Father's Rights - Unborn Child

[UnbornChild]

Where as in MT the entire process would have to start from square 1, since MT does not have personal jurisdiction of any of the parties or the child and no reason to seek jurisdiciton as the paternity and custody process has already started in WA.

Excuse my ignorance, but is the above somethingour attorney should argue if the dcision seemed to be swaying toward MT?

MT will act within the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution.

Again, excuse my ignorance if any of you have already explained this but what does the above mean?

Mom would delay and OP son is likely not to see son until everything is setled in perhaps a year if jurisdiction were ceeded to MT. OP son would have to get another attorney in MT and start all over again.

Does this possibility typically have SOME kind of weight with the courts?

 

[LdiJ]

Insofar as the statutes in both states the weight is on WA for reason already mentioned.

The most rapid way to establish visitation is in WA where the next step is the hearing on 9-30-5 to establish tempoary visitation and parenting plans and appoint the GAL. Where as in MT the entire process would have to start from square 1, since MT does not have personal jurisdiction of any of the parties or the child and no reason to seek jurisdiciton as the paternity and custody process has already started in WA, MT will act within the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution. Mom would delay and OP son is likely not to see son until everything is setled in perhaps a year if jurisdiction were ceeded to MT. OP son would have to get another attorney in MT and start all over again.

How can you say that Montana doesn't have personal jurisdiction over the child? The child was born there and resides there. I can understand your argument where mom and dad are concerned, but not the child. According to the UCCJEA Montana certainly CAN take jurisdiction over this child. The question is whether or not Montana will...not whether or not Montana can.

Of course, if the WA judge makes temporary orders on the 30th, and mom obeys those orders then dad will get visitation quickly. However, I can bet that mom's Montana attorney would advise her not to obey any WA orders, because that would be conceeding jurisdiction.

She has petitioned Montana to take jurisdiction of the case, and I sincerely doubt that mom will obey any WA orders until Montana makes a decision on that. Its also possible/probable that WA will decline to make any further orders until jurisdiction is decided.

I also don't advocate dad paying for a GAL in WA until its certain that jurisdiction won't end up in Montana. He already may end up paying for two different attorneys...I would hate to see him pay for two different GALs.

 

[LdiJ]

Excuse my ignorance, but is the above somethingour attorney should argue if the dcision seemed to be swaying toward MT?

Actually, your son would need an attorney in Montana to argue that point to the Montana judge. However, as I mentioned in my response to Rmet, I don't think its possible to argue that Montana can't take jurisdiction over this child. It could be argued that justice would be better served in WA....but not that Montana has no jurisdiction over this child. Also, not much has happened so far in WA,

Again, excuse my ignorance if any of you have already explained this but what does the above mean?

I am not sure either unless she meant to say the UCCJEA rather than the Constitution.

Does this possibility typically have SOME kind of weight with the courts?

Actually, it would likely offend the Montana judge if it were to be suggested that only WA could hand the case in an expeditious manner.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Originally Posted by rmet4nzkx
Where as in MT the entire process would have to start from square 1, since MT does not have personal jurisdiction of any of the parties or the child and no reason to seek jurisdiction as the paternity and custody process has already started in WA.

Excuse my ignorance, but is the above something our attorney should argue if the decision seemed to be swaying toward MT?

Yes.
According to Montana Code Annotated:
40-5-231-40-5-237, personal jurisdiction is established in the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (DSRS) over any person who has had sexual intercourse in Montana that has resulted in the birth of a child who is the subject of a paternity proceeding. (See the RWC I linked for more informaiton re jurisdiction.)
As long as sexual intercourse did not take place in Montana, I am assuming that intercourse took place in Washington State since nothing has been said to contridict that ascertion, the state of Montana does not have personal jurisdiction over the parties ( the child's mom & dad), there is no paternity proceeding in Montana re the child at this point only motion for a change of venue, the lawful paternity petition filed and ruled upon as allowed by Washington State law prior to birth superceeds Montana's claims, even though paternity and parenting plans have not been finalized all parties have accepted jurisdiction by filing and accepting service of the paternity action, both parties complied with the judges orders thus far although mom left the jurisdiction after accepting service, thus accepting jurisdiction for the paternity action and mom only filing for a change of venue after leaving the jurisdiction. Thus the child, who under RWC is a person since conception/quickening is under the jurisdiction of Washington State.

