[JudyKayTee]

I don't believe I ever stated that there was an order against him. What I said was that he found out about the kid when he received mail stating that he had to come in for a paternity test. Then he got the results. Then he got a letter from CSEA stating the date of the Administrative Hearing to Establish an Order. The woman got off of welfare and wrote a letter to CSEA stating that she was off of state aid and no longer needed their services. She stated that she and her husband did not want to disrupt their family life and that she wanted absolutely nothign to do with the bio father - my husband. And that her husband raised the kid since birth. And that the kid IS being supported by two parents, albeit one is a step parent. So you see, there was NEVER a hearing to establish an order - THEREFORE THERE IS NO ORDER. And I never stated there was. And "Do the right thing - have a relationship with your child" is NOT legal advice. It is MORAL advice. Thanks!

To be fair to everyone, there is a thin line, sometimes, between legal and moral advice.

I see that your husband is the father of this child. DNA proves he's the father. Unless the child is adopted by the woman's husband your husband will always have the chance that he will suddenly be responsible for the child's support. I see no way out of that. He can't simply resign as the father.

If you read through the many other posts on this subject over the past year you will see similar situations.

I see no legal responsibility on the part of the woman's husband to support the child. Nice he has chosen to do this, nice that she's decided to take the high road - but I don't see any letter or side pocket arrangement as changing legal responsibility on the part of your husband.

I think you have to take this situation to an Attorney and see what can be worked out but I don't see an easy answer.

[GV70]

Some legal points here:
Ohio is a state with a very strong biological presumption.
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 or is born within three hundred days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, divorce, or dissolution or after the man and the child’s mother separate pursuant to a separation agreement.

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.

(B) An agreement does not bar an action under this section.

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.

[GV70]

OH§3119.962-Allows action to disestablish paternity to be brought at any time.
3119.962 Granting relief from paternity determination.=(A)(1) Upon the filing of a motion for relief under section 3119.961 of the Revised Code, a court shall grant relief from a final judgment, court order, or administrative determination or order that determines that a person or male minor is the father of a child or from a child support order under which a person or male minor is the obligor if all of the following apply:
a) The court receives genetic test results from a genetic test administered no more than six months prior to the filing of the motion for relief that finds that there is a zero per cent probability that the person or male minor is the father of the child.

(b) The person or male minor has not adopted the child.
2) A court shall not deny relief from a final judgment, court order, or administrative determination or order that determines that a person or male minor is the father of a child or from a child support order under which a person or male minor is the obligor solely because of the occurrence of any of the following acts if the person or male minor at the time of or prior to the occurrence of that act did not know that he was not the natural father of the child:
(e) The person or male minor was presumed to be the natural father of the child under any of the circumstances listed in section 3111.03 of the Revised Code.

[GV70]

Other states take an estoppel view on step-parent liability (California does this). Only if the step-parent has taken on the day-to-day role of parent and the child has come to see the step-parent as the parent is liability imposed.

Not in all cases-see COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO v. ARZAGA/a man could not be found to be a child's parent by estoppel where he did not know that he was not the child's father but he acted as such based on mistaken believe that he could be-California Appellate Court /

[cadillac59]

Not in all cases-see COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO v. ARZAGA/a man could not be found to be a child's parent by estoppel where he did not know that he was not the child's father but he acted as such based on mistaken believe that he could be-California Appellate Court /

The term "step-parent" would apply to an individual who knew he was not the biological parent. This is not inconsistent with Arzaga. In Arzaga the father did not consider himself a step-parent nor did anyone else. He either thought he was or could be the child's bio-dad.

Arzaga answered one question we had no answer to previously and that was whether parentage by estoppel could apply to a person who acted as father under the mistaken belief that he was the bio-dad. The court simply said no.