Custody of baby when parents aren't married

[chiqu1977]

i am only going by the laws in my state even though the dad signed the form in the hospital it does not make him the legal father except for child support purposes only.it is not recognized in court unless their is a paternity test done.i went to court for this and the judge told my ex that he has no legal rights to my daughter until he proves paternity even though he signed the acknowledge of paternity form in the hospital.so therefore i am not giving wrong advice im going by the law in my state on unmarried people but every state is different.chiqu1977

 

[stealth2]

Sweetheart - how does it help the OP when you post how it works in your state and then say that it's different in all states? She doesn't care about IL. She cares about TX.

 

[janM]

I found this on a father's board in Texas:

http://www.tferfw.org/TFER/visitation/vis_help.htm#paternity

It is a question regarding a father's rights when unmarried, it states that he has to go to court to get his rights established.

 

[Kmor66]

I am not sure that "filling out paperwork" in the hospital is enough to establish paternity. If the couple isn't married, it would seem the mother has legal custody. They would need to establish paternity through the court system to make this man the baby's legal father.

I would think that at this point your relative could get the sheriff to escort her to get her baby back.

KMOR

 

[rmet4nzkx]

per:Texas Attorney General
Under Texas law, when a father and mother sign an Acknowledgment of Paternity the man becomes the legal father when the AOP is filed at the BVS, however while it is acknowledged that a child has a right to the care and support of both parents, the court must rule on custody/visitation and child support when the parents are unmarried.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/child/cs_paternity.shtml [Preview This Site]

 

[stepmom&mom]

Well, I don't have a law degree, but it's pretty easy to figure out that in Texas, signing an affidavit does not give an unmarried father custody OR visitation rights. Since there is no custody order, mom has sole custody and therefore, the dad has kidnapped the child. In such a case, the police should be able to intervene. However, this is not a guarantee that they WILL. In Oklahoma (which has the same law regarding custody of a child born out of wedlock), the police won't get involved in domestic issues whatsoever. But all bm can do is try. In the meantime, she should probably get herself an attorney and get this matter settled once and for all. Personally, I think it's discrimination that unmarried fathers are treated this way, but that's another rant altogether.

 

[betterthanher]

Like I said earlier, IF the dad is on the BC he has equal rights in the state of tx, if there is no standing court order

Texas is a joint custody state. Maybe it is you who should brush up on thier Texas Law.

A name on a birth certificate doesn't mean crap!! You could put Michael Myers on the BC and unless a declaration of paternity was signed or a DNA test was conducted, he's NOT the legal father. Which means he has NO LEGAL RIGHTS to the child until his parental rights and responsibilities are established by the Court.

You've been asked about THREE DAMN TIMES to cite TX statute and you haven't. So, SHUT UP WOMAN!

As for MY chidren's parantage, I was married for quite some time before I even got Pregnant, so whe "did it" many moore times than once.

Nobody cares. Can't you hear the crickets?

You are giving highly illegal, not to mention WRONG, advice on this forum. If you want to give people advice they want to hear that is NOT legal, then take it somewhere else. Why the hell you aren't banned yet is beyond me.

 

[stepmom&mom]

Here is what I've located under the Texas Family Code:

SUBCHAPTER D. VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY


§ 160.301. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY. The mother of a
child and a man claiming to be the biological father of the child
may sign an acknowledgment of paternity with the intent to
establish the man's paternity.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, § 1.01, eff. June 14,
2001. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1248, § 2, eff. Sept.
1, 2003.


