I am confused

[misslawli]

What is the name of your state? Arizona

Ok. I keep reading threads and posts going way back. I am reading conflicting things about establishing paternity. or just not understanding it. One thread said the father was on the BC, but the leagal response was that the father still didnt have rights until the court established those rights. Another said that if the father signed an "affidavit of paternity" and that was his leagal establishment of paternity. Doesn't a father HAVE to sign an "Affidavit of paternity" to be on the BC????
I guess basically this is what I am wanting to get figured out: If my son's bio-father signed an A of P, have his rights been leagally estblished?? I have yet to do any thing through the courts regarding CS, custody and visitation. I hadn't really worried about it untill now. He has only seen him once in the last 2&1/2 years. My son is 3. (even thou I have lived int hte same place for 10 years, had the same phn #, and same job for almost 7 years.) Any way back to the point. I just have a feeling he will get drunk one night and decide to Come and get him "cuz he can" He has had several Domestic violence charges, has bee court ordered to AA and rehab half a dozen times, He might just get a wild hair. that worries me now that I am unsure of my leagal stance

I just was unsure.

 

[hexeliebe]

Ok. I keep reading threads and posts going way back. I am reading conflicting things about establishing paternity. or just not understanding it. One thread said the father was on the BC, but the leagal response was that the father still didnt have rights until the court established those rights. Another said that if the father signed an "affidavit of paternity" and that was his leagal establishment of paternity. Doesn't a father HAVE to sign an "Affidavit of paternity" to be on the BC????

No. An affidavit of paternity is a legal document. A birth certificate is a document completed by a nurse or attending OBGYN at the time of birth.

If my son's bio-father signed an A of P, have his rights been leagally estblished??

Until those rights are either taken away from him by a court or he is proven not to be the biological father.

Any way back to the point. I just have a feeling he will get drunk one night and decide to Come and get him "cuz he can"

Without a court order granting you sole legal custody that is exactly what COULD happen.

He has had several Domestic violence charges, has bee court ordered to AA and rehab half a dozen times, He might just get a wild hair. that worries me now that I am unsure of my leagal stance

You have no legal stance until you get your ass to an attorney to file for sole legal custody and child support. Until then, you BOTH have the same rights to the child.

 

[OnlyOneVoice]

the up side to this is that since no legal custody as been established, you don't have to let the guy have the kid ever.

He can't come into your home and take the kid without your permission. There is no standing court order that says you have to.

If he shows up drunk call the police and have him removed. In most states and (I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will blast me out of the water) if no legal order of custody or visitation has been entered, then the bio-mom has primary physical custody and can do as she wishes with regards to the possession of the child.

In other words if he doesn't have court ordered visitation and he shows up, you can run him off, refuse to let him have the child and no one can or will do anything to stop you.

and even after paternity has been established, without a court order for visitation, you can still refuse and he can't do a blasted thing about it.

Make him seek paternity. Make him get the court order for visitation. Don't hand it to him on a plate if you feel he is dangerous.

 

[hexeliebe]

If he shows up drunk call the police and have him removed. In most states and (I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will blast me out of the water) if no legal order of custody or visitation has been entered, then the bio-mom has primary physical custody and can do as she wishes with regards to the possession of the child.

I won't blast you out of the water Voice, but yes, you are wrong. An affidavit of paternity is all this father needs to establish paternity. If the MOTHER wants to unestablish paternity, then she is the one who must contest it, pay for the paternity test and file the necessary court papers.

As it stands now, without a valid court order for custody, BOTH parents have the same rights to the child. Which means, if pappa takes off with the child to Alaska, there is nothing the police, the courts or momma can do about it.

 

[stealth2]

As it stands now, without a valid court order for custody, BOTH parents have the same rights to the child. Which means, if pappa takes off with the child to Alaska, there is nothing the police, the courts or momma can do about it.

I think this is state-specific, hex. There are states (I believe) who automatically confer custody to the mother when the parents are unmarried.

 

[OnlyOneVoice]

Hex:

I don't disagree. My point was that if mom has physical custody of the child and doesn't want to let dad take the baby she doesn't have to.

But you are right without an order of custody he can kidnap baby and police won't stop him.

But the flip side is that even though they both have rights without a court order no one can force them to do anything.

She can refuse the dad access without impunity. No legal consequences. If he grabs the baby and runs the down side is she can't stop him.

So there are positives here for her in that no one can force her to do anything with the baby she doesn't want to do until paternity has been established and even after that a court order has to be entered to "force" her to allow him around.