If dad had waited to file until after the child was born to file for paternity, that would be a different case. Very likely, if dad had denied paternity or not filed before the child was born, mom would have stayed in Washington State and filed to establish paternity and child support there as it was late in her pregnancy and she waited until after service of the petition to flee the jurisdiciton. In addition, mom has not established residence in Montana. Mom could possibly be in contempt for leaving the jurisdiciton although this would not likely be argued.

Originally Posted by rmet4nzkx
MT will act within the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution.

Again, excuse my ignorance if any of you have already explained this but what does the above mean?

Full faith and credit means the recognition and enforcement of the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of one state by another found in Article IV section I of the US Constitution in the back matter compare choice of law comity federalism
- Unlike comity, full faith and credit is a requirement created by the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code. A public law or a judicial decision may not, however, be entitled to full faith and credit for specific reasons (as for having been decided by a court not having jurisdiction). Full faith and credit is given only in civil cases; states recognize each other's criminal laws through the mechanism of extradition.

When the court made it's orders, it had jurisdiction over all parties, as such, personal jurisdiction over mom would continue unless and until established elsewhere.

Originally Posted by rmet4nzkx
Mom would delay and OP son is likely not to see son until everything is setled in perhaps a year if jurisdiction were ceeded to MT. OP son would have to get another attorney in MT and start all over again.

Does this possibility typically have SOME kind of weight with the courts?

If jurisdiction is ceeded to MT prior to the completion of the paternity case, since MT doesn't have personal jurisdiciton over your son a new paternity case filed under the laws of MT would have to be filed, which will delay the process, require DNA test and require your son to start the whole process of filing for custody and visitation and also petitioning the court to appoint a GAL so it could be months or a year or more before your son would have visitation, whereas on 9-30-5 he is likely to have tempoary orders pending the GAL report and the final parenting plan.

What is to keep mom from moving again and again if jurisdiciton is moved to MT?

---------------------
Lidj.
This has gotten way out of hand when I am asked a question and you insist on answering for me in order to promote their personal agenda at the expense of OP and totally ignoring both the facts in evidence, statutes and proceedures. This is both RUDE and confusing. Quite frankly I don't have the time to to argue with you when you admit you don't have a dog in this fight, then why continue as you have?

 

[UnbornChild]

>>As long as sexual intercourse did not take place in Montana,<<

Sexual intercourse DID take place in Montana

Let me explain:

The first week of November 2004, the father and mother were in MT for a funeral. Mother is stating truthfully in her request for change of jurisdiction, that sexual intercourse took place. She is contending that the conception most likely took place at that time. This is the only time father was in MT. By my calculations, the baby should have been born in the beginning of August, not beginning of Sept. (baby was born 9/2/05)

That said, does this still hold any weight?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

>>As long as sexual intercourse did not take place in Montana,<<

Sexual intercourse DID take place in Montana

Let me explain:

The first week of November 2004, the father and mother were in MT for a funeral. Mother is stating truthfully in her request for change of jurisdiction, that sexual intercourse took place. She is contending that the conception most likely took place at that time. This is the only time father was in MT. By my calculations, the baby should have been born in the beginning of August, not beginning of Sept. (baby was born 9/2/05)

That said, does this still hold any weight?

lol!!!!!
That does put a hitch in the gitty-up!
When did she 1st make this claim?
What was her original due date?
When was her LMP?
Did she have any tests like ultrasound, if so, when and the data & dates?
How many pounds and how long the chilld at birth?
Was labor induced?
Have her medical records from the pregnancy been subpoenaed?
Were they having unprotected sex before and after this date in Washington State?
When does she claim she was impregnanted by God?
When did she discover she was pregnant? How, home pregnancy test? How soon after did she break up with your son?
When did she first see the doctor for prenatal care?
Did she apply for state medicaid? WIC? In Washington state?

======
edit
How long were they in MT?
Feb was a little late to be considering abortion for a pregnancy conceived at the begining of November.