§ 160.302. EXECUTION OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
PATERNITY. (a) An acknowledgment of paternity must:
(1) be in a record;
(2) be signed, or otherwise authenticated, under
penalty of perjury by the mother and the man seeking to establish
paternity;
(3) state that the child whose paternity is being
acknowledged:
(A) does not have a presumed father or has a
presumed father whose full name is stated; and
(B) does not have another acknowledged or
adjudicated father;
(4) state whether there has been genetic testing and,
if so, that the acknowledging man's claim of paternity is
consistent with the results of the testing; and
(5) state that the signatories understand that the
acknowledgment is the equivalent of a judicial adjudication of the
paternity of the child and that a challenge to the acknowledgment is
permitted only under limited circumstances and is barred after four
years.
(b) An acknowledgment of paternity is void if it:
(1) states that another man is a presumed father of the
child, unless a denial of paternity signed or otherwise
authenticated by the presumed father is filed with the bureau of
vital statistics;
(2) states that another man is an acknowledged or
adjudicated father of the child; or
(3) falsely denies the existence of a presumed,
acknowledged, or adjudicated father of the child.
(c) A presumed father may sign or otherwise authenticate an
acknowledgment of paternity.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, § 1.01, eff. June 14,
2001.


§ 160.303. DENIAL OF PATERNITY. A presumed father of a
child may sign a denial of his paternity. The denial is valid only
if:
(1) an acknowledgment of paternity signed or otherwise
authenticated by another man is filed under Section 160.305;
(2) the denial is in a record and is signed or
otherwise authenticated under penalty of perjury; and
(3) the presumed father has not previously:
(A) acknowledged paternity of the child, unless
the previous acknowledgment has been rescinded under Section
160.307 or successfully challenged under Section 160.308; or
(B) been adjudicated to be the father of the
child.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, § 1.01, eff. June 14,
2001.


§ 160.304. RULES FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DENIAL OF
PATERNITY. (a) An acknowledgment of paternity and a denial of
paternity may be contained in a single document or in different
documents and may be filed separately or simultaneously. If the
acknowledgment and denial are both necessary, neither document is
valid until both documents are filed.
(b) An acknowledgment of paternity or a denial of paternity
may be signed before the birth of the child.
(c) Subject to Subsection (a), an acknowledgment of
paternity or denial of paternity takes effect on the date of the
birth of the child or the filing of the document with the bureau of
vital statistics, whichever occurs later.
(d) An acknowledgment of paternity or denial of paternity
signed by a minor is valid if it otherwise complies with this
chapter.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, § 1.01, eff. June 14,
2001.


§ 160.305. EFFECT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR DENIAL OF
PATERNITY. (a) Except as provided by Sections 160.307 and
160.308, a valid acknowledgment of paternity filed with the bureau
of vital statistics is the equivalent of an adjudication of the
paternity of a child and confers on the acknowledged father all
rights and duties of a parent.
(b) Except as provided by Sections 160.307 and 160.308, a
valid denial of paternity filed with the bureau of vital statistics
in conjunction with a valid acknowledgment of paternity is the
equivalent of an adjudication of the nonpaternity of the presumed
father and discharges the presumed father from all rights and
duties of a parent.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, § 1.01, eff. June 14,
2001.



Ok now, here are some definitions provided by the Texas Code:

§ 101.0010. ACKNOWLEDGED FATHER. "Acknowledged father"
means a man who has established a father-child relationship under
Chapter 160.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, § 2.04, eff. June 14,
2001.

§ 101.0015. ALLEGED FATHER. (a) "Alleged father"
means a man who alleges himself to be, or is alleged to be, the
genetic father or a possible genetic father of a child, but whose
paternity has not been determined.
(b) The term does not include:
(1) a presumed father;
(2) a man whose parental rights have been terminated
or declared to not exist; or
(3) a male donor.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, § 2.04, eff. June 14,
2001.


Then here are the statutes regarding conservatorship and presumption of:

§ 153.131. PRESUMPTION THAT PARENT TO BE APPOINTED
MANAGING CONSERVATOR. (a) Subject to the prohibition in Section
153.004, unless the court finds that appointment of the parent or
parents would not be in the best interest of the child because the
appointment would significantly impair the child's physical health
or emotional development, a parent shall be appointed sole managing
conservator or both parents shall be appointed as joint managing
conservators of the child.
(b) It is a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of
the parents of a child as joint managing conservators is in the best
interest of the child. A finding of a history of family violence
involving the parents of a child removes the presumption under this
subsection.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 32, eff. Sept. 1,
1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1193, § 20, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.




