Check out some similar questions!

bourglee · Jul 16, 2007, 09:29 PM

My husband was previously married to a woman who had 2 children who weren't his and they had 1 daughter together. He had the other 2 children change their last name to his to make it easier to carry them on his medical insurance at work. They were not together more than maybe a year or a year and a half. He has never had their names changed back and I am wondering if anything happens to him, are they entitled to anything that we have acquired together, and what is the process in reversing their name change? Thanks,

GV70 · Jul 17, 2007, 04:46 AM

Give us some additional information... I am interested in how children's last names were changed.

bourglee · Jul 17, 2007, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by GV70

Give us some additional information...I am interested in how children's last names were changed.

My husband does not really know exactly what was done. He just says that they went somewhere in New Orleans and did it. I'm thinking that if they went to New Orleans that they went to the birth certificate place. The children were on the mother's name,they both have different fathers and are not a part of their lives.

Squiffy · Jul 17, 2007, 01:11 PM

It doesn't really matter what their names are,unless he adopted them they are not automatically entitled to anything he may leave behind. If they had their names changed by something like deed poll, I am pretty sure their mother would have to change them back if she wanted to, as he has no legal right to change their names!

GV70 · Jul 17, 2007, 01:12 PM

If he signed BS he is obligated to pay child support and these kids are his legal offsprings

GV70 · Jul 17, 2007, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Squiffy

It doesnt really matter what their names are,unless he adopted them they are not automatically entitled to anything he may leave behind. If they had their names changed by something like deed poll, i am pretty sure their mother would have to change them back if she wanted to, as he has no legal right to change their names!

Signing BS or paternity acknoledgment /these are the 2 circumstances for changing the children last name/ is same as he is a natural or adoptive father with all rights and obligations.

LadyB · Jul 17, 2007, 01:20 PM

Basically if he got on their birth certs he legally acknowledged paternity and the biological reality is a moot point. As GV70 stated, if he is on that birth cert, he is the father for all intents and purposes.

If they filed a name change only, and he didn't adopt or acknowledge paternity by getting added to the birth certs, they simply have the same name. He needs to have an attorney find the records filed and see exactly what it is he signed/did.

BTW, none of that is necessary for insurance, a stepparent is able to name any minors living in their home as dependents. You may want to talk with your husband about researching things a bit before he goes signing legal documents.

Squiffy · Jul 17, 2007, 01:24 PM

Surely he wouldn't be allowed to sign anything saying the kids were his if they weren't? Surely the US legal system doesn't allow someone to take along a new partner and just sign the birth certificate long after a child was born?
In the UK we have a thing called deed poll whereby anyone can change their name, or their child's, without it having any effect on paternity, and it is cheap and quite easy to do. I would assume the man in question would know if he took on those children in any legal capacity, rather than just changing their name! I could change my kids surnames to Beckham, but they wouldn't be entitled to any of posh and becks fortunes!

GV70 · Jul 17, 2007, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Squiffy

Surely he wouldnt be allowed to sign anything saying the kids were his if they werent? Surely the US legal system doesnt allow someone to take along a new partner and just sign the birth certificate long after a child was born?
In the UK we have a thing called deed poll whereby anyone can change their name, or their childs, without it having any effect on paternity, and it is cheap and quite easy to do. I would assume the man in question would know if he took on those children in any legal capacity, rather than just changing their name! I could change my kids surnames to Beckham, but they wouldnt be entitled to any of posh and becks fortunes!

Squiffy.if there is no name on BS anyone can sign with mother consent.

GV70 · Jul 17, 2007, 01:31 PM

It is not easy to change last names-only court can change it legaly... and they have to have consent of the biofather and to show that the change will be in best interest of the children... In my point of view he signed BS and in this way he became a father of these kids.A very stupid act.

Squiffy · Jul 17, 2007, 01:32 PM

If you did that here you could be charged with fraud! That seems really screwed up that after years a mother can take anyone along to sign a legal document!

GV70 · Jul 17, 2007, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Squiffy

If you did that here you could be charged with fraud! That seems really screwed up that after years a mother can take anyone along to sign a legal document!

And who cares about it? The government and Social Services are interested in paying not who pays:p

Squiffy · Jul 17, 2007, 01:43 PM

Cor that's really really bad! That has really shocked me! Over here if the father isn't on the scene, and the couple are not married, no fathers name is entered on the certificate. If a man wants to take on that child legally he has to adopt the child, but will still never go on the birth certificate. If a step father wants the child to have his surname, but doesn't want to adopt, you change the name by deed poll, but that alone gives no legal parental rights to the step father. I can't believe that in the states all yo have to do is add a name to a birth certificate and that is that, surely that is open to fraud? Oh that is so very very odd to me!

GV70 · Jul 17, 2007, 01:48 PM

Squiffy . The legal father is not same as the biofather.

Squiffy · Jul 17, 2007, 01:52 PM

No No I know that. My partner has adopted two of his ex wives children, born after they divorced, so he is their legal father not their bio father. In the UK the only man allowed on a birth certificate is the bio father. If someone puts their name on a birth certificate knowing they are not the bio father, they can be prosecuted for fraud.

GV70 · Jul 17, 2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Squiffy

No No I know that. My partner has adopted two of his ex wives children, born after they divorced, so he is their legal father not their bio father. In the UK the only man allowed on a birth certificate is the bio father. If someone puts their name on a birth certificate knowing they are not the bio father, they can be prosecuted for fraud.

Strongly disagree!! Have a look here and tell me how many women will be prosecuted:D :D :D :D :D :D
Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences -- Bellis et al. 59 (9): 749 -- Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Squiffy · Jul 17, 2007, 02:10 PM

When you register the baby you sign to declare that the information you have given is true blah blah and that if you have knowingly lied you can be prosecuted, the same as you can for forging a passport application or driving license application. The reality is they don't (for birth certificates) but they can. Usually if a woman (or a man, that happens too!) signs to say someone is the father and they are then proven not to be, the birth certificate cannot be changed, but the man does not have to support that child. Being on a birth certificate, but being proven not to be a biological father, does not make the man a legal father. Just a poor misguided soul! You can't take a new partner down when the child is say, five, and have them sign a certificate and suddenly they become a legal parent of that baby. It is a much longer process here!
I thinkit is terrible when parents lie about their children's parentage. A child deserves to know the truth about who made them!

GV70 · Jul 17, 2007, 02:21 PM

I know a lot of cases where moms said"I thought that you are the father..."and all judges decided that there is no fraud.

LadyB · Jul 18, 2007, 08:05 AM

Squiffy, yes it is fraudulent, but what would be the incentive to prosecute that fraud if a man willingly accepts paternity of his own accord? Who's the victim (aside from the child)? If the woman tricks the man into accepting paternity, or gets him to sign by lying that's one thing since he will then be responsible for child support... if he willingly signs though knowing he isn't the father, nobody loses money due to deception so nobody will be prosecuted.

The US is mostly interested in someone paying child support, so the state doesn't have to do so. They don't particularly care who.

Squiffy · Jul 18, 2007, 11:44 AM

It's the child that is my concern! It bothers me that someone would willingly and knowingly deceive a child into believeing they are the genuine parent when they know they are not! I would worry about the future of that child, what if they were to get together with someone in the future just to find they are a half sibling? It just seems so wrong, all that just to save the govt a bit of money, or to save a man from having to adopt the child the right way!