 

[UnbornChild]

>>What is to keep mom from moving again and again if jurisdiciton is moved to MT?<<


I agree. And "flightiness" is very apparent in her history. She has specifically stated to the father that she might move to CA with her suster or maybe MT or maybe even stay in WA. She wasn't sure what she would do, she said. But whatever she did, she said, it would be HER decision and not the father's. When, if at all, should this be mentioned to the court?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

>>What is to keep mom from moving again and again if jurisdiciton is moved to MT?<<


I agree. And "flightiness" is very apparent in her history. She has specifically stated to the father that she might move to CA with her suster or maybe MT or maybe even stay in WA. She wasn't sure what she would do, she said. But whatever she did, she said, it would be HER decision and not the father's. When, if at all, should this be mentioned to the court?

Of course this will be a point in the litigation. It is HER decision insofar as where SHE moves, it is the court's dicision if and or where the child moves depending on the jurisdiction and final custody of the child.

 

[LdiJ]

---------------------
Lidj.
This has gotten way out of hand when I am asked a question and you insist on answering for me in order to promote their personal agenda at the expense of OP and totally ignoring both the facts in evidence, statutes and proceedures. This is both RUDE and confusing. Quite frankly I don't have the time to to argue with you when you admit you don't have a dog in this fight, then why continue as you have?

First, I think its a shaky argument to take law in one area, and say that it establishes a standard for another area. It can certain be used, and argued, but the bottom line is that under the UCCJEA Montana absolutely can take jurisdiction of this case. The law you have cited for both WA and Montana isn't guaranteed to give WA jurisdiction. Its law that can be argued, but it does not guaranteed WA jurisdiction of this case.

I am also tired of you throwing out the "personal agenda" remark, every time someone seriously disagrees with you. You know darned well that I have no personal agenda on this.

My concern is this: I have seen people spend enormous amounts of money fighting jurisdictional battles. So much so that when it came down to the real issues of the case, the legal war chest was empty. In addition, I have seen these jurisdictional battles cause enormous delays in getting down to the real issues of the case. Do you dispute that this happens?

I personally think that there is at least a reasonable chance that Montana is going to take jurisdiction of this case. I think that dad at a minimum needs to be prepared for that, and needs to be certain not to overspend in WA until its certain one way or the other. You are encouraging dad to go full force in WA before there is any reaction from the Montana courts on mom's petition.
I don't think that's in dad's best interest financially. I also believe that its likely that the WA judge will now put things on hold until he and the Montana judge come to an agreement regarding jurisdiction. Do you dispute that the UCCJEA allows Montana to take jurisdiction? If so, how?

The bottom line is that this dad is going to establish paternity and recieve visitation no matter which state hears the case. Its also likely that the terms of the visitation won't differ significantly no matter which state hears the case. Do you dispute this? If so, how?

You believe that Montana having jurisdiction will slow things down for dad. That is possible, it could happen. I however know that a jurisdictional battle will definitely slow things down. I also know that a Montana attorney would be likely to discourage his/her client from obeying WA orders (and therefore conceeding jurisdiction) before the Montana judge rules. Do you dispute that a jurisdictional battle can slow things down? Do you dispute that her attorney is likely to discourage her from obeying WA's orders (and therefore conceeding jurisdiction)? If so how?

I conceed that you have put forth arguments that a good attorney can use to attempt to have jurisdiction in WA. However, again, I don't believe that those arguments guarantee that outcome.

 

[UnbornChild]

lol!!!!!
That does put a hitch in the gitty-up!

They were only in MT for 5-7 days. Do you agree that conception could not have taken place at the beginning of Nov 2004?

When did she 1st make this claim?

The claim of conception in MT? In her request to change venue. Also in the request, she gave the due date in order to support her claim. It doesn't appear that anyone checked the math.

What was her original due date?

This is one thing that has ticked me off. We were not told the due date. She would never give it to the father. She wouldn't said why. She just would not give it. UNTIL: She was trying to support her conception theory. THEN, in the statement, she stated the due date. Just days before that statement, she claimed in her response to the father's attorney, that she couldn't release the date because she was fearful of the father and the father's family. So, we believe her orginal due date was 9/2/05. Which is the day the baby was born.

