>No you couldn't, unless he was your real father. Your mother's husbandwould have had to adopt you.>>

Wrong, Di. In all fifty states (unless laws have recently changed) a man
married to a woman at the time she gives birth is the legal, presumed father of
the infant. No adoption procedures are necessary.


P2P

in article 20040216101633.22671.00002001@mb-m18.aol.com, Palms2pines at
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam wrote on 16/2/04 3:16 pm:
No you couldn't, unless he was your real father. Your mother's husband would have had to adopt you.>> Wrong, Di. In all fifty states (unless laws have recently changed) a man married to a woman at the time she gives birth is the legal, presumed father of the infant. No adoption procedures are necessary. P2P


As it is (excepting recent provisos introduced in English family law) also
English common law, I suspect it would therefore be part of Australian law
too, unless more recent laws have superseded it. I expect we got it from
Roman law. Though it will no doubt eventually change in England to reflect
European Law

in Kroon and others v The Netherlands [1994] 19 EHRR 263 the European Court
of Human Rights considered that a presumption of paternity in favour of the
mother's husband breached the right of her partner to respect for his family
life under Article 8 because it could only be rebutted by the husband. It
was not the presumption that breached the Convention but rather the fact
that there was a restriction on who could rebut the presumption. The Court
determined that:
*
"Respect for family life requires that biological and social reality prevail
over a legal presumption which flies in the face of both established fact
and the wishes of those concerned without actually benefiting anyone."


Robin

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040216101633.22671.00002001@mb-m18.aol.com>...No you couldn't, unless he was your real father. Your mother's husbandwould have had to adopt you.>> Wrong, Di. In all fifty states (unless laws have recently changed) a man married to a woman at the time she gives birth is the legal, presumed father of the infant. No adoption procedures are necessary. P2P

Only if the husband believes and/or accepts the child as his child. He
has a right to dispute paternity and has no obligation to support the
child once proven that he is not the father.

Di

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message
No you couldn't, unless he was your real father. Your mother's husbandwould have had to adopt you.>> Wrong, Di. In all fifty states (unless laws have recently changed) a man married to a woman at the time she gives birth is the legal, presumed father of the infant. No adoption procedures are necessary. P2P Only if the husband believes and/or accepts the child as his child. He has a right to dispute paternity and has no obligation to support the child once proven that he is not the father.

Well, since we were talking of a situation where a man marries a woman
he knows is pregnant by someone else, presumably he *is* willing. That
being so, he need do nothing but continue in his role of husband and
father. He does not need to adopt the child born in the marriage, even
if the child is not born of that marriage. The child would be
legitimate.

In fact, I am not sure whether in the US he can dispute paternity and
refuse support. Perhaps it differs by state.

Rupa

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ReiYb.35558$hR.871154@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0402161651.759e716b@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040216101633.22671.00002001@mb-m18.aol.com>... >No you couldn't, unless he was your real father. Your mother's husband >would have had to adopt you.>> Wrong, Di. In all fifty states (unless laws have recently changed) a man married to a woman at the time she gives birth is the legal, presumed father of the infant. No adoption procedures are necessary. P2P Only if the husband believes and/or accepts the child as his child. He has a right to dispute paternity and has no obligation to support the child once proven that he is not the father. Di The husband is always the presumed father of the child under US law. The presumed father may doubt that paternity and demand proof, but that may still not get him off the hook. Paternity fraud, abetted by the state, is rampant in the US today which is more interested in getting somebody to foot the bill than the trutyh. Countless men are still held financially responsible by the government for children who are not biologically their's--proven as such by DNA.

That's just a corruption of what is laughingly referred to as the law.
Seems like there's one law for single men and another for married.
If a 'husband' can prove the child is not his he has grounds for
divorce, surely? At least it used to be.

And what of those women with children who then marry someone other
than the father? The actual father is not absolved of his financial
responsibility towards his kids if the mother marries. The new husband
would have to adopt his children in order for him to be let off the
financial hook. The "presumed" in law only implies "unless proven
otherwise."

Below is a long article on just what's going on, first published in Reason. I've read several articles on the subject of paternity fraud, but this is by far the best. Marley
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070655/posts http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml

The same things happen here 'until' the father proves he is not the
father/
One recent case forced the mother to repay all costs to the man she
accused of fathering her child. 8 years worth of child support.

Di

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0402170420.5bf80721@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<ReiYb.35558$hR.871154@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0402161651.759e716b@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040216101633.22671.00002001@mb-m18.aol.com>... > >No you couldn't, unless he was your real father. Your mother's
husband > >would have had to adopt you.>> > > Wrong, Di. In all fifty states (unless laws have recently changed) a
man > married to a woman at the time she gives birth is the legal,
presumed father of > the infant. No adoption procedures are necessary. > > > P2P Only if the husband believes and/or accepts the child as his child. He has a right to dispute paternity and has no obligation to support the child once proven that he is not the father. Di The husband is always the presumed father of the child under US law.
The presumed father may doubt that paternity and demand proof, but that may still not get him off the hook. Paternity fraud, abetted by the state,
is rampant in the US today which is more interested in getting somebody to
foot the bill than the trutyh. Countless men are still held financially responsible by the government for children who are not biologically their's--proven as such by DNA. That's just a corruption of what is laughingly referred to as the law. Seems like there's one law for single men and another for married. If a 'husband' can prove the child is not his he has grounds for divorce, surely? At least it used to be.

He does, but he may still have to pay for Lil Snotleigh. And what of those women with children who then marry someone other than the father? The actual father is not absolved of his financial responsibility towards his kids if the mother marries.

True.

The new husband would have to adopt his children in order for him to be let off the financial hook. The "presumed" in law only implies "unless proven otherwise."

Yeah, but even then, "otherwise" can still be send the bill. Below is a long article on just what's going on, first published in
Reason. I've read several articles on the subject of paternity fraud, but this
is by far the best. Marley http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070655/posts http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml The same things happen here 'until' the father proves he is not the father/ One recent case forced the mother to repay all costs to the man she accused of fathering her child. 8 years worth of child support.

That would be ideal, and probably does happen here, too, but mostly men
carry the onus. Even if he's never heard of the mother . If she names him,
he's as good as cooked.

And here's another little Ohio story. Some fathers here were thrown in jail
for not paying child support--when they had paid it, and could prove i8t.
The money went to the state and the state never distributed it to the
mothers and children--just let it set in the coffer to collect interest.
Ooops! Too bad. It was in the millions.

The Family Court system in the US is a nightmare. Anybody who wanders into
it, won't come back out.

Marley Di

Di quote US adoption law:
Only if the husband believes and/or accepts the child as his child. Hehas a right to dispute paternity and has no obligation to support thechild once proven that he is not the father.Di

You are so wrong. Surprise!


P2P

Di offers another view of US law:
That's just a corruption of what is laughingly referred to as the law.>>

You mean because you were wrong there must be something wrong with US law?


P2P

>In fact, I am not sure whether in the US he can dispute paternity andrefuse support. Perhaps it differs by state.Rupa


I am sure there are variations by state. However, no man is off the hook just
because he can prove a child born to his wife during the time of his marriage
to her is not biologically his. Marriage + birth = fatherhood


P2P

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ourYb.38326$hR.918365@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0402170420.5bf80721@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ReiYb.35558$hR.871154@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0402161651.759e716b@posting.google.c om... > palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040216101633.22671.00002001@mb-m18.aol.com>... > > >No you couldn't, unless he was your real father. Your mother's husband > > >would have had to adopt you.>> > > > > Wrong, Di. In all fifty states (unless laws have recently changed) a man > > married to a woman at the time she gives birth is the legal, presumed father of > > the infant. No adoption procedures are necessary. > > > > > > P2P > > Only if the husband believes and/or accepts the child as his child. He > has a right to dispute paternity and has no obligation to support the > child once proven that he is not the father. > > Di The husband is always the presumed father of the child under US law. The presumed father may doubt that paternity and demand proof, but that may still not get him off the hook. Paternity fraud, abetted by the state, is rampant in the US today which is more interested in getting somebody to foot the bill than the trutyh. Countless men are still held financially responsible by the government for children who are not biologically their's--proven as such by DNA. That's just a corruption of what is laughingly referred to as the law. Seems like there's one law for single men and another for married. If a 'husband' can prove the child is not his he has grounds for divorce, surely? At least it used to be. He does, but he may still have to pay for Lil Snotleigh. And what of those women with children who then marry someone other than the father? The actual father is not absolved of his financial responsibility towards his kids if the mother marries. True. The new husband would have to adopt his children in order for him to be let off the financial hook. The "presumed" in law only implies "unless proven otherwise." Yeah, but even then, "otherwise" can still be send the bill.