Since I'm not an attorney, I thought perhaps maybe someone here can interpret this. It sound to me like if paternity has been established, but there is no court order granting a particular party conservatorship or possessory, then it is presumed that they have joint conservatorship. Is this correct or not? I did not find anything in the code specifying that the mother has sole conservatorship unless a court order granting the father visitation exists. In Oklahoma, there is a specific statute that states such. Is this something that is implied in the Texas code?

 

[stepmom&mom]

BTW, for the OP, this statute may be of assistance in helping bm regain custody with police assistance on a temporary basis:

§ 152.311. WARRANT TO TAKE PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF
CHILD. (a) Upon the filing of a petition seeking enforcement of a
child custody determination, the petitioner may file a verified
application for the issuance of a warrant to take physical custody
of the child if the child is imminently likely to suffer serious
physical harm or be removed from this state.
(b) If the court, upon the testimony of the petitioner or
other witness, finds that the child is imminently likely to suffer
serious physical harm or be removed from this state, it may issue a
warrant to take physical custody of the child. The petition must be
heard on the next judicial day after the warrant is executed unless
that date is impossible. In that event, the court shall hold the
hearing on the first judicial day possible. The application for the
warrant must include the statements required by Section 152.308(b).
(c) A warrant to take physical custody of a child must:
(1) recite the facts upon which a conclusion of
imminent serious physical harm or removal from the jurisdiction is
based;
(2) direct law enforcement officers to take physical
custody of the child immediately; and
(3) provide for the placement of the child pending
final relief.
(d) The respondent must be served with the petition,
warrant, and order immediately after the child is taken into
physical custody.
(e) A warrant to take physical custody of a child is
enforceable throughout this state. If the court finds on the basis
of the testimony of the petitioner or other witness that a less
intrusive remedy is not effective, it may authorize law enforcement
officers to enter private property to take physical custody of the
child. If required by exigent circumstances of the case, the court
may authorize law enforcement officers to make a forcible entry at
any hour.
(f) The court may impose conditions upon placement of a
child to ensure the appearance of the child and the child's
custodian.

 

[kmerriman]

Thanks to everyone who is trying to help me here. I am trying to sort thorugh all of this information since people seem to have so many different things to say. I appreciate the links provided and will check them out.

 

[myjonesy]

§ 42.002. LIABILITY FOR INTERFERENCE WITH POSSESSORY
RIGHT. (a) A person who takes or retains possession of a child or
who conceals the whereabouts of a child in violation of a possessory
right of another person may be liable for damages to that person.
(b) A possessory right is violated by the taking, retention,
or concealment of a child at a time when another person is entitled
to possession of or access to the child.

Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20,
1995.
this and other TX laws ref: Child Custody Laws can be found on the web at Texas Child Custody Laws. No where did I read that the "unmarried" parents share custody of any child with or with out the fathers name on the BC. Tittle 5 section 152.001 thru 152.317 is where i read and this just about covers it. SO having spoken with a friend from TX and his law experience, the mother has more rights to the child as they were never married and the courts will side with the mother in most cases till she can be proven unfit if that be the case. So in other words he has stolen a child that is his from the custodial parent (because she is the birth mother and not living with the father) untill the court can prove other wise.

 

[stepmom&mom]

No offense, but the statute you posted does not specify that the bm automatically retains custody of the child if the parents are unwed. In Oklahoma there is a very specific statute that states such. I cannot find one for Texas. Here's an examples

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 10. Children
Chapter 1
Section 6 - Entitlement of Mother of Unmarried Minor.
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Except as otherwise provided by law, the mother of an unmarried minor child born out of wedlock is entitled to the care, custody, services and earnings and control of such minor.

Historical Data