the OP does seem to have accepted the challenge of the bio father. That would explain why the judge ruled for the bio father and why the courts have pushed him aside. Seems like he messed up.