Pregnant - two putitive fathers

[Phe0nix]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? North Carolina

For the purpose of this question, I'll call myself Pete and the other putative father John who is unaware that there have been multiple partners in this pregnancy.

I am involved with a woman that is pregnant and she has told me that she was seeing someone else ( John ) at the same time. She doesn't know which man is the father and she can't be with both of us so i have many concerns.

If she were to be with me although we would have issues due to her indiscretions i pose no questions in this area , However if she were to be with John and see the pregnancy out with him, the hospital would ask the two of them
to sign a Affidavit Of Parentage. Operating on the assumption that they sign this affidavit , it's my understanding that after 60 days John can only rescind the Affidavit Of Parentage if both of the following conditions are met.

(1) The affidavit of parentage was entered as the result of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or excusable neglect.

(2) Genetic tests establish that the putative father is not the biological father of the child.

I understand the Genetic test ( DNA ) portion of the statue 110-132 but I am not sure how to interpret fraud,duress,mutual mistake, or excusable neglect.


My take on them :

Fraud - If she had DNA testing done prior to giving birth and knew I was the father yet allowed John to believe he was the father then i would see this as his only was to prove fraud.

Duress - I only see John being able to prove Duress if she forced him into signing the Affidavit Of Parentage

Mutual Mistake - I only see John able to show this if for example they allowed a 3rd person to be intimate with them.

excusable neglect - I have no idea how John could show this.

I don't want to move on to another relationship and get married and have children and fear going to the mailbox for the next 18 years, so i have concerns if we were not together raising the child. I called my local Clerk of
court and I was told they see the fathers name being changed a few times per year on birth certificates and after reading the statue i don't see how this can happen so often and also after reading the thread below.

Signed Birth Certificate only to find out child isn't his ( removed link suspecting it may be causing my post to not appear. )



Thank You

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

If you are called by a court for a paternity test and found to be daddy, you can and likely will be ordered to pay support.

 

[Phe0nix]

If you are called by a court for a paternity test and found to be daddy, you can and likely will be ordered to pay support.

I'll try this link ( removed the "h" from http so the link wouldn't be live ) once more. This same topic has been asked before and the opposite was stated for this same situation .

ttp://forum.freeadvice.com/child-support-98/signed-birth-certificate-birth-only-find-out-child-isnt-his-582548.html


Q1. If what you stated is accurate then would it change anything if i were to tell John what is going on and they still stay together despite me putting him on notice and he signs the Affidavit Of Parentage anyways knowing that he may not be the father ?

Also to quote another law site that states :

N.C. law also provides that if a child is born out of wedlock and the parents of the child subsequently marry the child will be given all rights as if he were born of the marriage.

Q2. Would this mean that I wouldn't have to worry if I were the father or not as I don't know if were going to get together or not ?

 

[LdiJ]

I'll try this link ( removed the "h" from http so the link wouldn't be live ) once more. This same topic has been asked before and the opposite was stated for this same situation .

ttp://forum.freeadvice.com/child-support-98/signed-birth-certificate-birth-only-find-out-child-isnt-his-582548.html


If what you stated is accurate then would it change anything if i were to tell John what is going on and they still stay together despite me putting him on notice and he signs the Affidavit Of Parentage anyways knowing that he may not be the father ?
Also if they were to marry then would John in effect be the legal father from that day on ?

There is a simple solution to the problem. File to establish paternity as soon as the baby is born and get a DNA test. If you are not the father, then case closed. If you are the father, then BE the child's father. Be an active parent.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Actually, the state can make both pay child support. It all depends on how it shakes out in court.

 

[TheGeekess]

Actually, the state can make both pay child support. It all depends on how it shakes out in court.

Cite, please.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Cite, please.

Do your own legwork.

It could occur in a situation where one man has accepted the role of father for a lengthy time and during a divorce paternity becomes an issue. Though the paternal dad might be ordered to pay support based on his financial ability to pay, the court can also come after the divorcing parent for a payment based on the child's best interests.

 

[CSO286]

Actually, the state can make both pay child support. It all depends on how it shakes out in court.

I've worked in child support for a long time.

I'd love to see your case law.

