Pursuing truth

[Taxing Matters]

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?

I thought about asking that, but then after checking out NC law it appears that it would not make much difference in how the OP would proceed if he wanted to pursue paternity. The NC courts take the position that as between the OP and the mother, the child would be born out of wedlock and illegitimate if the OP was truly the father, so he proceeds the same way whether the mother was married to the other guy or not. The one thing that changes is the standard of proof the NC courts require. For a paternity case where the mother was not married to someone else when the child was born the standard is clear and convincing evidence. If she was married at the time the child was born, the standard would be beyond a reasonable doubt. That's one of the few times you'll see that standard applied to a noncriminal case. But with the advent of modern DNA testing, it's not that hard to meet either standard in the usual course of things.

 

[Ohiogal]

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.

Well I agree you are not thinking. I have been down this road MANY TIMES. It happens. How many times have you dealt with this issue?

 

[stealth2]

Well I agree you are not thinking. I have been down this road MANY TIMES. It happens. How many times have you dealt with this issue?

In NC?

 

[Ohiogal]

In NC?

Not in NC but in Ohio... How many times has LD been through it at all? As a GAL/Law Guardian? That is the point. And she didn't mention NC. She mentioned generally.

 

[LdiJ]

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.

Again, I completely understand that the child is a party to the case. I just want to know who is going to inform the child about the case if the only legal parent of the child chooses not to do so until after paternity has been determined? Please tell me who is going to do that? Who is going to go over the head of the child's only legal parent?

 

[quincy]

Again, I completely understand that the child is a party to the case. I just want to know who is going to inform the child about the case if the only legal parent of the child chooses not to do so until after paternity has been determined? Please tell me who is going to do that? Who is going to go over the head of the child's only legal parent?

The GAL who is appointed to represent the child will be speaking to the child.

You apparently are missing all of the responses by Ohiogal.

 

[LdiJ]

The GAL who is appointed to represent the child.

So, IF the judge appoints a GAL prior to paternity being proven, AND the parties pay the GAL prior to paternity being proven, AND the GAL meets with the child before paternity is proven, THEN the GAL might overlook the parent's wishes in a case where the odds of paternity are iffy and meet with the child and inform her? Got it.

Sorry, but I still disagree. We have a case where paternity is clearly iffy at best, I cannot imagine a judge requiring the parties to pay for a GAL prior to paternity being established and I cannot imagine a judge deciding that a child's world should be rocked when the guy may not be her father at all. I also cannot imagine somebody like OG insisting on rocking a child's world when there is a reasonable chance that the guy is NOT the child's father. That is patently unfair/potentially abusive to the child and the whole case is supposed to be about the best interests of the child.

 

[Taxing Matters]

So, IF the judge appoints a GAL prior to paternity being proven, AND the parties pay the GAL prior to paternity being proven, AND the GAL meets with the child before paternity is proven, THEN the GAL might overlook the parent's wishes in a case where the odds of paternity are iffy and meet with the child and inform her? Got it.

If the child is a party to the case then the child will have to have an attorney/GAL to represent her interests. I think that's what you aren't seeing. It's a different situation than the paternity actions you'd see in your state where the child is not a party to the case. The judge is constrained by the statute and can't simply refuse to do what is necessary to give effect to the child being a party to the case. And there is no way that once appointed that attorney isn't going to want to meet with the child and in the course of that let the child know what's going on. The attorney needs to do that to prepare for his/her role in the matter. The mother at that point doesn't control the whole show.

 

[quincy]

So, IF the judge appoints a GAL prior to paternity being proven, AND the parties pay the GAL prior to paternity being proven, AND the GAL meets with the child before paternity is proven, THEN the GAL might overlook the parent's wishes in a case where the odds of paternity are iffy and meet with the child and inform her? Got it.

Sorry, but I still disagree. We have a case where paternity is clearly iffy at best, I cannot imagine a judge requiring the parties to pay for a GAL prior to paternity being established and I cannot imagine a judge deciding that a child's world should be rocked when the guy may not be her father at all. I also cannot imagine somebody like OG insisting on rocking a child's world when there is a reasonable chance that the guy is NOT the child's father. That is patently unfair/potentially abusive to the child and the whole case is supposed to be about the best interests of the child.

I don’t understand what with what you are disagreeing.

If mom won’t have the child submit to a DNA test voluntarily, then someguy100 needs to file a paternity lawsuit.

One of the parties named in the paternity lawsuit is the child. A GAL is appointed to represent the child in this lawsuit.

The first thing the court will do is order genetic testing. If the child is not someguy100’s genetic match, the case ends there. If someguy100 is found to be the biological father, there will be other matters that need to be discussed and resolved.

I can think of two reasons not yet mentioned where determining paternity can be important. I think the major reason could be for the child to have an honest medical history. Another reason is inheritance.

 

[Ohiogal]

So, IF the judge appoints a GAL prior to paternity being proven, AND the parties pay the GAL prior to paternity being proven, AND the GAL meets with the child before paternity is proven, THEN the GAL might overlook the parent's wishes in a case where the odds of paternity are iffy and meet with the child and inform her? Got it.

Sorry, but I still disagree. We have a case where paternity is clearly iffy at best, I cannot imagine a judge requiring the parties to pay for a GAL prior to paternity being established and I cannot imagine a judge deciding that a child's world should be rocked when the guy may not be her father at all. I also cannot imagine somebody like OG insisting on rocking a child's world when there is a reasonable chance that the guy is NOT the child's father. That is patently unfair/potentially abusive to the child and the whole case is supposed to be about the best interests of the child.

Not all the time are the parents CHARGED FOR A GAL. Good grief, you are completely ignorant to the law. GALs have to explain to the child who they are and what their role is .. in other words the child will know there is a court case regarding them and they may have questions. The parents or other parties at that time are usually told NOT to discuss the case with the child and only the GAL may do so.

 

[LdiJ]

I don’t understand what with what you are disagreeing.

If mom won’t have the child submit to a DNA test voluntarily, then someguy100 needs to file a paternity lawsuit.

One of the parties named in the paternity lawsuit is the child. A GAL is appointed to represent the child in this lawsuit.

The first thing the court will do is order genetic testing. If the child is not someguy100’s genetic match, the case ends there. If someguy100 is found to be the biological father, there will be other matters that need to be discussed and resolved.

I can think of two reasons not yet mentioned where determining paternity can be important. I think the major reason could be for the child to have an honest medical history. Another reason is inheritance.
[/QUOTE]

I can certainly agree with the bolded.