Even if he leaves her as a result of her adultery and resulting child?
Below is a long article on just what's going on, first published in Reason. I've read several articles on the subject of paternity fraud, but this is by far the best. Marley http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070655/posts > > http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml The same things happen here 'until' the father proves he is not the father/ One recent case forced the mother to repay all costs to the man she accused of fathering her child. 8 years worth of child support. That would be ideal, and probably does happen here, too, but mostly men carry the onus. Even if he's never heard of the mother . If she names him, he's as good as cooked.

Amazing......

What's to stop women from accusing wealthy men, married or single, of
fathering their child? Does the same law apply to them too if they
turn out not to be dad?
And here's another little Ohio story. Some fathers here were thrown in jail for not paying child support--when they had paid it, and could prove i8t. The money went to the state and the state never distributed it to the mothers and children--just let it set in the coffer to collect interest. Ooops! Too bad. It was in the millions.

I'm nonplussed.... What an unjust society yours is.

Di







The Family Court system in the US is a nightmare. Anybody who wanders into it, won't come back out. Marley Di

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040217170017.11350.00001958@mb-m05.aol.com>... Di offers another view of US law:That's just a corruption of what is laughingly referred to as the law.>> You mean because you were wrong there must be something wrong with US law? P2P

No I mean what kind of laughing law is it that makes another man
liable for other men's children? You call that a just law? A case of
if we can't get the father to pay we'll make sure someone else is made
accountable.

Do your laws work that way for murder too? Will just anyone do if it
means closing a murder case?

Di

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0402172115.6c6d9ee3@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message
news:<20040217170017.11350.00001958@mb-m05.aol.com>... Di offers another view of US law:That's just a corruption of what is laughingly referred to as the
law.>> You mean because you were wrong there must be something wrong with US
law? P2P No I mean what kind of laughing law is it that makes another man liable for other men's children? You call that a just law? A case of if we can't get the father to pay we'll make sure someone else is made accountable. Do your laws work that way for murder too? Will just anyone do if it means closing a murder case? Di

Well, look at the invasion of Iraq. First it was "preemptive"--Saddam
"might" attack us some time in the vaguer future with WWD. Now it's Saddam
"might" have the capability at "some time in the future" to develop WWD.
What do you think? So not only do I now have the OK from the government to
shoot my neighbor because he might do something to me in the future, but
that it's even better to shoot him now before he even thinks about it.

Marley

Marley

>Amazing......What's to stop women from accusing wealthy men, married or single, offathering their child? Does the same law apply to them too if theyturn out not to be dad?>>

There nothing to stop them, Di. But, unless a woman is married to the man she
is pinning fatherhood on, the man has every right to demand DNA tests and proof
of paternity before he antes up.


P2P

>I'm nonplussed.... What an unjust society yours is.Di

Good thing you don't live in the US, huh, Di?


P2P

Di pokes fun at US laws concerning marriage and paternity:
No I mean what kind of laughing law is it that makes another manliable for other men's children? You call that a just law? A case ofif we can't get the father to pay we'll make sure someone else is madeaccountable.>>

How much do you really know, Di, about marriage and paternity laws in your
land? I would not be at all surprised (though you might be) if laws in
Australia are similar.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040218154518.22792.00002108@mb-m18.aol.com... Di pokes fun at US laws concerning marriage and paternity:No I mean what kind of laughing law is it that makes another manliable for other men's children? You call that a just law? A case ofif we can't get the father to pay we'll make sure someone else is madeaccountable.>> How much do you really know, Di, about marriage and paternity laws in your land? I would not be at all surprised (though you might be) if laws in Australia are similar. P2P


I'm on a fathers rights list that posts a lot of stuff from newspapers
downunder. It's not adoption related, but I'd say men get this shaft there,
too. There are some seriously women-hating men's groups getting active.
Very scary stuff, involving stalking and actual physical attacks on women
who don't tow the line.

Marley

Marley

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040218110920.20606.00001717@mb-m21.aol.com>...Amazing......What's to stop women from accusing wealthy men, married or single, offathering their child? Does the same law apply to them too if theyturn out not to be dad?>> There nothing to stop them, Di. But, unless a woman is married to the man she is pinning fatherhood on, the man has every right to demand DNA tests and proof of paternity before he antes up. P2P

But as has already been stated, a DNA test does not necessarily absolve him of
his responsibility to the child. Someone has to pay. Why not him?

Di

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040218111002.20606.00001718@mb-m21.aol.com>...I'm nonplussed.... What an unjust society yours is.Di Good thing you don't live in the US, huh, Di? P2P

Absolutely. I'm feeling more and more blessed that I don't live there, every day.

Di

On 18 Feb 2004 17:51:01 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au
(Dian) wrote:
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040218111002.20606.00001718@mb-m21.aol.com>...I'm nonplussed.... What an unjust society yours is.Di Good thing you don't live in the US, huh, Di? P2PAbsolutely. I'm feeling more and more blessed that I don't live there, every day.Di

Likewise.

Nancy

In article <an6830ppk01pbkgddu8uk87blueh0jtbs4@4ax.com>, nancy says...On 18 Feb 2004 17:51:01 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au(Dian) wrote:palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040218111002.20606.00001718@mb-m21.aol.com>... >I'm nonplussed.... What an unjust society yours is. > >Di > > Good thing you don't live in the US, huh, Di? P2PAbsolutely. I'm feeling more and more blessed that I don't live there, every day.DiLikewise.

Indeed.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote But as has already been stated, a DNA test does not necessarily absolve him of his responsibility to the child. Someone has to pay. Why not him?

It does absolve him of the responsibility, unless he has already been
in a paternal relationship to the child -- including paying child
support, or he was married to the mother of the child at the time it
was born.

Rupa

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/18/04 5:51 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402181751.68e19ca@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040218111002.20606.00001718@mb-m21.aol.com>...I'm nonplussed.... What an unjust society yours is.Di Good thing you don't live in the US, huh, Di? P2PAbsolutely. I'm feeling more and more blessed that I don't live there, everyday.Di

The feeling is quite mutual.

For someone that feels so blessed that they don't live in The USA, you sure act
like you live here. For your own sake, stop misquoting our adoption
laws/constitutional laws, idjit. You haven't a clue.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

***top post**

Di, are you really this thick? If a man is *married* to a woman, any child
born to the woman is automtically "his" by law. If he is not married to the
woman, he does not have to assume responsibility for any child she might bear
until it is proven he is the sperm source. Got it? Chances are the same holds
true in Australia.

P2P
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040218110920.20606.00001717@mb-m21.aol.com>...Amazing......What's to stop women from accusing wealthy men, married or single, offathering their child? Does the same law apply to them too if theyturn out not to be dad?>> There nothing to stop them, Di. But, unless a woman is married to the manshe is pinning fatherhood on, the man has every right to demand DNA tests andproof of paternity before he antes up. P2PBut as has already been stated, a DNA test does not necessarily absolve himofhis responsibility to the child. Someone has to pay. Why not him?Di




P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040219110436.28915.00000885@mb-m07.aol.com... ***top post** Di, are you really this thick? If a man is *married* to a woman, any
child born to the woman is automtically "his" by law. If he is not married to
the woman, he does not have to assume responsibility for any child she might
bear until it is proven he is the sperm source. Got it? Chances are the same
holds true in Australia. P2P

That's not exactly true. Non-biological fathers are being forced to pay for
children that aren't thirs. It's all over the press--including the long
story I put here a couple days ago from Reason.. Paternity fraud is rampant
in the US and the state and federal governments are facilitating it.

Marley

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040218110920.20606.00001717@mb-m21.aol.com>... >Amazing...... > >What's to stop women from accusing wealthy men, married or single, of >fathering their child? Does the same law apply to them too if they >turn out not to be dad?>> There nothing to stop them, Di. But, unless a woman is married to the
manshe is pinning fatherhood on, the man has every right to demand DNA tests
andproof of paternity before he antes up. P2PBut as has already been stated, a DNA test does not necessarily absolve
himofhis responsibility to the child. Someone has to pay. Why not him?Di P2P

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/19/04 8:04 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040219110436.28915.00000885@mb-m07.aol.com>***top post**Di, are you really this thick?

Is this a trick question?


Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

Marley writes:
That's not exactly true. Non-biological fathers are being forced to pay forchildren that aren't thirs. It's all over the press--including the longstory I put here a couple days ago from Reason.. Paternity fraud is rampantin the US and the state and federal governments are facilitating it.Marley


Marley, yes, there are men paying court ordered child support for children who
were not born within a marriage and who are not the biological children of the
men. Typcially these cases involve men who really did think the children for
whom they were ordered to support were their biological offspring. Down the
road some discover the mistake (ruse?) and demand DNA tests and ask to be
relieved of child support obligations but are denied. My advice to any man who
is not married to a woman who claims he is the bio father of her child is to
admit nothing until DNA tests prove paternity.