When was her LMP?

Not sure but she called the father on 12/31/04 saying she "thought" she was pregnant becausse she was "late".

Did she have any tests like ultrasound, if so, when and the data & dates?

Not sure. Father asked for this info before and later and was told to get lost.

How many pounds and how long the chilld at birth?

8 lbs (no info on the length)

Was labor induced?

no info

Have her medical records from the pregnancy been subpoenaed?

No, sould they have been? Or should they be?

Were they having unprotected sex before and after this date in Washington State?

Yes and father particularly remembers 11/20/04 (a significant date to him) as well as each week thereafter until mid-December?

When does she claim she was impregnanted by God?

lol. SHE never claimed this. Her mother to me, stated that my son was not the father, God was the Father and that we should expect the outcome to be in His hands. Now let me explain something. I know what she was trying to say. The problem with h er statement isn't that she believes that God is sovereign, it is that she is trying to tell me my son has no rights. Well, if we go THAT way, neither does the mother. They use the spiritual side of things as more of a tactic to win an argument but aren't smart enough to finish it. Anyway, again, I am stating my opinion, but I think I am right on in terms of their believes. They're kooky.

When did she discover she was pregnant? How, home pregnancy test? How soon after did she break up with your son?

I believe, 1/2/05 was when she learned via home pregnancy test. The breakup was initiated by her in mid-December.

When did she first see the doctor for prenatal care?
Did she apply for state medicaid? WIC? In Washington state?

No info. I do believe she has private medical through her father's insurance until the age of 25. Long story but we helped her with a small medical situation in Sept. and if I remember correctly, this was the case. She isn't a student, so, if correct, it sounds like great insurance.

How long were they in MT?
Feb was a little late to be considering abortion for a pregnancy conceived at the begining of November.

They were in MT for 5-7 days. Maybe that is why she didn't have the abortion, but, because of the baby's due date and birthdate, I doubt that the conception took place the first week of November.


Okay, you have just asked a lot of questions. What are you thinking?

 

[Whyte Noise]

The claim of conception in MT? In her request to change venue. Also in the request, she gave the due date in order to support her claim. It doesn't appear that anyone checked the math.

Wait just a minute....

In your previous thread, you stated THIS:

The judge stated that the mother, in her response, admits that the child was conceived in Wa with the father.

So, the mother ADMITTED that the child was conceived in WA, and that's why the WA judge issued the orders before the birth of the child.... and NOW, she's saying that conception ocured in MT and not in WA?

I see where the mother (more than likely her attorney, since it would be him/her that drafts the motions but you can bet your ass mom is agreeing) is going with this.

Dispute the WA order based on the claim that the child was conceived in MT and not in WA, therefore WA had no jurisdiction to issue any orders to start with.


UnbornChild, how long has this woman been living in Montana? Montana residency requirements are that you have to have lived in the state 90 days to become a resident of the state. If she's been there more than 90 days, she most certainly HAS established residency there. The child, having been born in Montana is automatically a resident of Montana.

I agree with LdiJ (and trust me, that doesn't happen often) that MT most certainly has the right to assume jurisdiction over the custody issue, as it is the child's "home state". Montana doesn't have to have personal jurisdiction over the mother and father to proceed, but over the child... and they most certainly have that.

Edit to add: For clarification, here is MT's version of UCCJEA and I will explain (in bold) each part I post as well as put the pertinant part in italics:

40-7-201. Initial child custody jurisdiction. (1) Except as otherwise provided in 40-7-204, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if:
(a) this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or was the home state of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; MT is the child's home state. A child born in a state is an automatic resident of that state. MT has the authority to assume jurisdiction under this alone

