Pursuing truth

[Taxing Matters]

I am sorry, but I still disagree. I do not believe that the court would involve the child until paternity was established, even if it was all in one case. I still believe that the mother would have the opportunity to discuss it with the child before that happened. It might be a brief window, but the window would still exist. Nothing you cited indicates otherwise.

You had earlier said:

I think it could be done discretely enough that mom wouldn't have to broach that discussion with the child unless DNA proves that the OP the child's father. that the child would not need to be informed about this until paternity was established.

That's what we've been discussing up until now and is the point of what I posted before. Obviously if the child is made a party to the paternity proceeding then the mother won't be be able to hide this from the kid until AFTER paternity was already established.

Now if you want to change that to now say the mother would have a chance to discuss this with the kid right after the mother is served so that the kid knows what's happening, that's true. But that doesn't change anything; the kid is going to know before paternity is established that there is someone else out there claiming to be her father.

 

[LdiJ]

If wishes were ponies...

Its actually "if wishes were horses than beggars would ride".

However, in this instance, I think that some of you are being hypocrites (not TM because he doesn't deal with family law). Many of you have proclaimed over and over that the judge will not involve the child without true necessity because that is abusive to the child.

You had earlier said:



That's what we've been discussing up until now and is the point of what I posted before. Obviously if the child is made a party to the paternity proceeding then the mother won't be be able to hide this from the kid until AFTER paternity was already established.

Now if you want to change that to now say the mother would have a chance to discuss this with the kid right after the mother is served so that the kid knows what's happening, that's true. But that doesn't change anything; the kid is going to know before paternity is established that there is someone else out there claiming to be her father.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that a judge is not going to involve a child in a case until after paternity has been established, other than to take a DNA sample. I am also saying that there will be an opportunity, after DNA proves that someone is the father, to discuss the matter with the child before the child has to actually be involved in the case.

 

[Zigner]

Its actually "if wishes were horses than beggars would ride".

Yet, you knew exactly what I meant

However, in this instance, I think that some of you are being hypocrites (not TM because he doesn't deal with family law). Many of you have proclaimed over and over that the judge will not involve the child without true necessity because that is abusive to the child.

To my recollection, we've never dealt with this issue previously. I will admit that I could be wrong...but if I am, then show me.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am guessing saying that a judge is not going to involve a child in a case until after paternity has been established, other than to take a DNA sample. I am also guessing saying that there will be an opportunity, after DNA proves that someone is the father, to discuss the matter with the child before the child has to actually be involved in the case.

Fixed it for ya...

 

[Taxing Matters]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that a judge is not going to involve a child in a case until after paternity has been established, other than to take a DNA sample. I am also saying that there will be an opportunity, after DNA proves that someone is the father, to discuss the matter with the child before the child has to actually be involved in the case.

The judge won't have a choice but to involve the child prior to establishment of paternity if the case is a combined action for paternity and legitimation. The statute requires that the child be made a party to the case. The judge cannot simply ignore the dictates of the statute as much as you might wish otherwise. Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, even if simply paternity was sought the judge has the power to involve the child to the determination of paternity and might very well do so. You can't guarantee it would not happen, again as much as you might wish otherwise.

 

[Maymee]

It’s not so much the Court I’d worry about. I’ve seen some really angry mothers (and fathers) tell their kids so really horrific things when a case like this pops up.

OP, first find the girl’s birthdate. A private investigator can get it or doing a little leg work online usually reveals it (especially tweens). If her birth occurred more than 40 weeks after the last time y’all were together, you’ve got your answer without upsetting anyone’s life; if it’s not, then hire the services of a NC family law attorney.

To do anything before you know her birthdate is absurd.

 

[LdiJ]

The judge won't have a choice but to involve the child prior to establishment of paternity if the case is a combined action for paternity and legitimation. The statute requires that the child be made a party to the case. The judge cannot simply ignore the dictates of the statute as much as you might wish otherwise. Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, even if simply paternity was sought the judge has the power to involve the child to the determination of paternity and might very well do so. You can't guarantee it would not happen, again as much as you might wish otherwise.

I guess I am not explaining well what I mean by the word "involved". Most of the time, judges don't want children in the courtroom and often will not even speak to the children in chambers. Yes, GALs, CASAs, Evaluators and other court professionals do talk to the child, but that does not happen until after paternity is established. Therefore, while the child is a party to the case, the child is not physically involved (other than a DNA swab) or verbally involved in the case until after paternity is established. Therefore, there is no reason for the child to even know about the case until after paternity is established.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, GALs, CASAs, Evaluators and other court professionals do talk to child, but that does not happen until after paternity is established.

Are you suggesting that the child's legal representative would not talk to their client prior to proceeding in a court matter of this magnitude?

 

[LdiJ]

Are you suggesting that the child's legal representative would not talk to their client prior to proceeding in a court matter of this magnitude?

Who do you define as the child's legal representative? Mom's lawyer is not the child's lawyer, and a legal representative such as a Law Guardian or GAL would not be assigned until paternity is established.

 

[Zigner]

Who do you define as the child's legal representative? Mom's lawyer is not the child's lawyer, and a legal representative such as a Law Guardian or GAL would not be assigned until paternity is established.

I misinterpreted your earlier post regarding a GAL or CASA rep not speaking to the child.

 

[Zigner]

I misinterpreted your earlier post regarding a GAL or CASA rep not speaking to the child.

(See? I can admit when I made a mistake.)

 

[LdiJ]

I misinterpreted your earlier post regarding a GAL or CASA rep not speaking to the child.

Ok, no problem. I was just confused for a minute.

 

[Just Blue]

(See? I can admit when I made a mistake.)

Did it hurt?

 

[quincy]

What is the forum policy on links to commercial (.com) websites?

The forum policy on links to commercial websites is summarized below in the IMPORTANT NOTICE.

Generally, .edu and .gov links are permitted. Some .org links are permitted. Any link that is to a commercial site (one whose purpose is to advertise its products or services) is prohibited.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Therefore, there is no reason for the child to even know about the case until after paternity is established.

You understand what it means to be a party to a case, right? It does not mean sitting out the case until it is over. It does not mean being in the dark until it is all over. It means you are actually involved in the case. That's the whole point of it. If the child is a party to the case then the child will have to know about the case before it is over, i.e. before paternity is established. The kid might not testify in court for a paternity action, but that does not mean she won't be aware of what is going on.

Your state may not require a child be a party to a case involving paternity/legitimation, so how it might go in your state doesn't tell you much about how it will go in another. NC, however, does require that when legitimation is involved, and any pretty much any putative father suing for paternity would want to pursue both at the same time.