Some divorced men paying child support discover they are not the bio fathers of
the children born in their marriages. Judges are not quick to relieve men of
child support obligations in these cases, either.




P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040219140851.20582.00000016@mb-m24.aol.com... Marley writes:That's not exactly true. Non-biological fathers are being forced to pay
forchildren that aren't thirs. It's all over the press--including the longstory I put here a couple days ago from Reason.. Paternity fraud is
rampantin the US and the state and federal governments are facilitating it.Marley Marley, yes, there are men paying court ordered child support for children
who were not born within a marriage and who are not the biological children of
the men. Typcially these cases involve men who really did think the children
for whom they were ordered to support were their biological offspring. Down
the road some discover the mistake (ruse?) and demand DNA tests and ask to be relieved of child support obligations but are denied. My advice to any
man who is not married to a woman who claims he is the bio father of her child is
to admit nothing until DNA tests prove paternity. Some divorced men paying child support discover they are not the bio
fathers of the children born in their marriages. Judges are not quick to relieve men
of child support obligations in these cases, either. P2P

And if they aren't' the bio fathers then there is no reason to pay for it.
Put the onus on the mother where it belongs, and let her pay and let the
real bio father pay, not the poor schmuck who was duped. A study in the UK
determined that about 24% of the men who thought they were the fathers of
their children, aren't. That's paternity fraud and it should be a felony.
It's just another matter of identiy manipulation.


Marley

>That's paternity fraud and it should be a felony.It's just another matter of identiy manipulation.Marley


Yes, Marley. Many states now have "theft by deception" laws and this should
certainly apply. However, many women really are *not* sure about paternity and
hanging it on the nearest available guy solves a lot of problems and avoids a
lot of others. Not saying it's right. Just saying it is a very common, age-old
dilemma with a very common solution. Plus, states are delighted to hang
paternity on someone...anyone...and order child support payments. Without them,
the state would be next in line to support thousands of children.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040219151332.20709.00000013@mb-m24.aol.com...That's paternity fraud and it should be a felony.It's just another matter of identiy manipulation.Marley Yes, Marley. Many states now have "theft by deception" laws and this
should certainly apply. However, many women really are *not* sure about paternity
and hanging it on the nearest available guy solves a lot of problems and
avoids a lot of others. Not saying it's right. Just saying it is a very common,
age-old dilemma with a very common solution. Plus, states are delighted to hang paternity on someone...anyone...and order child support payments. Without
them, the state would be next in line to support thousands of children. P2P

I totally agree with you. I'm talking about those who knowingly deceive.
There's a lot of gray there. Just watch Maury. After the 7-8 paternity
test it gets really interesing.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 2/19/2004
Non-biological fathers are being forced to pay forchildren that aren't thirs.

Yep, all they have to do is admit paternity.

Kathy J

"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040219193008.09990.00000017@mb-m17.aol.com...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 2/19/2004Non-biological fathers are being forced to pay forchildren that aren't thirs. Yep, all they have to do is admit paternity. Kathy J

Why would they admit paternity if they aren't the father? Why should they
pay if genetic tests prove that they aren't

Marley.

>Why would they admit paternity if they aren't the father? Why should theypay if genetic tests prove that they aren'tMarley.


Marley, some men really do not know and simply take a woman's word for it. DNA
testing is expensive. People tend to be passive in some of life's most
important situations and this could be one of them. Perhaps some men either
don't have the knowledge or energy to investigate allegations of paternity or
cannot afford DNA testing.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/19/04 8:07 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040219200741.20365.00000069@mb-m04.aol.com>Why would they admit paternity if they aren't the father? Whyshould they pay if genetic tests prove that they aren'tMarley.Marley, some men really do not know and simply take awoman's word for it. DNA testing is expensive. People tendto be passive in some of life's most important situations

dot dot
and this could be one of them. Perhaps some men eitherdon't have the knowledge or energy to investigate allegationsof paternity or cannot afford DNA testing.

What's a DNA test cost these days?

Dad

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 2/19/2004
Why would they admit paternity if they aren't the father? Why should theypay if genetic tests prove that they aren'tMarley.

They think they are the father, they do it because they think it is the right
thing to do, they do it for love, they trust, they don't ask for a test. Kathy

"AdoptaDad" <adoptadad@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040219210315.06673.00000037@mb-m25.aol.com...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/19/04 8:07 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040219200741.20365.00000069@mb-m04.aol.com>Why would they admit paternity if they aren't the father? Whyshould they pay if genetic tests prove that they aren'tMarley.Marley, some men really do not know and simply take awoman's word for it. DNA testing is expensive. People tendto be passive in some of life's most important situations dot dotand this could be one of them. Perhaps some men eitherdon't have the knowledge or energy to investigate allegationsof paternity or cannot afford DNA testing. What's a DNA test cost these days? Dad

The one Jack and I had ran about $500.

Marley

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040219110436.28915.00000885@mb-m07.aol.com>... ***top post** Di, are you really this thick? If a man is *married* to a woman, any child born to the woman is automtically "his" by law. If he is not married to the woman, he does not have to assume responsibility for any child she might bear until it is proven he is the sperm source. Got it? Chances are the same holds true in Australia. P2P

No I am not "this thick", P2P. A child who is born within marriage is
only "presumed" to be the issue of the marriage UNLESS proven
otherwise.

The child is "automatically" ASSUMED by law to be his child - unless
proven otherwise.

The child is not "automatically his by law" if it is proven that he
did not father the child. Got it?

Many men were conned into believing the child was their child and many
divorces ensued once it was established that the child was not his
child - because a non biological child born within marriage is
evidence of adultery.

The "presumption of paternity unless proven otherwise," was introduced
into law
to keep women from being unfaithful within marriage. Whereas your
assertion that he is "automatically" the child's legal father allows
women to commit adultery ad hoc and force their husbands to pay for
the consequences of their actions. You're pulling your own leg if you
think laws were introduced to protect women from the consequences of
their own infidelity.

If a man has known the child is not his and still willingly provides
for that child is one thing, but a man who has provided for a child on
the belief that
it is his child and then discovers otherwise, is an entirely different
legal matter. If your courts are now forcing husbands to take legal
responsibility for children sired by other men within marriage, they
are doing so merely to save the public purse and certainly not because
the child is "legally theirs."
The only time such a child is "legally theirs" is if they adopt them.

And ask yourself why married women who conceived children through an
adulterous affair can put the child up for adoption without the
husband being required to also sign the consent. All he has to do is
sign an affidavit denying paternity.
If the child was "legally his" he would be required to sign the
consent as well. Get it yet?

Di


palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040218110920.20606.00001717@mb-m21.aol.com>... >Amazing...... > >What's to stop women from accusing wealthy men, married or single, of >fathering their child? Does the same law apply to them too if they >turn out not to be dad?>> There nothing to stop them, Di. But, unless a woman is married to the man she is pinning fatherhood on, the man has every right to demand DNA tests and proof of paternity before he antes up. P2PBut as has already been stated, a DNA test does not necessarily absolve himofhis responsibility to the child. Someone has to pay. Why not him?Di P2P

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)Date: 2/19/2004 10:33 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040219210315.06673.00000037@mb-m25.aol.com>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/19/04 8:07 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040219200741.20365.00000069@mb-m04.aol.com>Why would they admit paternity if they aren't the father? Whyshould they pay if genetic tests prove that they aren'tMarley.Marley, some men really do not know and simply take awoman's word for it. DNA testing is expensive. People tendto be passive in some of life's most important situations dot dotand this could be one of them. Perhaps some men eitherdon't have the knowledge or energy to investigate allegationsof paternity or cannot afford DNA testing. What's a DNA test cost these days?Dad

depending on where you go, $600 to $1000 bucks

in article 20040220060912.10232.00000030@mb-m03.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1 at
chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 20/2/04 11:09 am:
Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) Date: 2/19/2004 10:33 PM Newfoundland Standard Time Message-id: <20040219210315.06673.00000037@mb-m25.aol.com> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) Date: 2/19/04 8:07 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <20040219200741.20365.00000069@mb-m04.aol.com>> Why would they admit paternity if they aren't the father? Why> should they pay if genetic tests prove that they aren't>> Marley. Marley, some men really do not know and simply take a woman's word for it. DNA testing is expensive. People tend to be passive in some of life's most important situations dot dot and this could be one of them. Perhaps some men either don't have the knowledge or energy to investigate allegations of paternity or cannot afford DNA testing. What's a DNA test cost these days? Dad depending on where you go, $600 to $1000 bucks

Each or for a pair?

The last quote I had here was 600 UKPounds each person. Next time I need
anything like that I'll go to the US, specially right now, with dollar
dieing a death against the pound. (And we might even be able to get around
that permission thing).