(b) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a), And WA does NOT have jurisdiction under the "home state" rule as set forth above. The child has never lived in WA, the child was born in MT, and MT is the only 'home state" the child has ever had. The WA judges orders were over the mother and father, based on conception taking place in WA. However, that was NOT a custody ruling. or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under 40-7-108 or 40-7-109, and:
(i) the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; Mom's family is there, there is the significan connectionand
(ii) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; The child was born in MT, mom lives there, g'parents live there, etc. This meets the burden.
(c) all courts having jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under 40-7-108 or 40-7-109; or
(d) no state would have jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a), (1)(b), or (1)(c). Again, no state has issued a CUSTODY order as it relates to the child. The WA order was over the mother and father, NOT the child and who has custody (if I read correctly). Under (1)(a) MT is the childs home state (the burden is met). Under (1)(b) No other state is the child's home state, so this burden is met also. Under (1)(c) there is no other home state, and no other court has jurisdiction under this section.
(2) Subsection (1) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state. And Montana is the one that meets the requirements of this section.
(3) Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination. Read that one closely. Personal jusrisdiction OVER A PARTY (which would be you son in this case, because the child is a resident already and under jurisdiction, the mother may be if she's been there 90 days) is not NECESSARY to make a child custody determination.

As long at Subsection 1 is met, then MT can make the custody determination.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

The claim of conception in MT? In her request to change venue. Also in the request, she gave the due date in order to support her claim. It doesn't appear that anyone checked the math.
They will check the math, so it is apparent that her WA attorney is aware of the same state statutes from both states that I cited and since the judge took jurisdiction in August but only made temp orders pending the actual birth which would give some clue as to date of conception/jurisdiciton. There is confusion re how pregnancies are dated so I will be careful how I qualify these terms. So aparently the judge allowed for two options but the 9-2-5 birth of a full term child without induction sugests a child conceived in Washington. DOn't worry, domestic relations judges know how to calculate due dates even when mom claims to be irregular, that is why the medical records will be needed since she made an issue of the date of conception. The Washington judge wil not be too happy with her.

This is one thing that has ticked me off. We were not told the due date. She would never give it to the father. She wouldn't said why. She just would not give it. UNTIL: She was trying to support her conception theory. THEN, in the statement, she stated the due date. Just days before that statement, she claimed in her response to the father's attorney, that she couldn't release the date because she was fearful of the father and the father's family. So, we believe her orginal due date was 9/2/05. Which is the day the baby was born.

That may be the reason, but more likely the reason is that she is not sure who the father is in addition to the embarassment of a "good" unmarried Christian girl being pregnant, no doubt she got a lot of legal advice early on.

Not sure but she called the father on 12/31/04 saying she "thought" she was pregnant becausse she was "late".

My guess is that she missed her period in mid December, indicating a conception date between 11-20-4 and 12-10-4, when she initiated the breakup. Then checked out her options before telling your son that she thought she was pregnant, hoping that he would agree to an abortion, so she could make him look like the responsible onem thus the claims of coersion. Having an abortion would also keep her sexual history private and the chance that there could be another father.

Not sure. Father asked for this info before and later and was told to get lost.
Info about ultrasounds would have provided clues to due date, and patenrity/jurisdiction.


8 lbs (no info on the length)
Normal full term baby! The average baby's birth weight at full term is 7 to 7.5 pounds (3280g to 3400g), a first pregnancy birth +/- weeks with avg gain 2 lbs in the last month. So an 8 lb baby is perfectly normal and not grossly postterm and unlikely conception occured prior to mid November. This child was conceived in Washington state.

no info
If labor was induced because the baby was post term you would have known because that would have helped her case, something she needed after the court date in Washington.

No, sould they have been? Or should they be?
Yes they should be because the ones in Washington state will indicate what she told the doctor in the begining and what any tests indicate insofar as dating the pregnancy. If she didn't have any prenatal care, when she has good insurance is also suspetious. They should be able to subpoena these to determine conception and jurisdiction because hse made an issue.

Yes and father particularly remembers 11/20/04 (a significant date to him) as well as each week thereafter until mid-December?
This is consistant with the 9-2-5 birth.

lol. SHE never claimed this. Her mother to me, stated that my son was not the father, God was the Father and that we should expect the outcome to be in His hands. Now let me explain something. I know what she was trying to say. The problem with h er statement isn't that she believes that God is sovereign, it is that she is trying to tell me my son has no rights. Well, if we go THAT way, neither does the mother. They use the spiritual side of things as more of a tactic to win an argument but aren't smart enough to finish it. Anyway, again, I am stating my opinion, but I think I am right on in terms of their believes. They're kooky.
I know she never did, however the statement may come in handy. Your son should request a DNA test even though he is willing to acknowledge paternity. There are too many lies and omissions in her story that are not consistant with the facts. Anything that will point out the fitness of the mother or intent to deny him his parental rights, will help your son's case. Maybe if the maternal grandmother think's God is the baby's father, she should pay for the DNA test instead of your son.