The only time I've ever seen two putative dads ordered to pay support was in the case of mom hooking up with identical twins.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I've worked in child support for a long time.

I'd love to see your case law.

The only time I've ever seen two putative dads ordered to pay support was in the case of mom hooking up with identical twins.

Show ME the case law that says they can't for 50 states.

For example: CA law

4052. The court shall adhere to the statewide uniform guideline and
may depart from the guideline only in the special circumstances set
forth in this article.

4052.5. (a) The statewide uniform guideline, as required by federal
regulations, shall apply in any case in which a child has more than
two parents. The court shall apply the guideline by dividing child
support obligations among the parents based on income and amount of
time spent with the child by each parent, pursuant to Section 4053. .....

4053. In implementing the statewide uniform guideline, the courts
shall adhere to the following principles:
(a) A parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or
her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and
station in life.
(b) Both parents are mutually responsible for the support of their
children.
(c) The guideline takes into account each parent's actual income
and level of responsibility for the children.
(d) Each parent should pay for the support of the children
according to his or her ability.
(e) The guideline seeks to place the interests of children as the
state's top priority.
(f) Children should share in the standard of living of both
parents. Child support may therefore appropriately improve the
standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of
the children.
(g) Child support orders in cases in which both parents have high
levels of responsibility for the children should reflect the
increased costs of raising the children in two homes and should
minimize significant disparities in the children's living standards
in the two homes.
(h) The financial needs of the children should be met through
private financial resources as much as possible.
(i) It is presumed that a parent having primary physical
responsibility for the children contributes a significant portion of
available resources for the support of the children.
(j) The guideline seeks to encourage fair and efficient
settlements of conflicts between parents and seeks to minimize the
need for litigation.
(k) The guideline is intended to be presumptively correct in all
cases, and only under special circumstances should child support
orders fall below the child support mandated by the guideline
formula.
(l) Child support orders must ensure that children actually
receive fair, timely, and sufficient support reflecting the state's
high standard of living and high costs of raising children compared
to other states.

 

[CSO286]

Do your own legwork.

It could occur in a situation where one man has accepted the role of father for a lengthy time and during a divorce paternity becomes an issue. Though the paternal dad might be ordered to pay support based on his financial ability to pay, the court can also come after the divorcing parent for a payment based on the child's best interests.

Not as rule, no.

If paternity for the child is disestablished during a divorce proceeding the court is not going to require that person pay support for a child that they have no legal rights to.

Really, I would like to see your case law that shows this possibility.

 

[stealth2]

Show ME the case law that says they can't for 50 states.

That's not how it works here, and you know it. Either back up your assertion, or remove it.

Do your own legwork.

It could occur in a situation where one man has accepted the role of father for a lengthy time and during a divorce paternity becomes an issue. Though the paternal dad might be ordered to pay support based on his financial ability to pay, the court can also come after the divorcing parent for a payment based on the child's best interests.

Uummm... There is no such thing - no more than there is a maternal dad or maternal mom. Or a paternal mom. Seriously - put whatever your indulging in down.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

That's not how it works here, and you know it. Either back up your assertion, or remove it.




Uummm... There is no such thing - no more than there is a maternal dad or maternal mom. Or a paternal mom. Seriously - put whatever your indulging in down.

See below. I provided CA law which clearly shows it is possible there. I have not reviewed NC law. I made a general statement and was attacked.

 

[justalayman]

See below. I provided CA law which clearly shows it is possible there. I have not reviewed NC law. I made a general statement and was attacked.

since there is nothing below, does that mean you have nothing to support your claim?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

since there is nothing below, does that mean you have nothing to support your claim?

I just supported it below. The law allow special orders in exceptional circumstance in the best interests of the child. It does not prohibit multiple support orders and in fact when a third party has a child, sometimes initiates them.

 

[CSO286]

See below. I provided CA law which clearly shows it is possible there. I have not reviewed NC law. I made a general statement and was attacked.

How were you attacked? you were simply asked to provide verification of the statement you put out as fact.

and honestly, as a senior here, and one with considerably more time than myself, you should know that we need to be posting replies specific to the OP's state, so as to avoid misdirecting them.