Robin

"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message
news:BC5B9F7F.34BBB%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article 20040220060912.10232.00000030@mb-m03.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1
at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 20/2/04 11:09 am: Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) Date: 2/19/2004 10:33 PM Newfoundland Standard Time Message-id: <20040219210315.06673.00000037@mb-m25.aol.com>> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children> From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)> Date: 2/19/04 8:07 PM Eastern Standard Time> Message-id: <20040219200741.20365.00000069@mb-m04.aol.com>>>> Why would they admit paternity if they aren't the father? Why>> should they pay if genetic tests prove that they aren't>>>> Marley.>>> Marley, some men really do not know and simply take a> woman's word for it. DNA testing is expensive. People tend> to be passive in some of life's most important situations dot dot> and this could be one of them. Perhaps some men either> don't have the knowledge or energy to investigate allegations> of paternity or cannot afford DNA testing. What's a DNA test cost these days? Dad depending on where you go, $600 to $1000 bucks Each or for a pair? The last quote I had here was 600 UKPounds each person. Next time I need anything like that I'll go to the US, specially right now, with dollar dieing a death against the pound. (And we might even be able to get around that permission thing). Robin

It was $500+ for the both of us. It depends on what you're looking for as
well. Simple paternity is cheaper.

Marley

> What's a DNA test cost these days?Dad


In 1998 we were quoted approximately $500 per party. So, if a man wanted to
determine paternity, he'd have to first get the court to order a blood test for
the child in question, which might create substantial legal fees for which the
man would have to pay. Then, the man would have to pay for his test and the
child's test. It certainly would be money well spent, imo, if a man is in
doubt. But, many just don't have the cash.


P2P

>The one Jack and I had ran about $500.Marley

Each?


P2P

***top***

Di, you do appear thick and you are very wrong.

Di states concerning US law:
If your courts are now forcing husbands to take legalresponsibility for children sired by other men within marriage, theyare doing so merely to save the public purse and certainly not becausethe child is "legally theirs."The only time such a child is "legally theirs" is if they adopt them>>

Once more for redundancy's sake.

If a child is born within a marriage, no matter *who* the sperm source might
have been the husband *is* the legal father. Legal. Legal. He has parental
rights. Period.

I am not sure what you are arguing. The man does not, under any circumstances,
have to "adopt" the child. He is the legal, legal, legal father.

The man is automatically responsible for child support should a divorce occur,
because he is the legal, legal, legal father of the child. Now...if the man
wishes to fight court ordered child support on the grounds he believes he is
not or can prove he is not the bio father, that is another matter. He might
win. He might not. It depends on many things including the whims of a judge and
the role the man has played in the life of the child.

I cannot imagine this does not clear it up for you, Di.


P2P

**top post***

Wrong again, Di.

Di continues to interpret US law:
And ask yourself why married women who conceived children through anadulterous affair can put the child up for adoption without thehusband being required to also sign the consent.>>

In all states with which I have personal experience, a man married to a woman
who gave birth to a child has to voluntarily relinquish the child in order for
it to be placed for adoption becaus the man is the legal, legal, legal father
of the child. I know personally of a case here in CA where a birthmother failed
to mention she was still legally married to a man she had not seen in a
decade.Oops! Every effort had to be made to locate that man to get his consent
because he was the legal, legal, legal father of the child.




P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040220153429.09475.00000039@mb-m12.aol.com...The one Jack and I had ran about $500.Marley Each? P2P

No. Together.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/20/04 12:41 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040220154107.09475.00000040@mb-m12.aol.com>***top***Di, you do appear thick and you are very wrong.Di states concerning US law: If your courts are now forcing husbands to take legalresponsibility for children sired by other men within marriage, theyare doing so merely to save the public purse and certainly not becausethe child is "legally theirs."The only time such a child is "legally theirs" is if they adopt them>>Once more for redundancy's sake.If a child is born within a marriage, no matter *who* the sperm source mighthave been the husband *is* the legal father. Legal. Legal. He has parentalrights. Period.I am not sure what you are arguing. The man does not, under anycircumstances,have to "adopt" the child. He is the legal, legal, legal father.The man is automatically responsible for child support should a divorceoccur,because he is the legal, legal, legal father of the child. Now...if the manwishes to fight court ordered child support on the grounds he believes he isnot or can prove he is not the bio father, that is another matter. He mightwin. He might not. It depends on many things including the whims of a judgeandthe role the man has played in the life of the child.I cannot imagine this does not clear it up for you, Di.P2P

HellllllOoooooo.........




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040220154107.09475.00000040@mb-m12.aol.com>... ***top*** Di, you do appear thick and you are very wrong. Di states concerning US law: If your courts are now forcing husbands to take legalresponsibility for children sired by other men within marriage, theyare doing so merely to save the public purse and certainly not becausethe child is "legally theirs."The only time such a child is "legally theirs" is if they adopt them>> Once more for redundancy's sake. If a child is born within a marriage, no matter *who* the sperm source might have been the husband *is* the legal father. Legal. Legal. He has parental rights. Period. I am not sure what you are arguing. The man does not, under any circumstances, have to "adopt" the child. He is the legal, legal, legal father.

He is only the presumed legal father, unless proven otherwise.
The man is automatically responsible for child support should a divorce occur, because he is the legal, legal, legal father of the child. Now...if the man wishes to fight court ordered child support on the grounds he believes he is not or can prove he is not the bio father, that is another matter


What on earth do you think I was referring to by stating "unless
proven otherwise?" That is precisely what I was saying.


He might win. He might not. It depends on many things including the whims of a judge and the role the man has played in the life of the child. I cannot imagine this does not clear it up for you, Di.

It has always been perfectly clear to me. It is you who didn't quite
get it.


Di

P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040220154409.09475.00000041@mb-m12.aol.com... **top post*** Wrong again, Di. Di continues to interpret US law:And ask yourself why married women who conceived children through anadulterous affair can put the child up for adoption without thehusband being required to also sign the consent.>> In all states with which I have personal experience, a man married to a
woman who gave birth to a child has to voluntarily relinquish the child in order
for it to be placed for adoption becaus the man is the legal, legal, legal
father of the child. I know personally of a case here in CA where a birthmother
failed to mention she was still legally married to a man she had not seen in a decade.Oops! Every effort had to be made to locate that man to get his
consent because he was the legal, legal, legal father of the child.


Well, back in '65 the man who my mother was married to at the time of my
birth (and incidentally is listed as the father of record on my OBC) had no
legal say in my relinquishment. Go figger.

Jack

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote
The man is automatically responsible for child support should a divorce occur, because he is the legal, legal, legal father of the child. Now...if the man wishes to fight court ordered child support on the grounds he believes he is not or can prove he is not the bio father, that is another matter What on earth do you think I was referring to by stating "unless proven otherwise?" That is precisely what I was saying.

I think that if the kid was born into the marriage, it does not matter
if the bio-dad was someone else. He's still legally responsible for
the kid. Even following a divorce.

Rupa

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 2/21/04 4:01 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0402210101.69dee445@posting.google.com>patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote The man is automatically responsible for child support should a divorceoccur, because he is the legal, legal, legal father of the child. Now...if theman wishes to fight court ordered child support on the grounds he believes heis not or can prove he is not the bio father, that is another matter What on earth do you think I was referring to by stating "unless proven otherwise?" That is precisely what I was saying.I think that if the kid was born into the marriage, it does not matterif the bio-dad was someone else. He's still legally responsible forthe kid. Even following a divorce.

...unless proven otherwise. Duh.

Dad

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jack Bernhard" jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.netDate: 2/20/2004
ell, back in '65 the man who my mother was married to at the time of mybirth (and incidentally is listed as the father of record on my OBC) had nolegal say in my relinquishment. Go figger.Jack

Jack, are you positive of this? By law, a legal notice had to be printed in
the newspaper to notify my birth mother's husband, who was not my biological
father, of my adoption. In my case, it was published in the city that my
birthmother lived in and I don't think that it was published in the city where
her husband lived but I am not sure. Kathy J

>He is only the presumed legal father, unless proven otherwise.


No, Di. He is the legal, presumed father, period. As the legal father, the only
way out from under that fatherhood is to voluntarily relinquish his parental
rights. Otherwise, his parental rights to the child remain intact, regardless
of a biological connection.

You are deliberately being argumentative on this in order to avoid admitting
you know nothing about these laws, imo. Just admit you were wrong. It's easier.


P2P

>I think that if the kid was born into the marriage, it does not matterif the bio-dad was someone else. He's still legally responsible forthe kid. Even following a divorce.Rupa

Precisely, Rupa. This is not a difficult concept.