I believe, 1/2/05 was when she learned via home pregnancy test. The breakup was initiated by her in mid-December.
That is consistant with conception 10 days or more earlier depending on the test.

No info. I do believe she has private medical through her father's insurance until the age of 25. Long story but we helped her with a small medical situation in Sept. and if I remember correctly, this was the case. She isn't a student, so, if correct, it sounds like great insurance.
If she had used WA medicaid or WIC that would have established certain facts as would fialure to obtain prenatal care. The records may shed some light.

They were in MT for 5-7 days. Maybe that is why she didn't have the abortion, but, because of the baby's due date and birthdate, I doubt that the conception took place the first week of November.
I concur.


Okay, you have just asked a lot of questions. What are you thinking?

My thoughts are in bold.
I am not saying anything is guarenteed, but it still appears Washington is the best way to go, for your son and the baby.

 

[Whyte Noise]

>>As long as sexual intercourse did not take place in Montana,<<

Sexual intercourse DID take place in Montana

Let me explain:

The first week of November 2004, the father and mother were in MT for a funeral. Mother is stating truthfully in her request for change of jurisdiction, that sexual intercourse took place. She is contending that the conception most likely took place at that time. This is the only time father was in MT. By my calculations, the baby should have been born in the beginning of August, not beginning of Sept. (baby was born 9/2/05)

That said, does this still hold any weight?

Due date is a rough estimate based on:

Date of LMP - 3 months + 7 days.

If she claims conception the first week of November, then she would have been between days 12 and 16 or so of her cycle roughly, which means her LMP would have been around... oh.... the 16th to 20th of October. Using the same formula mentioned above that OB/GYN's use that would make her due EDD (Estimated Due Date) somewhere between July 23rd and 27th or so. (Remember, I'm just making a guess based on conception taking place in MT during the first week of November and counting backwards to get a tentative LMP date. This also takes into account she has a normal 28 to 30 day cycle every month.)

The baby wasn't born until 9/2. No doctor will let a woman go more than 30 days past her due date before inducing. Been there, done that. It was 2 weeks tops for my OB/GYN boss.

So, it's a pretty safe bet that she didn't get pregnant in MT during the first week of November. For her to have a September due date, or even a late August one and go post-term by 1 or 2 weeks, she had to have gotten pregnant AFTER mid-November at the soonest.

 

[UnbornChild]

>>So, the mother ADMITTED that the child was conceived in WA, and that's why the WA judge issued the orders before the birth of the child.... and NOW, she's saying that conception ocured in MT and not in WA?

I see where the mother (more than likely her attorney, since it would be him/her that drafts the motions but you can bet your ass mom is agreeing) is going with this.<<

Sorry, yes, the mother has stated both (conception was likely in MT as well as WA.) I know I wrote what I wrote. Sorry to bring my confusion along!

And, yes, I do believe they are manufacturing their stories as they need to. In fact, that poses another question: Does the judge notice this on his own or should the attorney point this out? I ask because when they revealed the due date (after saying she was too afraid to let father know) to help THEIR cause, I aske dour attorney if we should point that out to the judge. He felt it was not something we should argue about at the time. Just curious what any of you might think about bringing it up.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Oh, you didn't confuse me. It's just that I caught her misstep, and certainly your son's attorney should have.

She has possibly commited perjury on one of her sworn testimonies. The baby was either conceived in WA, or in MT, she can't claim BOTH to suit her agenda.

Most certainly, if I were your son's attorney*** I'd bring this little factoid to the courts attention! Not the due date part, but the fact that she has stated in 2 separate court documents 2 different things about the same incident and sworn each to be truthful. Goes to her credibility.

***Disclaimer: No, I'm not an attorney. I'm only my own attorney but pro se doesn't count.