Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not sure if children are mine Louisiana

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not sure if children are mine Louisiana

    About 4 years ago I was dating a girl, she became pregnant and broke up with me. When she broke up with me not even 2 months later she married another guy, that she was seeing while she was with me, and told him that he was the father. She had twin girls and he signed the birth certificate. The girl recently contacted my mother and told her that her husband took a paternity test and the twins are not his and that he now wants nothing to do with the girls so she is going to divorce him and pursue child support from me once she has me ordered to take a paternity test. I do not have a problem taking care of them if they are mine, my problem is that she told me that they were not mine, that they were his and she married him and he signed the birth certificate, but now that he doesnt want to take care of him she wants my money. I am now married and have children of my own and don't want to have to make them have to deal with this. Is there some sort of statute of limitations on this matter to say that she waited too long or what? I am not sure what I need to do so if someone has been through this before let me know how it turned out or if you know something about the situation I am in please respond.

    Thanks,
    Not Sure In Louisiana

  • #2
    Complicated...very complicated, particularly in Louisiana, and their very strange "dual paternity" provision.

    I THINK you are fine, given the following laws in the LA code:

    I. The husband of the mother is presumed to be the father of all children born or conceived during the marriage (LA civil code, article 184).

    II. The husband himself has standing to disavow his paternity, but to do so he must put on evidence of facts that show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not the father (LA civil code, article 187).

    III. Absent extraordinary circumstances the prevent him from filing the disavowal, he must bring this action within 180 days after he learns or should have learned of the birth (LA civil code, article 189).

    This is a very strong presumption in the law, and very difficult to overturn in court, except in extreme circumstances. The law would appear to be on your side, and the mother should have to gain child support from her husband upon their seperation.

    You are definitely going to need an attorney to help you sort this one out. There have been some cases in Louisiana which result in what they call "dual paternity"...the biological father and presumed father are both obligated with support. However, by my reading of the laws, it would appear this sort of action can only be initiated by the child (who presumably would want a relationship with the bio dad), not by the mother.

    I'm fairly sure you won't be obligated to support a three-year-old child who has only known the other man as a father. Mothers should not have the right to just divorce one man and collect from another simply based on biology...this is certainly not in the best interest of the child. That being said, though, you never know how a judge might rule on a particular case.

    Best of luck to you!
    Last edited by boobatuba; 06-14-2006, 07:54 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes.html

      LA revised statute 9:305


      305. Disavowal of paternity, ancillary to child support proceeding

      A. Notwithstanding the provision of Civil Code article 189 and for the sole purpose of determining the proper payor in child support cases, if the husband, or legal father who is presumed to be the father of the child, erroneously believed, because of misrepresentation, fraud or deception by the mother, that he was the father of the child, then the time for filing suit for disavowal of paternity shall be suspended during the period of such erroneous belief or for 10 years, whichever ends first.

      B. No provision of the section shall affect any child support payment or arrears paid, due, or owing prior to filing a disavowal of paternity action if an order of disavowal is subsequently obtained in such action.

      So, in other words OP, if he truly believed that he was the father because SHE told him he was, then yes, he can disavow paternity, and if you are the father, you will be ordered to pay child support.
      HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!
      How do you catch a very rare rabbit?
      (unique up on him)
      How do catch an ordinary rabbit?
      (same way)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mommyof4
        www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes.html

        LA revised statute 9:305


        305. Disavowal of paternity, ancillary to child support proceeding

        A. Notwithstanding the provision of Civil Code article 189 and for the sole purpose of determining the proper payor in child support cases, if the husband, or legal father who is presumed to be the father of the child, erroneously believed, because of misrepresentation, fraud or deception by the mother, that he was the father of the child, then the time for filing suit for disavowal of paternity shall be suspended during the period of such erroneous belief or for 10 years, whichever ends first.

        B. No provision of the section shall affect any child support payment or arrears paid, due, or owing prior to filing a disavowal of paternity action if an order of disavowal is subsequently obtained in such action.

        So, in other words OP, if he truly believed that he was the father because SHE told him he was, then yes, he can disavow paternity, and if you are the father, you will be ordered to pay child support.
        There was a court case recently in the state of Michigan where a man was led to believe he was the father of a child and was ordered to pay support to the ex. After proving he was not the father, he was still ordered to pay CS, even to the child's biological father when the bio dad had custody of the child. I believe the man said that by the time he was relieved of his CS obligation through the courts, he had already spent some $80,000 in child support and court costs. I just don't understand how things like that happen in this day and age.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KAW1962
          There was a court case recently in the state of Michigan where a man was led to believe he was the father of a child and was ordered to pay support to the ex. After proving he was not the father, he was still ordered to pay CS, even to the child's biological father when the bio dad had custody of the child. I believe the man said that by the time he was relieved of his CS obligation through the courts, he had already spent some $80,000 in child support and court costs. I just don't understand how things like that happen in this day and age.
          Yes, but how old was the child at the time? Judges supposedly make the decision based on the best interes of the child. If the child were older and had established a bond with the "father", then theoreticaly, it would be traumatic for the "father" not to be the father. I don't always agree with it, but as the little girl in this case is very young, and the OP knew that he COULD have been the father, it is doubtful that he will be let off the hook. As soon as her husband got the DNA results, he left her and denied paternity. The revised statute was created solely for this type of situation.
          HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!
          How do you catch a very rare rabbit?
          (unique up on him)
          How do catch an ordinary rabbit?
          (same way)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mommyof4
            As soon as her husband got the DNA results, he left her and denied paternity. The revised statute was created solely for this type of situation.
            I'm not quite sure why it's better to let the husband "off the hook," as it were. A three-year-old girl hasn't had time to bond with the only father she has ever known? And I can't fathom how the husband can look at that little girl and think, "you're someone else's child...I'm outta here."

