• 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.

Pursuing truth

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

LdiJ

Senior Member
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.
That doesn't make sense TM. Please tell us who is going to inform a child about a case prior to paternity being established? No state requires a child to be present in court in a proceeding involving the child's paternity/custody/etc. It's quite the opposite. I truly do not understand under what mechanism you believe that a child is going to be exposed to the case before paternity is established.
 


Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
That doesn't make sense TM. Please tell us who is going to inform a child about a case prior to paternity being established? No state requires a child to be present in court in a proceeding involving the child's paternity/custody/etc. It's quite the opposite. I truly do not understand under what mechanism you believe that a child is going to be exposed to the case before paternity is established.
Because the child is made a PARTY to the case. That's the piece you seem to want to overlook. Not many states do that, but NC does.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Because the child is made a PARTY to the case. That's the piece you seem to want to overlook. Not many states do that, but NC does.
So, you are saying that NC requires the child to be present in the courtroom? I am not overlooking the fact that the child is a party to the case. I am not talking about the legality of the matter, I am talking about practical application. If you tell me that NC requires the child to be present in the courtroom, I will believe you, even though that is contrary to anything I have ever known. However, once again, if NC does not require the child to be in the courtroom, then I need to know how the child is going to know about the case if not informed so by their only legal parent.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
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.
NOT true. Not true at all. I am ordered from the time I am appointed -- at the start of a case to talk to the child. So try again.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
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.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. You don't know of what you are speaking. I have been assigned many times at the very beginning of a case (i.e. filing) as a GAL. I really wish you wouldn't post as fact when you are just guessing. How many times have you worked as a GAL or Law Guardian?
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_49.pdf

I think most 12-year-olds are astute enough to realize something is going on, whether they appear in court or not.
Ok, I read that and clearly the child is not required to be present in the courtroom. Maybe a child could sense that something is going on and maybe the child couldn't. I think that would depend on the individual child and the individual parent. If the parent was sure/pretty sure that the petitioner was NOT the child's parent I think it would be very easy to keep it from the child.
 

quincy

Senior Member
... I am ordered from the time I am appointed -- at the start of a case to talk to the child ...
... I have been assigned many times at the very beginning of a case (i.e. filing) as a GAL ...
... I have been assigned on several cases at filing as a GAL.
Ok, I read that and clearly the child is not required to be present in the courtroom. Maybe a child could sense that something is going on and maybe the child couldn't. I think that would depend on the individual child and the individual parent. If the parent was sure/pretty sure that the petitioner was NOT the child's parent I think it would be very easy to keep it from the child.
According to a family law attorney, a GAL can be assigned to the child at the beginning of the case.

I would think it would be awfully hard to keep from the child the reason for the appointment of a GAL.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
According to a family law attorney, a GAL can be assigned to the child at the beginning of the case.
As the child is a party to the action, a GAL WILL be appointed to represent the child. Mom cannot do that.

I would think it would be awfully hard to keep from the child the reason for the appointment of a GAL.
Yep
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
The other thing is -- as a GAL, the parent or custodian cannot interfere with my discussions with the child and I am allowed to talk to the child privately. If a parent or custodian or anyone tried to interfere with that, they could held in contempt and sanctioned by the court. Up to and including jail time.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
If you tell me that NC requires the child to be present in the courtroom, I will believe you, even though that is contrary to anything I have ever known. However, once again, if NC does not require the child to be in the courtroom, then I need to know how the child is going to know about the case if not informed so by their only legal parent.
The NC law requires that the child be made a party to the case when legitimation is sought. As I pointed out earlier, in general a putative father would seek both paternity and legitimation at the same time as the courts allow it and it is far more efficient to do both in one court proceeding than to do it in two separate proceedings. While that does not require the child to be in the courtroom, it would mean the child would need to be informed of what is going on. The child would have an attorney/GAL representing his/her interests in the case and that attorney would be obligated to inform his/her client of what is going on. The child here is nearly a teen and thus capable of knowing what is going on and providing input to her attorney. So it wouldn't just be up to Mom when the kid is told in this case. Your initial assertion was that the kid wouldn't be informed about the case until after paternity was established. If the kid is a party to the case the kid is going to be informed of it. The kid likely wouldn't testify in the paternity hearing but one need not testify or even be in court to know what is going on.

The other thing is -- as a GAL, the parent or custodian cannot interfere with my discussions with the child and I am allowed to talk to the child privately. If a parent or custodian or anyone tried to interfere with that, they could held in contempt and sanctioned by the court. Up to and including jail time.
Exactly.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. If the OP is going to do this, he needs to make sure he's doing it for the right reasons and that he's all in to make it work, which may not be easy. He shouldn't do it because he thinks it would be neat for his other kids to know their sister. He shouldn't do it just for himself. He shouldn't do it just to satisfy his curiosity.

He should do it because he wants to make a positive impact on the kid and foster a good relationship with her. That's not going to be easy to do coming in at this late stage of the game when the kid is nearly a teenager. He'll be inserting himself into another family, one in which it is already clear the mother really doesn't want him involved. That has the potential to make things difficult for the kid. She may resent that someone else who hasn't been there her entire life now wants to move in and take the place of he person she's known as her father. She may not want to have forced visitation with this stranger. The disruption of her family caused by this might be upsetting for her. So the OP needs to appreciate how hard this may be and how much work it will take to create a positive relationship out of this. And, of course, he'll have to be prepared for the support obligation. So he'd best be prepared to do the hard to work to make that relationship work and pay up the support he'll owe if he wants to do it. If he's not 100% committed to that then he ought to leave things alone. Because once he starts down that road, he's going to impact her and her family and causing that disruption when you're not all in for the long haul is a mean thing to do. She's likely to know what's going on and he can't undo that once it's done.
 

PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
One question I haven't noticed that was asked in this thread. Was the mother married to the other guy before the child was born?
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
According to a family law attorney, a GAL can be assigned to the child at the beginning of the case.

I would think it would be awfully hard to keep from the child the reason for the appointment of a GAL.
If a GAL was appointed prior to establishing paternity then yes, it would not be possible to keep it from the child. However, I would not think that most judges would put the parents to the expense of paying for a GAL before paternity was established unless there was enough anecdotal information for the DNA test to basically just be a rubber stamp.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
If a GAL was appointed prior to establishing paternity then yes, it would not be possible to keep it from the child. However, I would not think that most judges would put the parents to the expense of paying for a GAL before paternity was established unless there was enough anecdotal information for the DNA test to basically just be a rubber stamp.
If the law didn't require the child to be a party to the case, then you may be correct. Remember, what is different here is that the child would be a party to the case. There is no getting around involving the child if she is a party to the case. You seem to want to make that distinction disappear to conform to what you think should happen or match what you see happen in your state.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top