[GV70]

No one is interested in what he said. The question is,"Is there visitation schedule in your decree?"

[ScottGem]

What he said at the time has no bearing unless its written into the divorce decree.

[GV70]

And last question" Has he ever asked the court for custody rights?"
If the answer is no,you are out of luck.

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_hampshire/nhart_05


I see... your sources are The Time and divorcenet.
However in all cases plaintiffs were the stepparents,not the parents.

[nannoo]

Yes there is, there is no need to be rude.

[JudyKayTee]

I didn't ask you about that - a "supportive role" and visitation never came up in this thread until very late.

You asked how to get him to pay support; I told you to take him to Court for failure to comply with an Order. I asked how that Order is written.

I'm still waiting.

[cdad]

The other question I have is that in this case its clearly mentioned that the step father in this case was the "presumed father" which takes on a different premis from a stepfather to a child.


Ref:
Under the common law and by statute, children conceived or born during a lawful marriage are presumed to be legitimate. See RSA 522:5 (1974); RSA 458:23 (1992); State v. Sargent, 100 N.H. 29, 30, 118 A.2d 596, 597 (1955); Saunders v. Fredette, 84 N.H. 414, 416, 151 A. 820, 820 (1930). It is undisputed that the child was conceived during the lawful marriage of Erica and Mark. It is also clear that although Mark raised questions regarding the child's paternity during the divorce proceedings, he did not pursue this claim, and the divorce decree did not address his paternity. See RSA 458:23. He later specifically avowed his paternity of the child. In the first instance then, the child is presumed to be the Bodwells' legitimate child.

Bodwell v. Brooks

[cdad]

Also there is a good reason for this statement.
"
The U.S. Supreme Court has never been pressed to rule whether a stepparent is a real parent, and if so, under what conditions.

Read more: Are Stepparents Real Parents? - TIME


The problem being if the courts try to rule on it they in effect also rule against the bio parent by possibly denying rights and obligations.

Lets use this as an example.

Man marries woman with 2 existing children. Bio father doenst pay his court ordered child support. 10 years later a divorce occurs.

At what point did one lose the obligation and the other attained the obligation? You can't charge 2 fathers for a single child concurrently.

It would be a madhouse for the legal system.

[GV70]

Out of greenies to Judy and califdad

At common law, it is the biological or adopted parents who owe a duty to support their children.On this foundation that a parent is responsible for the support of his or her child was built the general principle that a grandparent is not responsible for the support of his or her grandchild. /Levy v. Levy, 536 So. 2d 742 (La. Ct. App. 3 Cir. 1988).-The appellate court held that the grandparents could not be held liable for child support. The court stated that the father had the primary obligation to provide child support, and no obligation could be imposed on the grandparents /

It is well accepted that stepparents do not have a duty to support a stepchild, except when the stepparent is standing in loco parentis to the stepchild. ). When a stepparent does stand in loco parentis to a stepchild, the stepparent's child support liability is still secondary only. The natural parent retains the primary duty to support the child.

In loco parentis means “in place of parent.” The traditional in loco parentis doctrine entails a temporary delegation of parental power, not a permanent and involuntary derogation of parental liberty.
Likewise, the in loco parentis doctrine should not be confused with the de facto parent doctrine, the psychological parent doctrine, or the equitable parent doctrine (also known as the parent by estoppel doctrine). The latter three doctrines are recent judge-made creations that grant standing to non-biological parents who are seeking to obtain visitation, custody, or other aspects of parental power over a child notwithstanding the objection of that child's biological parents and/or closest living biological relatives. Such doctrines have gained ground in states such as Wisconsin, Washington, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan, and California.
The most prominent judicial formulation of the de facto parent doctrine of standing is set forth in Holtzman v. Knott (In re Custody of H.S.H-K.), 533 N.W.2d 419, 435-36 (Wis. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 975 (1995), a case in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court created a four-part test that a petitioner must satisfy to claim status as a de facto parent:
(1) that the biological or adoptive parent consented to, and fostered, the petitioner's formation and establishment of a parent-like relationship with the child; (2) that the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household; (3) that the petitioner assumed obligations of parenthood by taking significant responsibility for the child's care, education and development, including contributing towards the child's support, without expectation of financial compensation; and (4) that the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature.

[GV70]

A legal parent is someone who is biologically related to a child, or who has adopted the child, or who was married to the child’s biological parent when the child was born. In certain circumstances, an adult who is not a child’s legal parent has nevertheless functioned as an important caretaker for a significant period and might be a child’s parent in fact even though she or he has no legal relationship to the child. Many states offer legal protections to relationships between children and their psychological or functional parents.In Massachusetts, such an adult caretaker is known as a “de facto” parent, i.e. a parent in fact, though not at law, and might have the right to visit with the child if visits are found to be in the child’s best interest.