            I'm not disputing the validity of your legal finding, mommyof4...just having a hard time reconciling the morality of it. Three months old...yeah, I can see it. One year...maybe, but pushing it. Three years old...I think it's a terrible situation.

            I'm curious why Louisiana selected 10 years as a limit...seems a bit excessive to me.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by boobatuba
              I'm not quite sure why it's better to let the husband "off the hook," as it were. A three-year-old girl hasn't had time to bond with the only father she has ever known? And I can't fathom how the husband can look at that little girl and think, "you're someone else's child...I'm outta here."

              I'm not disputing the validity of your legal finding, mommyof4...just having a hard time reconciling the morality of it. Three months old...yeah, I can see it. One year...maybe, but pushing it. Three years old...I think it's a terrible situation.

              I'm curious why Louisiana selected 10 years as a limit...seems a bit excessive to me.
              I think it was originally intended for when a woman has an affair during the marriage and conceives.

              As to whether I agree with letting the husband "off the hook" I would decide on an individual basis. (not that anyone asks me to decide the final outcome) Most of the time, yes, if a child has been raised with a man that they know as their father, and that man is a fit parent, YES he should remain the father. But I also think it should be easier for a step parent to adopt. (Again, since I have not been elected Supreme Ruler of the Universe, nobody really cares what I thinK...oh well, maybe next year.)
              HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!
              How do you catch a very rare rabbit?
              (unique up on him)
              How do catch an ordinary rabbit?
              (same way)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mommyof4
                Yes, but how old was the child at the time? Judges supposedly make the decision based on the best interes of the child. If the child were older and had established a bond with the "father", then theoreticaly, it would be traumatic for the "father" not to be the father. I don't always agree with it, but as the little girl in this case is very young, and the OP knew that he COULD have been the father, it is doubtful that he will be let off the hook. As soon as her husband got the DNA results, he left her and denied paternity. The revised statute was created solely for this type of situation.
                This child in this case was almost 6 years old when he told his "father" that he was not his child. By that time the man and his wife were already going through divorce proceedings and she and her 2 children (the youngest child WAS his bio child) were living with the older boy's bio father. After the DNA test proved the child was not his, the ex waived any rights to CS, but the judge ordered the man to not only carry health insurance on BOTH boys, but to also pay CS for BOTH boys, and incredibly terminated his visitation rights with his own son. This man spent the next 15 years fighting this ruling and has recently won his case. The figure I quoted in my prior post of $80,000 was for CS alone and did not include court costs, although it is unclear if the $80,000 was for both boys or just the one who was not his. In this case the mother KNEW that the child was not his but duped him into believing it was. Of course this man will NEVER recoup any of the money he paid for this boy and the mother gets off scot free. I find it hard to spout "best interests of the child" when it involves fraudulently extorting money from a man who turned out to be an innocent victim.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mommyof4
                  I think it was originally intended for when a woman has an affair during the marriage and conceives.

                  As to whether I agree with letting the husband "off the hook" I would decide on an individual basis. (not that anyone asks me to decide the final outcome) Most of the time, yes, if a child has been raised with a man that they know as their father, and that man is a fit parent, YES he should remain the father. But I also think it should be easier for a step parent to adopt. (Again, since I have not been elected Supreme Ruler of the Universe, nobody really cares what I thinK...oh well, maybe next year.)
                  But that should be the man's PERSONAL decision and not one forced upon him by the courts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The husband in this matter found out that he was not the father about 1 year ago and is only now saying that he wants nothing to do with the twins due to he does now have a biological son by his wife soon to be ex wife. If what I am reading is right it says that he has waited too long to disavow his paternity right???

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by not sure in la
                      The husband in this matter found out that he was not the father about 1 year ago and is only now saying that he wants nothing to do with the twins due to he does now have a biological son by his wife soon to be ex wife. If what I am reading is right it says that he has waited too long to disavow his paternity right???
                      It sounds like it...but you should discuss the situation with an attorney in Louisiana who is familiar with the relevant law and precedent. Since the revised statute 9:305 only suspends the time for filing a disavowal suit during the period of erroneous belief (which ended about a year ago), it seems to me that is when the 180 day period from article 189 of the civil code would start.

                      Again...get a professional opinion. Most lawyers will give you a free consultation where you can voice your concerns about the case and hopefully get some questions answered. I hope the husband reconsiders his stance about the twins...I don't understand how you can be two little girls' daddy and then just turn your back on them.

                      Good luck!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by boobatuba
                        It sounds like it...but you should discuss the situation with an attorney in Louisiana who is familiar with the relevant law and precedent. Since the revised statute 9:305 only suspends the time for filing a disavowal suit during the period of erroneous belief (which ended about a year ago), it seems to me that is when the 180 day period from article 189 of the civil code would start.

                        Again...get a professional opinion. Most lawyers will give you a free consultation where you can voice your concerns about the case and hopefully get some questions answered. I hope the husband reconsiders his stance about the twins...I don't understand how you can be two little girls' daddy and then just turn your back on them.

                        Good luck!
                        One problem with this particular case is that although the husband is always the PRESUMED father of a child born during the marriage and are typically named on the birth certificate, it is much easier to challenge that presumption if the parties were not married at the time of CONCEPTION, especially if the mother concealed the possibility of an alternate father.

                        There is quite a bit of case law on the subject, but right now, I'm too lazy to search through my luggage and find the right law CD's so that I can cite some of the cases. But, as soon as I get motivated, I'll look it up and post them for the OP.

                        Comment

                        The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                        Working...
                        X