What is the name of your state? Texas, Hi I am a married man of 18 years 4 years ago I had a brief fling with a married women.One month later she told me she was pregnant I did not leave my wife and chose to stay in my marriage, she then stayed in her marriage had the baby and told her husband it was his baby he has no idea about her infidelity. My wife knew of the affair 4 years ago but I just told her about the child.I have been sending the mother support for the past 4 years during that time she asked me not to tell my wife and her husband is in the dark and has been paying all cost of raising this child he does not know I send money to her for my son. My question is now that my wife knows we want to know what my rights are as the biological father my wife will accept the child and we would like to have visitation rights. We have ASKED THE MOTHER TO TELL HER HUSBAND THE CHILD IS NOT HIS and then proceed with a paternity test. If i can show throught my financial records I have been sending support for he past 4 years will this help in my case? Thank you so much mengelder
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
non married fathers rights
- Thread starter mengelder
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Marriage or lack of has absolutely NOTHING to do with your parental rights.mengelder said:
That is the ONLY way you will be able to prove parentage. You need to file a suit to get a court to order a test. Contact a local attorney.
No. Your VOLUNTARY contribution to the child is simply that.... voluntary, and NOT an indication of parentage. After all, this child may in fact NOT be yours!!
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
This is exactly why a woodshed was invented.
Why in the HELL are you sending money to a woman who 'tells you' the child is yours without proof of such claim.
Why in the HELL are you sending money to a woman who 'tells you' the child is yours without proof of such claim.
have you even visited the child? why disrupt the child's life now because of your guilt confession to your wife?
consult with a family law attorney asap. if texas is similar to california law, the child is presumed the child of the marriage (hers and hubby) because they were (and are still) married and were having sex (she told him it was his).
you may find out that you have no right to the child. you would also not be obligated to support the child.
consult with a family law attorney asap. if texas is similar to california law, the child is presumed the child of the marriage (hers and hubby) because they were (and are still) married and were having sex (she told him it was his).
you may find out that you have no right to the child. you would also not be obligated to support the child.
howamidoing
Member
File a suit for paternity. Im sure she would have to tell the husband then. What are you going to do if you find out that the child isnt even your child? Shoot you wasted all that monay, and just think, you could have gotten away with not telling your wife...Darn the bad luck...
LdiJ
Senior Member
I have to also add that its possible for her and her husband to challenge your standing to even file a paternity suit. They could possibly make you have to prove that you had a sexual relationship with her (which can be hard to prove) before even proceeding.
If you are reasonably certain that you are the father...then by all means pursue this if you feel strongly about it. However do think it through carefully. Obviously she was having relations with both of you so you may not be the father.
If you are reasonably certain that you are the father...then by all means pursue this if you feel strongly about it. However do think it through carefully. Obviously she was having relations with both of you so you may not be the father.
LdiJ
Senior Member
I can't provide any case law...because the cases I am aware of did not go to appeal. However I am personally familiar with at least a dozen or so cases where a married couple was able to successfully challenge a putative father's ability to get a court ordered DNA test. One case in Ohio dragged on for 14 years but never got to the appellate level. The putative father just kept bringing it back to court once every couple of years.JETX said:
Think about it? Any old stalker could drag a family through court if there wasn't any basis to challenge that sort of claim....and there ARE nutcase stalkers who would do something like that. The cases I am talking about are strictly cases where the child was born of a marriage.
Think about it from a purely legal perspective...think outside of "the box". If the mother were to go into court saying that she is and always was a happily married woman...and that the person petitioning to establish paternity was a total stranger to her....or a barely known acquaintance...and challenged standing accordinginly...how might a judge handle that case? Think about constitutional rights...think about "due process".
I can't PROVE these cases exist....although if I was willing to spend the time on it I bet there would be some published case law. However I do not have that time. All I can do is give you my word.
JETX said:
In California the court could deny the poster the right for a dna test if the mother of the child was married to another person and having sex with the husband at the time of conception, the husband was not sterile, and the mother and husband do not want the dna test to be performed.
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
In the Interest of J.W.T., 25 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 193 (1993).
Callender v. Skiles, Supreme Court of Iowa
Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91 (1982).
In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not require states to grant the paramour a paternity claim.
However, on the state level, one of the leading opinions on the subject was written by Chief Justice Cardozo when he was sitting on the New Yourk Court of Appeals. In In re Findlay, 253 N.Y. 1, 170 N.E. 471 (1930), he rejected the application of the presumption that the offspring of a married woman is deemed to be the legitimate child of her husband in a case in which a woman left her husband in England, came with her lover to America, and had three sons by him, all of whom he acknowledged.