P2P

>>I think that if the kid was born into the marriage, it does not matterif the bio-dad was someone else. He's still legally responsible forthe kid. Even following a divorce. ...unless proven otherwise. Duh.Dad

Dad, even it proven otherwise, in many cases. It often *does not matter* post
divorce that a man can prove he is not the bio father of children born within
his marriage. If he has played a role in the lives of the children, he might
very well continue to be the children's legal father and carry all legal
responsibilities that role entails. It would depend on the feelings of the
courts.


P2P

>Well, back in '65 the man who my mother was married to at the time of mybirth (and incidentally is listed as the father of record on my OBC) had nolegal say in my relinquishment. Go figger.Jack

Doesn't surprise me, Jack. I wonder if he had no voice because he believed he
was not the sperm source or because back then men had no say? Was it the lack
of biological connection that rendered him voiceless? Today, a married man
would have to consent to the relinquishment of any child born to his wife,
period.*

P2P

*Laws concerning abandonment or locating a married man vary state to state.
Most states these days do not wish to block a placement just because a man who
is married to the birthmother is absent. However, specified efforts have to be
made and specified periods of time have to be allowed before his parental
rights are terminated by the courts.


P2P

>Jack, are you positive of this? By law, a legal notice had to be printed inthe newspaper to notify my birth mother's husband, who was not my biologicalfather, of my adoption. In my case, it was published in the city that mybirthmother lived in and I don't think that it was published in the citywhereher husband lived but I am not sure. Kathy J


Might have been significant variations in state laws concerning these matters
back in the sixites, Kathy J.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/21/04 9:07 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040221120715.10134.00000083@mb-m17.aol.com>He is only the presumed legal father, unless proven otherwise.No, Di. He is the legal, presumed father, period. As the legal father, theonlyway out from under that fatherhood is to voluntarily relinquish his parentalrights. Otherwise, his parental rights to the child remain intact, regardlessof a biological connection.You are deliberately being argumentative on this in order to avoid admittingyou know nothing about these laws, imo.
Just admit you were wrong. It'seasier.

Oh yeah, like that will EVER happen.





Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jack Bernhard" jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.netDate: 2/20/04 9:23 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <bXBZb.15667$7%7.11215@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040220154409.09475.00000041@mb-m12.aol.com... **top post*** Wrong again, Di. Di continues to interpret US law:And ask yourself why married women who conceived children through anadulterous affair can put the child up for adoption without thehusband being required to also sign the consent.>> In all states with which I have personal experience, a man married to awoman who gave birth to a child has to voluntarily relinquish the child in orderfor it to be placed for adoption becaus the man is the legal, legal, legalfather of the child. I know personally of a case here in CA where a birthmotherfailed to mention she was still legally married to a man she had not seen in a decade.Oops! Every effort had to be made to locate that man to get hisconsent because he was the legal, legal, legal father of the child.Well, back in '65 the man who my mother was married to at the time of mybirth (and incidentally is listed as the father of record on my OBC) had nolegal say in my relinquishment. Go figger.Jack

How did that happen? My son's father, certainly had to give his written consent
to relinquishment.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040221120950.10134.00000085@mb-m17.aol.com...I think that if the kid was born into the marriage, it does not matterif the bio-dad was someone else. He's still legally responsible forthe kid. Even following a divorce. ...unless proven otherwise. Duh.Dad Dad, even it proven otherwise, in many cases. It often *does not matter*
post divorce that a man can prove he is not the bio father of children born
within his marriage. If he has played a role in the lives of the children, he
might very well continue to be the children's legal father and carry all legal responsibilities that role entails. It would depend on the feelings of the courts. P2P

.. If the man wants no relationship with the kids) and it/they aren't his,
then why should he pay? Let the moo pay--if she were indeed a willing party
to the deception. Why should the real father get off the hook? However, if
the man wants to continue paying and have a relationship, that's great.

Marley

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040221122636.20223.00000116@mb-m04.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jack Bernhard" jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.netDate: 2/20/04 9:23 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <bXBZb.15667$7%7.11215@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040220154409.09475.00000041@mb-m12.aol.com... **top post*** Wrong again, Di. Di continues to interpret US law: >And ask yourself why married women who conceived children through an >adulterous affair can put the child up for adoption without the >husband being required to also sign the consent.>> In all states with which I have personal experience, a man married to a woman who gave birth to a child has to voluntarily relinquish the child in order for it to be placed for adoption becaus the man is the legal, legal, legal father of the child. I know personally of a case here in CA where a birthmother failed to mention she was still legally married to a man she had not seen in a decade.Oops! Every effort had to be made to locate that man to get his consent because he was the legal, legal, legal father of the child.Well, back in '65 the man who my mother was married to at the time of mybirth (and incidentally is listed as the father of record on my OBC) had nolegal say in my relinquishment. Go figger.Jack How did that happen? My son's father, certainly had to give his written consent to relinquishment.

That's because your son's father was his biological father. In Jack's
case his mother's husband was only his step father.

Di

Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ByMZb.64733$hR.1370760@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040221120950.10134.00000085@mb-m17.aol.com...>I think that if the kid was born into the marriage, it does not matter>if the bio-dad was someone else. He's still legally responsible for>the kid. Even following a divorce. ...unless proven otherwise. Duh.Dad Dad, even it proven otherwise, in many cases. It often *does not matter* post divorce that a man can prove he is not the bio father of children born within his marriage. If he has played a role in the lives of the children, he might very well continue to be the children's legal father and carry all legal responsibilities that role entails. It would depend on the feelings of the courts. P2P . If the man wants no relationship with the kids) and it/they aren't his, then why should he pay? Let the moo pay--if she were indeed a willing party to the deception. Why should the real father get off the hook? However, if the man wants to continue paying and have a relationship, that's great. Marley

P2P fails to understand that unless he is the biological father, the
mother's husband is the stepfather. In law he is only 'presumed' to
be the father until he discovers otherwise. Once he discovers his non
biological connection to his wife's child, he can go along with the
deception and raise the chid as if its his own, formally adopt the
child, or other. His choice.

If what P2P says were true, married women could commit adultery with
impunity
and their husbands would have no recourse but to keep providing for
the resulting children from those affairs. Somehow I can't see that
ever being the case in a patriachal society.

DI

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/21/2004
Might have been significant variations in state laws concerning these mattersback in the sixites, Kathy J.P2P

It probably was a state law. Kathy

**top**

You are incredibly exasperating, Di. You are just not listening.
P2P fails to understand that unless he is the biological father, themother's husband is the stepfather.>>

Legally, Di, LEGALLY he has full parental rights. He is the *father* in the
eyes of the law. We are not talking about biology. We are talking about the
law.

<< In law he is only 'presumed' tobe the father until he discovers otherwise.>>

No, Di. No!!! Not until he "discovers otherwise". He is the legal father.
Legal, legal, legal and all that being the legal father entails.

<< Once he discovers his nonbiological connection to his wife's child, he can go along with thedeception and raise the chid as if its his own, formally adopt thechild, or other. His choice.>>

This is just getting nutty. He would not under any circumstances have to adopt
a child that is already legally, legally, legally his. We are not talking about
biology. We are talking about the law. Whether or not he wants to "go along
with the deception" changes nothing. He has parental rights. Period. Now...he
could leave the marriage and try to sever ties but whether he would be allowed
would be up to the courts.

If what P2P says were true, >>

If? What do you mean "if"? What part are you having trouble with, Di? If you
think a man is not legally the father of a child born within his marriage but
not his bio offspring and would have to *adopt* the child to have parental
rights, you are mistaken.

<<married women could commit adultery withimpunityand their husbands would have no recourse but to keep providing forthe resulting children from those affairs. >>

If a man stays with a wife who is producing children who are not his biological
offspring and he does not want parental rights and responsibilities to the
children, he would be a fool to stay because each one represents a legal
responsibility for him. Women have since the beginning of time passed children
off as their husbands', even if they suspected or knew someone else impregnated
them. Yes, if a man stays in a marriage while child after child is born,
whether the children are his biologically or not he becomes "father" each time
in the eyes of the law.

<<Somehow I can't see thatever being the case in a patriachal society.>>

Whether you can "see" it or not, and clearly you cannot, is irrevelant. Don't
take my word for it. Check with an attorney. While you are at it, why don't you
check with an Australian attorney, too? You will probably find the very same
holds true in your land.




P2P

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
P2P fails to understand that unless he is the biological father, the mother's husband is the stepfather. In law he is only 'presumed' to be the father until he discovers otherwise. Once he discovers his non biological connection to his wife's child, he can go along with the deception and raise the chid as if its his own, formally adopt the child, or other. His choice. If what P2P says were true, married women could commit adultery with impunity and their husbands would have no recourse but to keep providing for the resulting children from those affairs. Somehow I can't see that ever being the case in a patriachal society. DI

Actually, P2P is right. And what you say is true. Apparently something
like 10-20% of kids within a marriage aren't the father's bio-kids.

