I need help with a paternity question

[stealth2]

I'm glad you asked which attorneys replied.

 

[LdiJ]

Actually, it hasn't been scientifically proven either way, according to the links I was looking at. It's possible that some cases are and some aren't - without a family history showing such an abnormality, the doctor would reasonably assume it is NOT genetic. But... does b/f have a family history of such an abnormality? Does anyoen know? Does AMommy know him well enough to know what his family history might (or might not) show?

I guess then the question would be whether or not the genetic aspects had any signficance in the treatment of the disease. If so, I would think then that the doctor's treatments would be ineffective or not fully effective and that the doctor would then question deeper the possibility of genetics.

To change the topic slightly. I have read over and over again, in many threads on this board that this board is intended for legal advice, not for personal opinions, speculation etc. Therefore I try very hard to confine my advice to what is or isn't possible from a legal standpoint, whether I morally agree with a poster or not.

However this entire thread has seemed to go in totally the opposite direction. It seems as though moral stances have been taken and then attempts are being made to legally justify that moral position (plus there has been a great deal of speculation as well). The whole "child abuse" issue in this thread seems to be legally "in left field" to me. In fact, I even think that its stretching things from a moral perspective as well...but that's just my opinion.

Please don't take that as personally directly at you, its intended to be a general comment on the direction of the entire thread.

 

[LdiJ]

Snostar, again, you need to separate your own personal bias from the issue. Although you don't condone their actions of OP, you still base your arguments on assumptions and misciteing the facts presented. If she consults an attorney and she tells them her husband is not the bio-father, they will be obliged to advise her to submit to the DNA test for reason that are obvious.

Uh...that isn't entirely accurate. The attorney has an obligation to inform their client of the legal avenues available to them. If its a good attorney, operating without bias, then the attorney will inform them that they have the option to challenge the biological father's standing to sue. You are also not separating your personal bias from the issue. You are insisting that the mother has no legal avenues open to her other than admitting that he is the father and accepting the results of that...when that simply isn't accurate.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I doubt it. A disease is either genetic or isn't. .

Upon what authority do you base that assumption?
In some cases a disease may be either genetic or not. For example: Haemophilia. 2000 Jul;6 Suppl 1:100-9. Factor XI deficiency and its management. Bolton-Maggs PH.

Hemophilia C AKA von Willebrand's Factor XIa deficiency, a bleeding/clotting disorder, is clearly genetic and runs in families, however, upon examination of the genes they found no consistancy in presentation of the disease or function leaving researchers in a quandary. Genetic research is in it's infancy, we have many unanswered questions When one looks further, there seem to be "aquired" cases of Hemophilia C, persons with severe presentations and normal genes.

When one looks at the complex interrelationships and function of Factor XIa we discover that Alpha-1Antitrypsin affects both vW factor VIII and XIa these are primary clotting factors in all types of Hemophilia and affects both men and women as opposed to common assumptions! 2/3 of the function of Factor XIa (Thrombin a clotting factor) is related to the levels of AAT, both Factor XIa and AAT are acute reactants, thus one could functionally have Hemophilia C without a genitic base but rather a functional relationship between Factor XIa and AAT and it may vary at each event.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Uh...that isn't entirely accurate. The attorney has an obligation to inform their client of the legal avenues available to them. If its a good attorney, operating without bias, then the attorney will inform them that they have the option to challenge the biological father's standing to sue. You are also not separating your personal bias from the issue. You are insisting that the mother has no legal avenues open to her other than admitting that he is the father and accepting the results of that...when that simply isn't accurate.

The attorney, if they are operating without bias will give them all options, including her child's right to have access to their accurate genitic history since it MAY be available but we don't know until the test. The attorney would also have to inform their client the weight the judge will have to consider for each and that her child's right to the medical history, considering the child is disabled and appropriate treatment will have greater weight than, her right to hide the truth and advice that by fighting it might do exactly what she is attempting to stop.