The lower courts held that these boys were lawfully presumed to be the children of the husband notwithstanding the unimpeached evidence to the contrary, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Chief Justice Cardozo declared:
...[T]he courts are generally agreed that countervailing evidence may shatter the presumption though the possibility of access is not susceptible of exclusion to the point of utter demonstration. Issue will not be *******ized as the outcome of a choice between nicely balanced probabilities .... They will not be held legitimate by a sacrifice of probabilities in a futile quest for certainty. ... The presumption does not consecrate as the truth the extravagantly improbable. ...
As to the issue of standing, some courts have ruled that it violates Equal Protection to deny the child himself or herself a claim for paternity. Spada v. Pauley, 385 N.W.2d 746 (Mich Ct App 1986) (mother's paternity claim was barred by statute of limitations; paternity claim in divorce action brought by the putative father who had married her several years after the birth of the child was precluded; denial of paternity claim asserted later by her son, then a teenager, unconstitutional). SeeR. McG v. J.W., 615 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1981).
And finally, on the state level, the question of standing is a matter of law.
For example, California holds that a nonmarital father does not have standing to sue an intact family to assert his rights of fatherhood. Two other UPA states, Colorado and Texas, have declared that under their state constitutions the father may not be denied such rights. Similarly, the binding effect of a judgment on the child or on others seeking to claim a benefit of the judgment or collaterally attack that judgment is very confused in the case law. UPA (1973) was entirely silent as to the relationship between a divorce and a determination of parentage.
Callender v. Skiles, Supreme Court of Iowa
Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91 (1982).
In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not require states to grant the paramour a paternity claim.
However, on the state level, one of the leading opinions on the subject was written by Chief Justice Cardozo when he was sitting on the New Yourk Court of Appeals. In In re Findlay, 253 N.Y. 1, 170 N.E. 471 (1930), he rejected the application of the presumption that the offspring of a married woman is deemed to be the legitimate child of her husband in a case in which a woman left her husband in England, came with her lover to America, and had three sons by him, all of whom he acknowledged.
The lower courts held that these boys were lawfully presumed to be the children of the husband notwithstanding the unimpeached evidence to the contrary, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Chief Justice Cardozo declared:
...[T]he courts are generally agreed that countervailing evidence may shatter the presumption though the possibility of access is not susceptible of exclusion to the point of utter demonstration. Issue will not be *******ized as the outcome of a choice between nicely balanced probabilities .... They will not be held legitimate by a sacrifice of probabilities in a futile quest for certainty. ... The presumption does not consecrate as the truth the extravagantly improbable. ...
As to the issue of standing, some courts have ruled that it violates Equal Protection to deny the child himself or herself a claim for paternity. Spada v. Pauley, 385 N.W.2d 746 (Mich Ct App 1986) (mother's paternity claim was barred by statute of limitations; paternity claim in divorce action brought by the putative father who had married her several years after the birth of the child was precluded; denial of paternity claim asserted later by her son, then a teenager, unconstitutional). SeeR. McG v. J.W., 615 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1981).
And finally, on the state level, the question of standing is a matter of law.
For example, California holds that a nonmarital father does not have standing to sue an intact family to assert his rights of fatherhood. Two other UPA states, Colorado and Texas, have declared that under their state constitutions the father may not be denied such rights. Similarly, the binding effect of a judgment on the child or on others seeking to claim a benefit of the judgment or collaterally attack that judgment is very confused in the case law. UPA (1973) was entirely silent as to the relationship between a divorce and a determination of parentage.
Engage in WRITTEN correspondence with the mother. State you are not going to continue to pay child support to the child unless she acknowledges you are the father. STOP SENDING $. If she responds- you may have the 'proof' you need to convince a court to allow you to establish paternity. Too bad she doesn't want her husband to find out...The child and both of you fathers deserve to know the truth.mengelder said:
dannysmyboy
Member
And put a strain on the other woman's marriage.howamidoing said:File a suit for paternity. Im sure she would have to tell the husband then. What are you going to do if you find out that the child isnt even your child? Shoot you wasted all that monay, and just think, you could have gotten away with not telling your wife...Darn the bad luck...
dannysmyboy
Member
I think it's totally sad how the mother will take the $$, but oh, you can't tell anyone...promise???? Talk about selfish!casa said:
dannysmyboy
Member
Yeah, and this child is 4 years old. Hdad and mother are the only parents he knows, and this clown wants to bring all this garbage up, cause he's got guilty feelings....Don't know why he's even giving her any money, what's up with her. If she wants her husband to parent this child, then have the biodad sign off his parental rights. She wants to have a "happy" family, but still wants the money on the side....they are both whacked out nutcases!AHA said:
Stop breeding!!!!!
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">