I was confused enough that I checked it out. It doesn't just vary from
state to state in the US, it varies from court to court.

Here's the URL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/DNAbrief.htm
I'm giving excerpts below, with my own comments.

Rupa

"Married and Unmarried Fathers

"For centuries, any child born to a married couple has been presumed
to be a child of the marriage, and the husband the legal father. The
marital presumption of paternity has been codified in at least one
state, California, where a child born to a woman who is cohabiting
with her husband is conclusively presumed to be a child of the
marriage.[RKB: So in CA, a child born into a marriage is *legally*
even if not biologically the husband's kid.] At least 24 other states
have statutes that establish a marital presumption of paternity that
can be challenged. [RKB: Okay, so in other states, what Dian says may
be true.]

"...Though single fathers have legal and social obligations to support
children born to unwed partners, they have limited legal rights to
challenge the marital presumption of paternity when they have fathered
a child with a married woman. [RKB: So the child is still considered
legally the child of the lover's husband.]

"State Action

States' requirements for the disestablishment of paternity differ. In
Illinois, only the child, the mother or the presumed father can
challenge paternity. In Delaware, anyone can bring a challenge at any
time. States also have different time limits for paternity challenges.
Alaska requires a challenge to be brought within three years of the
child's birth, or within three years after the challenger knew or
should have known of the child's paternity. Washington requires that a
challenge to disestablish paternity be brought "within a reasonable
time." Maryland statute holds that challenges to voluntary
acknowledgments of paternity must be initiated in writing within 60
days of the voluntary acknowledgment. Several states do not set a
specific time limit on challenges.

"Paternity and the Courts

"Courts are all over the map in their treatment of the
disestablishment of paternity. Many times the results of court cases
conflict with each other, and the legal standards applied depend on
the individual circumstances. Such inconsistent decisions put pressure
on state legislatures to address these issues.

"Many courts disallow husbands from denying paternity of children born
during a marriage. The Alaska Supreme Court held that a father could
not disestablish paternity of a child that was born to his wife, while
they were married, eight years after he had a vasectomy. Although he
was not the child's biological father, he had treated her as his own
until the marriage ended. [RKB: So once a paternal relationship is
established, it looks more difficult to disestablish paternity --
especially if the child is born within a marriage. I think even in
those states where it can be challenged, the court may not agree to
disestablishment.]

"Courts are more likely to allow disestablishment of paternity in
cases where the parents were never married. The Ohio Supreme Court
permitted the disestablishment of a paternity judgment in a case where
the man did not respond to the initial support action, but later
obtained a DNA test that excluded him as the father. The Alaska
Supreme Court allowed a father who voluntarily admitted paternity to
disestablish his paternity more than six years after the judgment was
entered. [RKB: Note that this is when the mom never married the
putative father.]

"However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently ruled that a man
was required to continue child support payments for a child that is
not biologically his. The man supported the child for most of her
seven years of life, and held the child out as his own, despite
suspicions and rumors that he may not be her biological father. The
court declined to allow the man to set aside a judgment of paternity
more than five years after his voluntary acknowledgment, noting that
there is a compelling public interest in the finality of paternity
judgments, particularly when there is a substantial parent-child
relationship. The court considered the best interests of the child,
and acknowledged that the decision could not force a man to continue
to nurture his child, but it could "protect her financial security and
other legal rights."

"As the use of DNA tests to establish and disestablish paternity
spreads, these cases will increasingly raise fundamental questions
about our legal and societal ideas of fatherhood, and these disputes
will be the center of intense debate as legislatures deal with them."

**top post**

Thanks, Rupa. Very good information. It seems most states have not really
officially addressed matters of marital paternity with laws. It sounds as if
individual courts all over the country are making the rules as they go along.

Rupa provides
Here's the URL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/DNAbrief.htmI'm giving excerpts below, with my own comments.Rupa"Married and Unmarried Fathers"For centuries, any child born to a married couple has been presumedto be a child of the marriage, and the husband the legal father. Themarital presumption of paternity has been codified in at least onestate, California, where a child born to a woman who is cohabitingwith her husband is conclusively presumed to be a child of themarriage.[RKB: So in CA, a child born into a marriage is *legally*even if not biologically the husband's kid.] At least 24 other stateshave statutes that establish a marital presumption of paternity thatcan be challenged. [RKB: Okay, so in other states, what Dian says maybe true.]"...Though single fathers have legal and social obligations to supportchildren born to unwed partners, they have limited legal rights tochallenge the marital presumption of paternity when they have fathereda child with a married woman. [RKB: So the child is still consideredlegally the child of the lover's husband.]"State ActionStates' requirements for the disestablishment of paternity differ. InIllinois, only the child, the mother or the presumed father canchallenge paternity. In Delaware, anyone can bring a challenge at anytime. States also have different time limits for paternity challenges.Alaska requires a challenge to be brought within three years of thechild's birth, or within three years after the challenger knew orshould have known of the child's paternity. Washington requires that achallenge to disestablish paternity be brought "within a reasonabletime." Maryland statute holds that challenges to voluntaryacknowledgments of paternity must be initiated in writing within 60days of the voluntary acknowledgment. Several states do not set aspecific time limit on challenges."Paternity and the Courts"Courts are all over the map in their treatment of thedisestablishment of paternity. Many times the results of court casesconflict with each other, and the legal standards applied depend onthe individual circumstances. Such inconsistent decisions put pressureon state legislatures to address these issues."Many courts disallow husbands from denying paternity of children bornduring a marriage. The Alaska Supreme Court held that a father couldnot disestablish paternity of a child that was born to his wife, whilethey were married, eight years after he had a vasectomy. Although hewas not the child's biological father, he had treated her as his ownuntil the marriage ended. [RKB: So once a paternal relationship isestablished, it looks more difficult to disestablish paternity --especially if the child is born within a marriage. I think even inthose states where it can be challenged, the court may not agree todisestablishment.]"Courts are more likely to allow disestablishment of paternity incases where the parents were never married. The Ohio Supreme Courtpermitted the disestablishment of a paternity judgment in a case wherethe man did not respond to the initial support action, but laterobtained a DNA test that excluded him as the father. The AlaskaSupreme Court allowed a father who voluntarily admitted paternity todisestablish his paternity more than six years after the judgment wasentered. [RKB: Note that this is when the mom never married theputative father.]"However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently ruled that a manwas required to continue child support payments for a child that isnot biologically his. The man supported the child for most of herseven years of life, and held the child out as his own, despitesuspicions and rumors that he may not be her biological father. Thecourt declined to allow the man to set aside a judgment of paternitymore than five years after his voluntary acknowledgment, noting thatthere is a compelling public interest in the finality of paternityjudgments, particularly when there is a substantial parent-childrelationship. The court considered the best interests of the child,and acknowledged that the decision could not force a man to continueto nurture his child, but it could "protect her financial security andother legal rights.""As the use of DNA tests to establish and disestablish paternityspreads, these cases will increasingly raise fundamental questionsabout our legal and societal ideas of fatherhood, and these disputeswill be the center of intense debate as legislatures deal with them."




P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040221231019.20365.00000175@mb-m04.aol.com... **top post** Thanks, Rupa. Very good information. It seems most states have not really officially addressed matters of marital paternity with laws. It sounds as
if individual courts all over the country are making the rules as they go
along.

It sure does. Family Courts are a mess. Not only are states different, but
counties, and even down to individual judges. They are pretty much a law
onto themselves. There are entire organizations established and devoted to
upturning and changing this Kafkaesque system.