In this case she is hiding the true paternity for some reason. If she is not sure if this is the father, then get a private DNA test. If he proves to be the father, the doctors can have the information and she may limit his interaction with the child in the future if he chooses to be satisfied with that, with the understanding that if he proves to be the father in a court ordered test the court is required to make orders for child support, medical care and visitation. If he isn't the father, she is safe until some other potential bio father asserts their right, her husband doesn't know anything different than what she has admitted to and the child is where they were, with doctors still working off the false medical history. If and or when their marriage ends, her husband will use most likely use grounds of adultry as previously discussed. How long she can continue her charade?

 

[snostar]

Ok, Ok, I completely missed the post where the OP stated the bio father saw the child.

I'm glad you asked which attorneys replied.

Stealth, I was not referring to this thread. IAAL.

I have absolutely nothing left to say on this issue and I refuse to repeat myself yet again, so by all means rmet you can have the last word, but be sure to make some time to do something nice for yourself today.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I guess then the question would be whether or not the genetic aspects had any signficance in the treatment of the disease. If so, I would think then that the doctor's treatments would be ineffective or not fully effective and that the doctor would then question deeper the possibility of genetics. And in the mean time what happens to the child, what do you know about the potential life treatening and debilitating aspects of Chari I Malformation? What happens if this child gets dehydrated? What if this child has another disorder? Has a fall or head injury?

To change the topic slightly. I have read over and over again, in many threads on this board that this board is intended for legal advice, not for personal opinions, speculation etc. Therefore I try very hard to confine my advice to what is or isn't possible from a legal standpoint, whether I morally agree with a poster or not.

However this entire thread has seemed to go in totally the opposite direction. It seems as though moral stances have been taken and then attempts are being made to legally justify that moral position (plus there has been a great deal of speculation as well). The whole "child abuse" issue in this thread seems to be legally "in left field" to me. In fact, I even think that its stretching things from a moral perspective as well...but that's just my opinion.
If you understood the implications of the mother's actions and how these fit a profile for a factiticious disorder by proxy, you would also understand that it is a recognized form of child abuse where the only treatment is to remove the child from the custody of the person inflicting the harm, in this case the mother. Here is a link to one of many on this rare but potentially life threatening disorder and it's legal implications:
Factitious Disorders, Munchausen & Munchausen by Proxy Page and malingering--conditions in which people falsify illness. Munchausen, proxy, factitious, child abuse, ...http://www.munchausen.com/

Please don't take that as personally directly at you, its intended to be a general comment on the direction of the entire thread.

The problem is that legal issues have been raised and you have not offered or cited anything to support your opinion. This is both a moral and a legal issue, just because you are not familiar with or understand this aspect of the law doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have cited the law, options and also addressed the elements and implications of the case including what the court is mandated to do if paternity is established I even cited an alternative to court ordered DNA testing that would still provide the medical history the doctors need to treat the child with is the child's right. I discussed how the elements are weighted, that is how a judge reaches an opinion.

I do find it morally reprehenceable to favor the right of a mother to lie rather than forward the best interest of her child, and as a MANDATED reporter, something you also don't understand, I cannot condone that, that is a legal and ethical obligation. Just because you don't understand disability law or child abuse laws, doesn't mean they don't exist or that they are merely moral issues.

If OP ever comes back I hope she goes to one of these links for help:
http://www.acdd.org/Resources/legal.htm http://www.acdd.org/resources.htm http://www.acdd.org/Links/conditions/Genetic_Disorders.htm http://www.acdd.org/Links/conditions/Conditions.htm http://www.acdd.org/Resources/support.htm http://www.acdd.org/Resources/state.htm

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Ok, Ok, I completely missed the post where the OP stated the bio father saw the child. And you based your assumptions on that and accused me of making assumptions, I did admit I was wrong for giving OP the benefit of the doubt, that she had told the truth to her doctors and I was remis in that.

I have absolutely nothing left to say on this issue and I refuse to repeat myself yet again, so by all means rmet you can have the last word, but be sure to make some time to do something nice for yourself today. What is there to repeat when your assumptions were wrong?

BTW I have a lovley, lucious, juicy bowl of fresh raspberries and French Vanilla ice cream, yummmmmmmmm