Check out some similar questions!

ryan728 · Mar 6, 2007, 05:19 PM

I found out that the child that she had isn't even mine but I've already signed the birth certificate. We officially haven't gone through with the divorce, how do I go about singing my rights over?

ballengerb1 · Mar 6, 2007, 05:40 PM

When you do reach divorce court this is a topic to bring forward. The judge will not give you more rights than you want.

my2229 · Mar 18, 2007, 04:35 AM

I know in NC you only have 6mths after you sign the birth certificate to prove you are not the child's father. You then can remove your rights but are still obligated to pay child support if she seeks it.

excon · Mar 18, 2007, 04:46 AM

Hello ryan:

If you're not the dad, then you don't have parental rights, and don't need to sign anything over. WHEN you do become divorced, mention to the judge that you're not the father, and you're not going to be stuck with parental OBLIGATIONS either.

Signing the birth certificate has no legal ramifications. Being a dad does.

excon

Fr_Chuck · Mar 18, 2007, 06:56 AM

Sorry excon but we have some US states that even if you are NOT the father, but you are listed on the birth certificate and do not challenge it within a certain time frame( varies by state) then you will remain the father legally even if you later prove you are not.

So in those states the man listed on the birth certificate even though not the father will be forced to pay child support.

Not fair at all.

So he needs to challenge the birth certificate and go to court NOW since waiting can make him obligated to pay child support.

froggy7 · Mar 18, 2007, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Sorry excon but we have some US states that even if you are NOT the father, but you are listed on the birth certificate and do not challenge it within a certain time frame( varies by state) then you will remain the father legally even if you later prove you are not.

So in those states the man listed on the birth certificate even though not the father will be forced to pay child support.

Not fair at all.

I have to qualify this. The idea in the law, as I understand it, is to legally recognize that sometimes nuture trumps genetics. If, for example, the kid is 10 when the parents gets divorced, and the husband has been acting in the parental role all that time, it is extremely unfair to the kid to have dad able to say "he's not biologically mine, so I can walk away with no obligations to him." (And I really love those dads who, when finding out that the kid isn't theirs at that late date, say that they don't want any obligation to support or raise the kid, but of course they want to be able to keep doing the fun dad/kid things with them.) On the other hand, in cases like this where the kid is only a few months old, the kid doesn't really have that many expectations about dad yet.