Marley
Rupa providesHere's the URL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/DNAbrief.htmI'm giving excerpts below, with my own comments.Rupa"Married and Unmarried Fathers"For centuries, any child born to a married couple has been presumedto be a child of the marriage, and the husband the legal father. Themarital presumption of paternity has been codified in at least onestate, California, where a child born to a woman who is cohabitingwith her husband is conclusively presumed to be a child of themarriage.[RKB: So in CA, a child born into a marriage is *legally*even if not biologically the husband's kid.] At least 24 other stateshave statutes that establish a marital presumption of paternity thatcan be challenged. [RKB: Okay, so in other states, what Dian says maybe true.]"...Though single fathers have legal and social obligations to supportchildren born to unwed partners, they have limited legal rights tochallenge the marital presumption of paternity when they have fathereda child with a married woman. [RKB: So the child is still consideredlegally the child of the lover's husband.]"State ActionStates' requirements for the disestablishment of paternity differ. InIllinois, only the child, the mother or the presumed father canchallenge paternity. In Delaware, anyone can bring a challenge at anytime. States also have different time limits for paternity challenges.Alaska requires a challenge to be brought within three years of thechild's birth, or within three years after the challenger knew orshould have known of the child's paternity. Washington requires that achallenge to disestablish paternity be brought "within a reasonabletime." Maryland statute holds that challenges to voluntaryacknowledgments of paternity must be initiated in writing within 60days of the voluntary acknowledgment. Several states do not set aspecific time limit on challenges."Paternity and the Courts"Courts are all over the map in their treatment of thedisestablishment of paternity. Many times the results of court casesconflict with each other, and the legal standards applied depend onthe individual circumstances. Such inconsistent decisions put pressureon state legislatures to address these issues."Many courts disallow husbands from denying paternity of children bornduring a marriage. The Alaska Supreme Court held that a father couldnot disestablish paternity of a child that was born to his wife, whilethey were married, eight years after he had a vasectomy. Although hewas not the child's biological father, he had treated her as his ownuntil the marriage ended. [RKB: So once a paternal relationship isestablished, it looks more difficult to disestablish paternity --especially if the child is born within a marriage. I think even inthose states where it can be challenged, the court may not agree todisestablishment.]"Courts are more likely to allow disestablishment of paternity incases where the parents were never married. The Ohio Supreme Courtpermitted the disestablishment of a paternity judgment in a case wherethe man did not respond to the initial support action, but laterobtained a DNA test that excluded him as the father. The AlaskaSupreme Court allowed a father who voluntarily admitted paternity todisestablish his paternity more than six years after the judgment wasentered. [RKB: Note that this is when the mom never married theputative father.]"However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently ruled that a manwas required to continue child support payments for a child that isnot biologically his. The man supported the child for most of herseven years of life, and held the child out as his own, despitesuspicions and rumors that he may not be her biological father. Thecourt declined to allow the man to set aside a judgment of paternitymore than five years after his voluntary acknowledgment, noting thatthere is a compelling public interest in the finality of paternityjudgments, particularly when there is a substantial parent-childrelationship. The court considered the best interests of the child,and acknowledged that the decision could not force a man to continueto nurture his child, but it could "protect her financial security andother legal rights.""As the use of DNA tests to establish and disestablish paternityspreads, these cases will increasingly raise fundamental questionsabout our legal and societal ideas of fatherhood, and these disputeswill be the center of intense debate as legislatures deal with them." P2P

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/21/04 6:28 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402211528.222c072e@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<ByMZb.64733$hR.1370760@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040221120950.10134.00000085@mb-m17.aol.com... >>I think that if the kid was born into the marriage, it does not matter >>if the bio-dad was someone else. He's still legally responsible for >>the kid. Even following a divorce. > > ...unless proven otherwise. Duh. > >Dad > Dad, even it proven otherwise, in many cases. It often *does not matter* post divorce that a man can prove he is not the bio father of children born within his marriage. If he has played a role in the lives of the children, he might very well continue to be the children's legal father and carry all legal responsibilities that role entails. It would depend on the feelings ofthe courts. P2P . If the man wants no relationship with the kids) and it/they aren't his, then why should he pay? Let the moo pay--if she were indeed a willingparty to the deception. Why should the real father get off the hook? However,if the man wants to continue paying and have a relationship, that's great. MarleyP2P fails to understand that unless he is the biological father, themother's husband is the stepfather. In law he is only 'presumed' tobe the father until he discovers otherwise. Once he discovers his nonbiological connection to his wife's child, he can go along with thedeception and raise the chid as if its his own, formally adopt thechild, or other. His choice.

He wouldn't have go through legal proceedings to adopt the child, since the
law already presumes him to be the father.
If what P2P says were true, married women could commitadultery with impunity and their husbands would have norecourse but to keep providing for the resulting children fromthose affairs.

Ever hear of divorce? This ain't Ireland, you know.
Somehow I can't see that ever being the casein a patriachal society.

Then you need glasses. Way too often fathers get the short end of the stick
in Family Court.

Dad

in article 9a095db9.0402211528.222c072e@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 21/2/04 11:28 pm:
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ByMZb.64733$hR.1370760@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040221120950.10134.00000085@mb-m17.aol.com...>> I think that if the kid was born into the marriage, it does not matter>> if the bio-dad was someone else. He's still legally responsible for>> the kid. Even following a divorce.>> ...unless proven otherwise. Duh.>> Dad> Dad, even it proven otherwise, in many cases. It often *does not matter* post divorce that a man can prove he is not the bio father of children born within his marriage. If he has played a role in the lives of the children, he might very well continue to be the children's legal father and carry all legal responsibilities that role entails. It would depend on the feelings of the courts. P2P . If the man wants no relationship with the kids) and it/they aren't his, then why should he pay? Let the moo pay--if she were indeed a willing party to the deception. Why should the real father get off the hook? However, if the man wants to continue paying and have a relationship, that's great. Marley P2P fails to understand that unless he is the biological father, the mother's husband is the stepfather. In law he is only 'presumed' to be the father until he discovers otherwise.

I believe in English law he is the father to any child conceived or born
during his marriage until someone considers it necessary to prove or show
otherwise (whether or not he actually is).
Once he discovers his non biological connection to his wife's child, he can go along with the deception and raise the chid as if its his own, formally adopt the child,

There would be no requirement in English law for a mother's husband to adopt
any child born within his marriage to her, in order to be the legal father
of that child.


You have to remember how male infertility was dealt with in the more distant
past, Di. Unless the law were such there would have been times in English
history where half the the noble families in England would have been without
hires because of the man of the family's infertility (resulting as it
usually did from venereal disease).


Because this is fairly ancient English law the same principle will be found
in the law of most English speaking countries unless superseded by statute
law, in which case if you want to authenticate what you are stating you will
need to cite a statute or act from those jurisdictions.

or other. His choice.


When did this differentiation from English common law principle occur and by
what statute in NSW?

If what P2P says were true, married women could commit adultery with impunity and their husbands would have no recourse but to keep providing for the resulting children from those affairs. Somehow I can't see that ever being the case in a patriachal society.


So why do you think it was that divorce used to be so uncommon until
recently made easy, despite the fact that adultery has been so commonplace
throughout history?


Robin

in article 20040221211117.06673.00000140@mb-m25.aol.com, Palms2pines at
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam wrote on 22/2/04 2:11 am:
**top** You are incredibly exasperating, Di. You are just not listening. P2P fails to understand that unless he is the biological father, the mother's husband is the stepfather.>> Legally, Di, LEGALLY he has full parental rights. He is the *father* in the eyes of the law. We are not talking about biology. We are talking about the law. << In law he is only 'presumed' to be the father until he discovers otherwise.>> No, Di. No!!! Not until he "discovers otherwise". He is the legal father. Legal, legal, legal and all that being the legal father entails. << Once he discovers his non biological connection to his wife's child, he can go along with the deception and raise the chid as if its his own, formally adopt the child, or other. His choice.>> This is just getting nutty. He would not under any circumstances have to adopt a child that is already legally, legally, legally his. We are not talking about biology. We are talking about the law. Whether or not he wants to "go along with the deception" changes nothing. He has parental rights. Period. Now...he could leave the marriage and try to sever ties but whether he would be allowed would be up to the courts. If what P2P says were true, >> If? What do you mean "if"? What part are you having trouble with, Di? If you think a man is not legally the father of a child born within his marriage but not his bio offspring and would have to *adopt* the child to have parental rights, you are mistaken. <<married women could commit adultery with impunity and their husbands would have no recourse but to keep providing for the resulting children from those affairs. >> If a man stays with a wife who is producing children who are not his biological offspring and he does not want parental rights and responsibilities to the children, he would be a fool to stay because each one represents a legal responsibility for him. Women have since the beginning of time passed children off as their husbands', even if they suspected or knew someone else impregnated them. Yes, if a man stays in a marriage while child after child is born, whether the children are his biologically or not he becomes "father" each time in the eyes of the law. <<Somehow I can't see that ever being the case in a patriachal society.>> Whether you can "see" it or not, and clearly you cannot, is irrevelant. Don't take my word for it. Check with an attorney. While you are at it, why don't you check with an Australian attorney, too? You will probably find the very same holds true in your land. P2P

I don't think you'll have any success in getting Di to understand the legal
meaning of "presumption of fatherhood within marriage", Di obviously has the
same Humpty Dumpty attitude to law as she has to the English language.

