[Glitt3r]

I was still legally married when I had a child with my boyfriend. When we broke up, I did a notarized note that we would share him.

In the hospital, they told me I couldn't put Dad's name on BC cause I was still legally married to someone else.

We has gotten back together, but now he has left again. He has not helped out financially at all since he left.

So, now he wants to see his son... does he have the legal right to? Does he have to "sue" me in a parentage action and establish paternity before all this?

Im at a loss of what to do.

[JudyKayTee]

Do nothing - you have control of the situation. Let him take action against you if he wants visitation. He will first have to overcome the birth certificate issue.

How old is the child?

My concern is that he is the father. Why are you withholding the child from him?

[cadillac59]

I was still legally married when I had a child with my boyfriend. When we broke up, I did a notarized note that we would share him.

In the hospital, they told me I couldn't put Dad's name on BC cause I was still legally married to someone else.

We has gotten back together, but now he has left again. He has not helped out financially at all since he left.

So, now he wants to see his son...does he have the legal right to? Does he have to "sue" me in a parentage action and establish paternity before all this?

Im at a loss of what to do.

If you and the bio-dad signed a voluntary declaration of paternity (pop-dec) then the bio-dad has legal rights as the father. If not, then your husband is the presumed father and the bio-dad is going to have a hard time establishing any rights to the child. Not that it cannot be done but it could be an uphill battle.

It's not being on the birth certificate that counts. Having signed a pop-dec does.

He will have to file a paternity action to sort all of this out because even if you two signed a pop-dec, there is still an unresolved issue of who the legal father will be since your husband is still a presumed father.

[JudyKayTee]

If you and the bio-dad signed a voluntary declaration of paternity (pop-dec) then the bio-dad has legal rights as the father. If not, then your husband is the presumed father and the bio-dad is going to have a hard time establishing any rights to the child. Not that it cannot be done but it could be an uphill battle.

It's not being on the birth certificate that counts. Having signed a pop-dec does.

He will have to file a paternity action to sort all of this out because even if you two signed a pop-dec, there is still an unresolved issue of who the legal father will be since your husband is still a presumed father.

My concern is that they signed some sort of "notarized" document. I see nothing about the document being prepared by an Attorney or according to Law.

Would this make a difference?

I've seen these "here, sign this" documents prepared by two people set aside - is that your experience?

[cadillac59]

My concern is that they signed some sort of "notarized" document. I see nothing about the document being prepared by an Attorney or according to Law.

Would this make a difference?

I've seen these "here, sign this" documents prepared by two people set aside - is that your experience?

The agreement to "share" the child (and I'm not sure what that has reference to) is not legally binding. All agreements concerning custody of children have to be approved by the court and made a court order to be enforceable. This one apparently was not, so it's meaningless. The fact that it was notarized is equally meaningless. Notarization of a document only authenticates a signature and is not necessary on any legal documents in California other than real estate documents to be recorded at a county recorder's office (I can think of an exception to this general rule in family law where a defaulting respondent on an MSA has to have his or her signature notarized, but that's the only exception that comes to mind).

I see all sort of crazy agreements drafted by people to do all sorts of things, usually notarized because of the common misconception that this adds legality and enforceability to some written agreement, which it does not. So yes, this kind of thing is pretty common.