Establishing paternity doesn't prevent her from keeping dad away. A valid court order will, but just saying "I'm dad" won't cause a police officer to tell her "give him the kid."

She can run him off as far as the day is long until he has a valid order of visitation.

 

[misslawli]

thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess I am just going to have to suck it up and do it. I have had the paper work for Custody, visitation and CS here on my desk for over 6 months. I just wanted to deal with custody but when I got the paper work they said I HAD to do the papers for visitation & CS also. It is one packet. I have managed to make a good life for my (our) son on my own with no help. I didnt want to start now. But I'll do anything to keep my son from being in any danger. I don't even worry too much about the visitation. I truly doubt he will ever show up seeing as how he is so busy with his newbaby. And his girlfriends daughter( which is why he stopped seeing his son in the first place!!)

 

[haiku]

Hex:

I don't disagree. My point was that if mom has physical custody of the child and doesn't want to let dad take the baby she doesn't have to.

But you are right without an order of custody he can kidnap baby and police won't stop him.

But the flip side is that even though they both have rights without a court order no one can force them to do anything.

She can refuse the dad access without impunity. No legal consequences. If he grabs the baby and runs the down side is she can't stop him.

So there are positives here for her in that no one can force her to do anything with the baby she doesn't want to do until paternity has been established and even after that a court order has to be entered to "force" her to allow him around.

Establishing paternity doesn't prevent her from keeping dad away. A valid court order will, but just saying "I'm dad" won't cause a police officer to tell her "give him the kid."

She can run him off as far as the day is long until he has a valid order of visitation.

The father in the OP has established paternity, that will not be an issue in court, just custody and visitation.

its NOT kidnapping in a state that grants unmarried parents equal rights to the child. And very likely a police officer would just shrug, if mom and dad were in the same place at the same time.

paternity HAS been established here, that means barring any unforseen circumstance, the fathers in these cases will usually be granted temporary visitation on the filing for custody, first appearance, and it is in the moms best interest to start encouraging it during the mediation process leading to the permanent orders.

 

[hexeliebe]

The father in the OP has established paternity, that will not be an issue in court, just custody and visitation.

There is a BIG difference between Presumed Paternity and Legal Finding of Paternity.

In Arizona the following statute applies to the 'Presuption of paternity'.

25-814. Presumption of paternity

A. A man is presumed to be the father of the child if:

3. A birth certificate is signed by the mother and father of a child born out of wedlock.


However, presumption of paternity CAN be challenged, recinded and/or overturned upon the petition of either party. UNTIL a court makes a LEGAL FINDING of paternity, the name on the BC is only Presumed to be the father.

 

[haiku]

What is the name of your state? Arizona

out: If my son's bio-father signed an A of P, have his rights been leagally estblished?? I have yet to do any thing through the courts regarding CS, custody and visitation. II just was unsure.

hex using this quote from the OP I was going on the assumption (we all know what that means LOL) that having signed the affadavit, he is now considered the "legal father". with whatever right arizona may or may not give. (hence my comment that it may not be kidnapping) in my limited knowledge of the states I had dealing with, ANYONE could be a dad on the birth certificate, it was the signing of the affadavit, by both parents, giving equal rights in my state right away, or in my case, with no signed affadavit, our agreement before the court that counted, not the birth certificate.

 

[hexeliebe]

correct Hai....

There have been many people here lately who are saying some wierd things about custody, visitation and support laws. Just wanted to make sure EVERYONE understands what the statutes actually say.

 

[haiku]

correct Hai....

There have been many people here lately who are saying some wierd things about custody, visitation and support laws. Just wanted to make sure EVERYONE understands what the statutes actually say.

gotcha! Agreed. I just like to make sure I am not saying anything wrong because this is not an area people should 'screw" around with, and if something said by me, sends them down the wrong path? that would be awful.

 

[alys_mom]

but....

having established that he is the father - by signing the A of P - and without a court order establishing exactly who has custody of the child......

wouldn't both parents have exactly the same rights?

now, let's say........father has A of P and a copy of the birth certificate. mother keeps refusing visitation. father goes to police - who can not get involved in a "civil" matter and will not "remove the child from one parent and give the child to another parent" without court documentation. BUT.....father waits until child is at school......or the babysitter......then shows up with police and A of P and certificate and without any custody order being established......picks child up and then files a custody petition himself.

wouldn't it just be safer on her to file a custody petition ASAP ( or protest the A of P, whichever) and get it over with and in place now. because it seems to me......as time goes on that she will just keep having similiar problesm.