Robin

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402211927.415c39d9@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message P2P fails to understand that unless he is the biological father, the mother's husband is the stepfather. In law he is only 'presumed' to be the father until he discovers otherwise. Once he discovers his non biological connection to his wife's child, he can go along with the deception and raise the chid as if its his own, formally adopt the child, or other. His choice. If what P2P says were true, married women could commit adultery with impunity and their husbands would have no recourse but to keep providing for the resulting children from those affairs. Somehow I can't see that ever being the case in a patriachal society. DI Actually, P2P is right. And what you say is true. Apparently something like 10-20% of kids within a marriage aren't the father's bio-kids. I was confused enough that I checked it out. It doesn't just vary from state to state in the US, it varies from court to court. Here's the URL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/DNAbrief.htm I'm giving excerpts below, with my own comments. Rupa

Thanks for that information, Rupa. It suggests that the law of laches
and or limitations rule applies in most cases in that if the husband
continues to act as a father towards the non biological child after he
is made aware of his non biological relatedness without taking action
in due time, as he is seen to have accepted the situation and his
status as father to the child. I doubt that would apply in cases where
the husband discovers his wife's infidelity soon after marriage or
while pregnant or soon after the child was born as no paternal
relationship exists between the husband and child as yet. It could
certainly be cause for annulment of the marriage or making her choose
between him and her child, resulting in her putting the child up for
adoption without his written consent.

All in all the law obviously looks upon husbands as no more than meal
tickets.

Di








"Married and Unmarried Fathers "For centuries, any child born to a married couple has been presumed to be a child of the marriage, and the husband the legal father. The marital presumption of paternity has been codified in at least one state, California, where a child born to a woman who is cohabiting with her husband is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.[RKB: So in CA, a child born into a marriage is *legally* even if not biologically the husband's kid.] At least 24 other states have statutes that establish a marital presumption of paternity that can be challenged. [RKB: Okay, so in other states, what Dian says may be true.] "...Though single fathers have legal and social obligations to support children born to unwed partners, they have limited legal rights to challenge the marital presumption of paternity when they have fathered a child with a married woman. [RKB: So the child is still considered legally the child of the lover's husband.] "State Action States' requirements for the disestablishment of paternity differ. In Illinois, only the child, the mother or the presumed father can challenge paternity. In Delaware, anyone can bring a challenge at any time. States also have different time limits for paternity challenges. Alaska requires a challenge to be brought within three years of the child's birth, or within three years after the challenger knew or should have known of the child's paternity. Washington requires that a challenge to disestablish paternity be brought "within a reasonable time." Maryland statute holds that challenges to voluntary acknowledgments of paternity must be initiated in writing within 60 days of the voluntary acknowledgment. Several states do not set a specific time limit on challenges. "Paternity and the Courts "Courts are all over the map in their treatment of the disestablishment of paternity. Many times the results of court cases conflict with each other, and the legal standards applied depend on the individual circumstances. Such inconsistent decisions put pressure on state legislatures to address these issues. "Many courts disallow husbands from denying paternity of children born during a marriage. The Alaska Supreme Court held that a father could not disestablish paternity of a child that was born to his wife, while they were married, eight years after he had a vasectomy. Although he was not the child's biological father, he had treated her as his own until the marriage ended. [RKB: So once a paternal relationship is established, it looks more difficult to disestablish paternity -- especially if the child is born within a marriage. I think even in those states where it can be challenged, the court may not agree to disestablishment.] "Courts are more likely to allow disestablishment of paternity in cases where the parents were never married. The Ohio Supreme Court permitted the disestablishment of a paternity judgment in a case where the man did not respond to the initial support action, but later obtained a DNA test that excluded him as the father. The Alaska Supreme Court allowed a father who voluntarily admitted paternity to disestablish his paternity more than six years after the judgment was entered. [RKB: Note that this is when the mom never married the putative father.] "However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently ruled that a man was required to continue child support payments for a child that is not biologically his. The man supported the child for most of her seven years of life, and held the child out as his own, despite suspicions and rumors that he may not be her biological father. The court declined to allow the man to set aside a judgment of paternity more than five years after his voluntary acknowledgment, noting that there is a compelling public interest in the finality of paternity judgments, particularly when there is a substantial parent-child relationship. The court considered the best interests of the child, and acknowledged that the decision could not force a man to continue to nurture his child, but it could "protect her financial security and other legal rights." "As the use of DNA tests to establish and disestablish paternity spreads, these cases will increasingly raise fundamental questions about our legal and societal ideas of fatherhood, and these disputes will be the center of intense debate as legislatures deal with them."

>I don't think you'll have any success in getting Di to understand the legalmeaning of "presumption of fatherhood within marriage", Di obviously has thesame Humpty Dumpty attitude to law as she has to the English language.Robin


I agree, Robin. I give up. She sanded me down on this one.


P2P

> It couldcertainly be cause for annulment of the marriage or making her choosebetween him and her child, resulting in her putting the child up foradoption without his written consent.>>

Oh, brother. Call the spin doctor.


P2P

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote I doubt that would apply in cases where the husband discovers his wife's infidelity soon after marriage or while pregnant or soon after the child was born as no paternal relationship exists between the husband and child as yet. It could certainly be cause for annulment of the marriage or making her choose between him and her child, resulting in her putting the child up for adoption without his written consent. All in all the law obviously looks upon husbands as no more than meal tickets.

I think it depends, again. In CA, I think there's an unrebuttable
presumption of fatherhood if the child is born during the marriage or
within 44 weeks (IIRC) after a divorce. I'm not sure if infidelity is
grounds for *annulment* of a marriage; as far as I know, it isn't, but
it may cause a divorce.

I think if she were to relinquish the child for adoption, he would
need to do so as well. The importance of the paternal relationship
seems to be greater in situations where the mom isn't married to the
man she's tagged as the dad -- or the marriage has ended. (In other
words, if they're divorced, and the kid was born soon after the
divorce and it's not his bio-kid, he *may* be able to disestablish
paternity. But there would still be a presumption.)

I don't think it's just a meal ticket. It originally came from the
State's interest in keeping things settled. In the days when bastardy
meant something serious (as the article said, an illegitimate child
originally had no right of support from *anyone* -- not even the
mother), it was to prevent a child from being "bastardized" on
suspicion.

The rules were really simple: Child born within a marriage is legit,
and has rights of support and inheritance. Child born outside marriage
has no rights, though it may be acknowledged and supported out of
affection.

I think the advent of DNA testing will gradually change the rules. If
the child's DNA doesn't match the father's, there will have to be a
consent to paternity. But the law isn't at that place yet.

Rupa

"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040221100114.26449.00000136@mb-m20.aol.com...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jack Bernhard" jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.netDate: 2/20/2004ell, back in '65 the man who my mother was married to at the time of mybirth (and incidentally is listed as the father of record on my OBC) had
nolegal say in my relinquishment. Go figger.Jack Jack, are you positive of this? By law, a legal notice had to be printed
in the newspaper to notify my birth mother's husband, who was not my
biological father, of my adoption.

Yeah, I'm fairly sure. Legally, it was her decision. Perhaps it was a
difference in state laws. I dunno. I am certain that he signed no
relinquishment papers, though.


In my case, it was published in the city that my birthmother lived in and I don't think that it was published in the city
where her husband lived but I am not sure. Kathy J


They were living together at the time so he was aware of the situation.

What I find interesting in the whole paper trail is that everyone was aware
that her husband was not my father, however he is listed as such with the
state on my OBC. It's a fascinating little historical window; at least for
me.


Jack

Jack writes:
What I find interesting in the whole paper trail is that everyone was awarethat her husband was not my father, however he is listed as such with thestate on my OBC. >>

This is interesting, Jack. Your birthmother's husband might not have been your
bio birthfather but it does sound as if the state recognized him as your legal
father. It is interesting he was not asked to sign a consent to your adoption.
I wonder why. I wonder who in the process decided his permission was not
essential to the placement of you. An adoption agency? An attorney? I wonder
at the finalization of your adoption if the judge or anyone else who might have
perused the files noticed a married woman was placing a child for adoption
without the consent of her husband.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040223002257.08803.00000288@mb-m13.aol.com... Jack writes:What I find interesting in the whole paper trail is that everyone was
awarethat her husband was not my father, however he is listed as such with thestate on my OBC. >> This is interesting, Jack. Your birthmother's husband might not have been
your bio birthfather but it does sound as if the state recognized him as your
legal father.


I didn't, out of consideration, delve too deep into this thing with Debbie,
but I was left with the impression that she named him father on the OBC in
the event of her deciding to keep.


It is interesting he was not asked to sign a consent to your adoption. I wonder why. I wonder who in the process decided his permission was not essential to the placement of you. An adoption agency?

That would be my guess. They were aware of the circumstances. I'm not sure
how much it has do with anything but she walked down the aisle only a month
or so before delivery and had only met the gentleman in June. My birthday
falls in late December and there was no way I could have been mistaken for a
premie at 9lbs 11oz.


An attorney? I wonder at the finalization of your adoption if the judge or anyone else who might
have perused the files noticed a married woman was placing a child for adoption without the consent of her husband.
Again, I really have no idea. The adoption history documentation from VCAS
is quite clear on who my father was. I assume they made some effort to
contact him, but to no avail.


Jack