I have a question

[acmb05]

What is the name of your state?Tn

I was asked to read and comprehend before posting so I need something answered.

If a affadavit of paternity gives the father absolutely no rights whatsoever, what would be the advantages of him signing one when the child is born? (This is for an unmarried couple).

As far as I have been able to comprehend an affadavit of paternity is something the state can use to come after the father for support and anything else, but the father cannot use it to assert his rights as a father.

To me this does not seem right at all. If the state can use it to assert his duty of payment and to say that the person is indeed the father then why cant the father use to it assert his parental right.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state?Tn

I was asked to read and comprehend before posting so I need something answered.

If a affadavit of paternity gives the father absolutely no rights whatsoever, what would be the advantages of him signing one when the child is born? (This is for an unmarried couple).

That is NOT what was said. The correct interpretation of what was posted is that the AOP conveys NO PATERNAL RIGHTS.

However, the AOP does convey legal standing.

As far as I have been able to comprehend an affadavit of paternity is something the state can use to come after the father for support and anything else, but the father cannot use it to assert his rights as a father.

Then you understand incorrectly as was discussed in the OTHER thread ad nausem

To me this does not seem right at all. If the state can use it to assert his duty of payment and to say that the person is indeed the father then why cant the father use to it assert his parental right.

the father can. The same as the state. By petitioning the court to accept the AOP and thereby assign rights and responsibilities.

 

[acmb05]

Thank you

I apreciate it

 

[rmet4nzkx]

What is the name of your state?Tn

I was asked to read and comprehend before posting so I need something answered.

If a affadavit of paternity gives the father absolutely no rights whatsoever, what would be the advantages of him signing one when the child is born? (This is for an unmarried couple).

As far as I have been able to comprehend an affadavit of paternity is something the state can use to come after the father for support and anything else, but the father cannot use it to assert his rights as a father.

To me this does not seem right at all. If the state can use it to assert his duty of payment and to say that the person is indeed the father then why cant the father use to it assert his parental right.

Here is a link to the Uniform Parentage Act 1973 http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/upa7390.htm
Simply put, in unmarried parents, paternity must be established in order to protect both the rights of parents and child. Before this act and before the existance of DNA testing, a non biological male could be ajudicated to be the father.

Paterntage e.g. paternity and maternity is the basis of all other court orders including child support, custody and visitation/parenting time. These orders are seperate than the AOP establishing paternity. Signing an AOP does not automatically confer any other rights without a court order nor is it exactly the same in every state, that is called, "standing". For example, signing an AOP in CA entititles the father's name to be placed on the Birth Certificate for unmarried parents and cannot be put on the BC without the AOP, where as prior to UPA, the father's name could be placed on the BC without the father's consent.

A putative father may establish paternity by other means that may vary from state to state.

If the mother applies for state aid/medical, the state will pursue paternity and child support orders with or without the mother's consent.

Either parent may petition the court to establish other court orders for Child Support, Custody, Visitation/Parenting Plan, but it is up to the respective parents to petition the court, otherwise the mother is usually the default custodial parent. These petitions would be made in the court having jurisdiction which may change over time and brings into play other acts.

 

[acmb05]

Thank you again

I guess the way I was reading it was if the father signed it then the state could take him to court and make him pay without having him do a DNA test based just on the fact that he signed a AOP. That is what I am confused about on it.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I guess the way I was reading it was if the father signed it then the state could take him to court and make him pay without having him do a DNA test based just on the fact that he signed a AOP. That is what I am confused about on it.

Yes that is true IF mom and/or child applied for state aid welfare/medicaid, then the state makes the petition for child support based on the state's contribution. Depending on state law, so it varies state by state, there may be the option of challenging the AOP and asking for a DNA test or there may be a means to challenge the AOP. Signing the AOP without a DNA test is less expensive than court ordered DNA test and why it is preferred by many parents when there is not question of paternity.

Something you may also feel unfair is the fact that if you are named as the father and fail to respond to the summons after being served, a court may find/establish paternity even if you are not the biodad and then the ability to challenge is different than the AOP.

So if you were married to the mother, including a valid common law marriage or signed an AOP, thus establishing paternity, the court may, depending on the circumstances and state laws assign back child support to the date of filing, even if you never petitioned for or exercised any of your parental rights. However if you established paternity and custody/visitation rights and were not allowed to exercise them by virtue of custodial interference that is timely addressed with police reports and filing contempt, arrearages may be reduced but that is up to the judge. Ignornace is not a defense.