De facto parents are different from legal parents. A de facto parent does not have the right to make important life decisions for the child, to consent to medical treatment, or to assume any of the other responsibilities that accompany legal custody. Nor is a de facto parent obligated to pay child support. Since custody and support are core aspects of parenthood, the term “de facto parent” is something of a misnomer.

[GV70]

Under the ALI [American Law Institute] definition "A de facto parent is an individual other than a legal parent or a parent by estoppel who, for a significant period not less than two years, (I) lived with the child and, (ii) for reasons primarily other than financial compensation, and with the agreement of a legal parent to form a parent-child relationship, or as a result of a complete failure or inability of any legal parent to perform caretaking functions, (A) regularly performed a majority of the caretaking functions for the child, or (B) regularly performed a share of caretaking functions at least as great as that of the parent with whom the child primarily lived” (American Law Institute, 2002, p.107-108).

Thus I cannot see how "de facto parents" are obligated by law to pay child support.
By the way the term "De facto parent" was invented by judges who wanted to make pleasure to some gays and lesbians.That's the reason child support obligation of "de facto" parents to be ordered only to gay/lesbian men.
There are only few cases when "de facto" parents were ordered to pay child support but all cases involved gay/lesbian couples.

[GV70]

Paternity by estoppel doctrine is used by courts only to stop a legally established father/marital presumption or acknowledged father/ to deny his support obligations.
/Therefore, in order to ensure that the child will not become a public charge, the Judge will decide that it is in the best interests of the child not to grant a disestablishment motion/

De facto parent doctrine only allows third parties to gain standing to petition a court for the visitation.


Where a statute provides that a stepparent has a duty to support a stepchild, the statute is essentially no more than a codification of the doctrine of in loco parentis doctrine. The in loco parentis doctrine states that if a stepparent takes stepchildren into his or her family or under his or her care in such a way that he or she places himself or herself in loco parentis, then the stepparent assumes an obligation to support the stepchildren.Thus, the codification of the in loco parentis doctrine into state legislation has not expanded the support rights of stepchildren as defined under the common law.

Asking a step-parent support after divorce is actually perverse, providing disincentives for socially desirable behavior. First, it discourages people from entering into relationships with single parents. Second,it discourages people from attempting to forge close relationships with their step-children if they are so foolhardy as to overcome the first disincentive.
If a single parent wants to find someone to help support her kids permanently—that is, even if the relationship ends and the kids stop visiting--the onus should be on her to get that explicit, unambiguous commitment (preferably in writing) from the prospective step-parent. If she can’t, the law should not impose it on someone merely because he was kind enough to help shoulder the burden for some period.

[krystim1109]

I am going through this now with my husband and his ex... if the non bio dad raised the child for 10yrs and the child was not born within the marriage then he is considered to be in loco parentis, and ( in the state of pennsylvania) if a child is born within a marriage and his name is on the birth certificate and willing signed it and raised the child on his own free will then he is responsible for paying child support

[this8384]

I am going through this now with my husband and his ex...if the non bio dad raised the child for 10yrs and the child was not born within the marriage then he is considered to be in loco parentis, and ( in the state of pennsylvania) if a child is born within a marriage and his name is on the birth certificate and willing signed it and raised the child on his own free will then he is responsible for paying child support

First, this thread is from August. The OP hasn't returned since that time.

Second, do you have something to cite where a non-biological party is granted parental rights simply for acting in loco parentis? Just because they assume the responsibility doesn't mean they have parental rights.

Third, simply being named on a birth certificate doesn't hold someone responsible. If the woman lied about paternity and the man found out after the marriage dissolved, he can contest paying child support. The judge will rule what s/he feels is in the child(ren)'s best interest.

This is a Law board and here, our answers must be accurate. Other boards on this site(relationships, dating, etc.) are more open to opinion.

[JudyKayTee]

I am going through this now with my husband and his ex...if the non bio dad raised the child for 10yrs and the child was not born within the marriage then he is considered to be in loco parentis, and ( in the state of pennsylvania) if a child is born within a marriage and his name is on the birth certificate and willing signed it and raised the child on his own free will then he is responsible for paying child support

Do you mean that if a child (NOT the huband's) is born within a marriage and {the father's} name is on the because and {the father} willingly signed the because and raised the child then he is rsponsible for saying child support, even if there is a challenge by DNA?

I also don't understand the "raised the child on/of his own free will" part. I am unaware that anyone can be forced to raise a child.

Confused -