 |
I am divorced and have a 12 yr old son. I recently found out through a DNA test that he is not my biological son. I want to know who the Biological father is. How do I do this? Do I have to hire an attorney to do so? What are my rights if the biological father is brought into our lives?
What State? It varies somewhat.
Do you have any idea who the bio father might be?
Ohio. The mother and I were married for 6 years and I never questioned my paternity until now. I had no idea I was not the BIO father. I do have a good idea of who he may be though. I want to know the truth, but not sure how to go about it.
Possibly none, If it is legally established that he is the father, because that would make you simply the ex-step-father. Do you really want to go down that slope?Quote:
Originally Posted by confusedandmad
Where you married to the mother when the child was born? Did you acknowledge the child by signing the birth certificate? Do you want to continue being his father?
Yes I was married to the mother, yes I signed the birth certificate not knowing there was any infedelity going on.
You didn't answer the key question. Do you want to continue to be his father?
You are and will be the legal father till you or someone attempts to challenge the legal relationship.
You have no rights to demand to know who the father is, you may only try and get your name off the birth certifcate.
I would assume you want to continue your relatioshp with your child ?
According to Ohio code you will not have any rights even to see the child.Quote:
Originally Posted by confusedandmad
There are a very strong presumption and no time limit. The best interest of the child is not considered in Ohio,too.
Ohio Revised Code
3111.03 Presumption of paternity.
(A) A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The man and the child’s mother are or have been married to each other, and the child is born during the marriage...
3111.04 Standing to bring paternity action.
(A) An action to determine the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship may be brought by the child or the child’s personal representative, the child’s mother or her personal representative, a man alleged or alleging himself to be the child’s father, the child support enforcement agency of the county in which the child resides if the child’s mother, father, or alleged father is a recipient of public assistance or of services under Title IV-D of the “Social Security Act,” 88 Stat. 2351 (1975), 42 U.S.C.A. 651, as amended, or the alleged father’s personal representative.
3111.05 Statute of limitations.
An action to determine the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship may not be brought later than five years after the child reaches the age of eighteen. Neither section 3111.04 of the Revised Code nor this section extends the time within which a right of inheritance or a right to a succession may be asserted beyond the time provided by Chapter 2105. 2107. 2113. 2117. or 2123. Of the Revised Code.
You are the legal father. You have no right to know who the bio father is. Now the same question again. Do you want to continue to be the child's father? If so then you do nothing and continue being the father. If you don't want to be the father then you go to court to have a court ordered DNA test done so that when it comes back that you are not the father then you go on with your life and never have contact with the boy again. Now, obviously the mother may let you have contact with him but that will be up to her not you you will be left in the cold if she want's him to have nothing to do with you after that.
Oh,Stina! I will vote for you at next elections! You have an idealistic view how the family courts work…Quote:
Originally Posted by stinawords
Actually the family courts have nothing to do with fairness or equity.The main designation is a public policy to be provided.The judges are interested in codes,articles and money-nothing more and nothing less.H.H. Koch, a judge in Supreme court of Tn was very valued not because he was very clever but because ha had always said that the courts were responsible for providing of policy.You can see absurd created by judges all over the USA.
An Appellate Court in NC decided that a man is not entitled to divorce based on adultery notwithstanding it was proven that the child of marriage was result of wife's adulterous relationship./WOW-to give a birth of a child whose father is not the husband IS NOT ADULTERY! Sorry,guy but there is a statute of limitation/
Judge Albert Rosenblatt wrote , "The legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation," /In Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D/Quote:
Originally Posted by confusedandmad
There is a legal concept known as “equitable estoppel”. This is principal which allows a court to declare that a man is the legal father, even though is not the biological father.
As a result of paternity presumptions and estoppel, a putative father may be coerced by law to maintain and support a child, even though they do not share any of the same genes. From the standpoint of male genes, the law is undeniably unfair in the requirement that the husband pay for his wife's child, irrespective of his genetic contribution to it. There are several obvious explanations for the one-sidedness of the paternity rules. Money is of foremost concern to society, and by making the married father presumptively responsible for any child born during the marriage, the rule prevents the child from becoming an economic liability to it./That's the public policy/
The way you were played into the child support system was you had a rebuttable presumption of paternity that you failed to rebut prior to entry of the divorce judgment. You didn't know. Now that the order was entered, you are stuck
Any calculation of an award of child support brings to the state from the fed a dollar-for-dollar payment for enforcement. Government offices depend on that money.
So, if your support amount is $500 per month, the fed pays the state $500 per month to enforce the support amount.
This means that there will be no way at all for you to drop your support amount because the state will not permit the loss of a single dollar from the fed especially today.
The whole morass you can see in BOONE v. BALLINGER /NO. 2006-CA-001257/
Judge Abramson wrote,"In Consalvi/Consalvi v. Cawood, 63 S.W.3d 195/, an ex-husband, Cawood, sought to be named the de facto custodian of two children that were not his biological offspring.
On appeal, this Court reversed the trial court's decision and ruled that Cawood could not be the de facto custodian.The statute requires that a person be “the primary caregiver for, and financial supporter of, a child.. . For a period of one (1) year or more.. . ” The court held that Cawood was “a primary caregiver” for the children, but did not find that he was “the primary caregiver.”.. . The Court concluded that “it is not enough that a person provide for a child alongside the parent” but rather he must “literally stand in the place of the natural parent.”
However, we also recognize that an inconsistency exists between Consalvi and the doctrine of paternity by estoppel that was adopted in S.R.D., supra, a 2005 decision of this Court relied on by the trial court in this matter. In the latter case, a married father who thought a child born during the marriage was his, and who treated her so, was estopped from denying paternity so as to avoid post-divorce child support obligations. Simply put, S.R.D. precludes a “misled husband” from severing the father-child bond simply because he is proven not to be the biological father. The focus of “paternity by estoppel” is on the child and the parent-child relationship that has developed. On the other hand, Consalvi holds that a man who provides care and financial support alongside the mother cannot acquire de facto custodian status so as to maintain a father-child bond after the parties' divorce.
The real problem with the decidedly inconsistent approaches in Consalvi and S.R.D. is the one clearly exposed in this case. Where a child is born nine or more months after a marriage, the husband is perfectly justified in assuming that he is the father of the child. Years later, as the marriage dissolves and the question of paternity is raised, he may want to remain in the child's life and provide care and support, but Consalvi instructs that he cannot be a de facto custodian because he provided the care and support alongside the biological mother who married him. Therein lies the irony: if a misled husband decides to “run” in order to avoid any parental support obligations, he would be prohibited from doing so by S.R.D. and would remain financially bound to the child, but should he desire to “stay” and maintain a relationship with the child, Consalvi, literally applied, says that he cannot be the de facto custodian and is not entitled to custody or visitation.”
That's the law and Court practice.The judges are interested in result oriented decisions . They are always concentrated on achieving the purposes of s.c.Public Policy rather that being distracted by logic,fairness or equity.
Because the OP is in Oh, I'd like to cite a recent Ohio case-Goeller v. Lorence, 2006-Ohio-5807
Synopsis:
For the first eleven years of his life, Bryan resided with Goeller./his marital father/.Following the hearing,the trial court granted Lorence's motion, awarding him legal custody of Bryan.Thus, for the first time, at age 11, Bryan no longer lived with Goeller and began iving with Lorence/his biological father/
Everybody makes choices, and nobody should be entitled to special treatment because of those choices.Equal results based on unequal treatment amounts to no kind of equality at all !!!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:22 AM. |