
Originally Posted by
califdadof3
For one thing you can't dictate what answers you will recieve this is a public forum.
Another thing is that since the child will be born during the marriage your husband is the presumed father and will be legally responsible for the child. Sorry but he can't have it both ways.
Hmmmm...
In New York, a child "born to a married woman by means of artificial insemination performed by persons duly authorized to practice medicine" is the legal child of both spouses for all purposes -- inheritance, custody, financial support -- provided the couple complies with statutory requirements. First, both spouses
must give written consent to the artificial insemination of the wife. This document must then be signed and notarized by the couple. Finally, the physician performing the insemination must provide a certification affirming the physician's performance of the service. Compliance with these requirements establishes the husband as the legal father of the child and terminates the sperm donor's right to claim paternity.
But see Laura WW v Peter WW
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/...008/502930.pdf
Synopsis
At issue is the novel question of whether a husband can be
Deemed the legal parent of a child born to his wife, where the
Child was conceived as a result of artificial insemination by
Donor (hereinafter AID)1 during the marriage, but where the
Husband's consent to the AID was not obtained in writing.
The parties to this divorce action were married in 1995.
After two children were born to the marriage, defendant
(hereinafter the husband) had a vasectomy. In 2004, plaintiff
(hereinafter the wife) became pregnant again, as a result of AID,
With a third child (hereinafter the child). A few months into
The wife's pregnancy, the parties separated pursuant to an
Agreement which provided, among other things, that the husband
Would not be financially responsible for the child. However, in
Her subsequent complaint for divorce, the wife alleged that the
Child was born to the marriage.
Initially, we agree with Supreme Court that the provision
Of the settlement agreement absolving the husband of any support
Obligation with respect to the child is
unenforceable. :eek:Despite
The fact that the parties stipulated to the terms of the divorce,
The court correctly recognized its obligation
to protect the best
interests of the child, and appointed a Law Guardian. Indeed,
The agreement left the child fatherless without any hearing or
Analysis of the child's rights and interests. Given that "the
needs of a child must take precedence over the terms of the
agreement when it appears that the best interests of the child
are not being met," we agree that the parties' agreement – which
Preceded any determination of legal paternity – to leave the
Child without the husband's support cannot stand...
Generally
"The best interest of a child" means nothing but the judge's broad discretion to break the law.
A judge may follow the law/"written consent is needed"/ or to rule "In the best interest of the child"/there is no consent,the husband was out of the country but... the child cannot be a ward of the state/.
Thus you cannot receive a straight answer here.The judge may rule as s/he wishes.That's the NYS legal truth.