It doesn't sound like the girl or her mother are in any situation to have the baby.
Who the hell are you to make this determination?
She's too young and way too immature and her mother sounds like she's gone a LOT
Again your opinion means NOTHING. There is the law to consider.
Yes, she needs to work for money, but the baby shouldn't be a rope in a tug of war.
No the baby shouldn't be however I don't see where mom is making the child a rope.
Is the PGM in a position to properly raise the child? Shut up about how she's not the parent.
Why don't you shut the hell up until you figure out the law. Quite frankly you are giving emotional based advice which has NOTHING to do with the law. And this site is about the LAW! PGM is not even LEGALLY the PGM -- she is NO ONE. Mom is the only one with rights at this point.
This isn't about those kids as much as it is about making sure this baby has a stable life.
Really? What constitutes a stable life? Who says PGM can provide that? Who says mom can't? The law doesn't look at stable life when determining if a parent can continue being a parent or their rights can be usurped by anyone else -- they look at fitness. And there is NOTHING in this post that says that mom is not fit.
How do you expect them to do that? It can take several weeks if not months for that to happen.
That's all there is to it.
Apparently not because you were babbling not three sentences ago about how PGm should have rights to this child.
And have your friend's mother tell the boy's family that if any of them come to her home, the police will be called for trespassing.
She was already told this by people more qualified than you.
Even the boy does not have legal right to be at the home if he's not wanted. However, it would be in everyone's best interest if the girl and her mother allowed the boy, and only the boy, over to visit.
Actually no it would not until the paternity issue is settled and there is a court order in place due to the actions of the boy and his mother.
This will show the court she has no intention to keep him from his (possible) son.
Actually no. In this case that doesn't matter as much as you would think based on the actions of PGM and the possible father. She doesn't have to allow anything until there are at least temp orders in place saying she has to do that. If she goes to court ASAP that will show the court she is not intending to prevent a relationship from being established.
(Of course she wouldn't want to admit to sleeping with anyone else - I'm sure her parents were plenty pissed she even got pregnant.)
You assume a lot don't you?
Forget about the birth certificate and last name. The court will probably order a DNA test and his name will either be taken off if he's not, or would have been added anyway.
And you know this based on what? If DNA shows he is not the father then the baby's last name is not automatically changed to hers. And it is not automatic that the last name would be added if he is the father proven by DNA.
The judge may order, at her request, to ADD her last name hyphenated if he's the father, or to only her name if not.
This a different statement than you made before but it is at least more accurate.
But if he's the father, he has every legal right to see his child and for the child to have his last name as part of it.
Okay now you are wrong again. If he is the father, he has a right to see his child IF there is a court order stating otherwise. he does not have any legal rights to visitation until a court order grants him those rights. Same with the last name. Please tell me where you got your law degree from? If I were you I would ask for your money back.
The baby belongs to BOTH of them, not just her.
Actually the baby is NOT property and belongs to no one. She is the baby's ONLY LEGAL CUSTODIAN AND PARENT. Therefore mom is the only one with legal rights.
