faith yes fh has had some problems dealing with exom in our life. mainly with his w who was a real pain in the butt.

not that she omw didn't have the right to be angry but she also accused me of having fh get preg so i could get a new truck and buy my house. she was very bitter about the cs. and i am not blaming her as i know how (for lack of a better word) unfair the courts can be with lack of consideration for the existing family. she also blamed fh for the entire A and her ex cheating sob h was innocent.

in fact even tho they are D now they still both showed up and left the court laughing when the last cs amount was handed down. his cs was drpped to less then $200mnth. then when the DA called them back in the room because she noticed the om had INTENTIONALLY left his income line blank. after the judge reassessed the papers and gave another $ amount (this time $600 plus 25% of day care) they actually attacked fh IN THE COURTROOM verbally. the bailiff had to jump in betweeen them and remove them from the room and they escorted fh to her car.

and it was them that took fh back to court. we would never had gone back had he not filed. this is when i had fh offer him to sign away his rights and he would not have to pay a dime and he refused.

and on eof the biggest reasons i wanted fh to seek cs was exactly as gemini said. we already had 7 kids, both my mom and dad had passed on. mom at 40 dad at 77. i was at 50 and had recieved warnings about my health from the dr that i may end up like my dad. he had 4 heart attacks at 52 yo. he did very well to survive 25 more yrs. but if i had one there was no telling whether i would survive it or not. if you remember i did in fact have one in 2003 and if the clot had been less then 1/4 " further down the artery i would have died. so i felt that fh would need all the financial help she could get if something were to happen to me.

you see i am against this law not because of the effect on the com or the bh. i just think that a bio parent should be responsible and have the right to choose whether they want a relationship or not.

also if a woman's egg is considered to be a marrital asset then a man's sperm should have the same distinction.

so if a mw gets preg and the baby is a product of the marriage then when a mm's sperm inpregnates a woman other then his w that baby should be considered part of his marriage.

unfortunately there are so many variables that one law cannot be used to cover all situations.

that is why i support all decisions that people who find themselves in this particular situation choose. i feel like i have many friends here and consider all their choices correct although we all have taken different paths to move forward.

i just don't think this law works for me. and especially in the Rhodes vs ricketts situation where the bio mom brought the bio dad into the baby's life then decided to cut him out.

we all have choices to make and we all have our own boundaries and priorities. for example had your h had a priority to have c then YOU would have been faced with a different choices.

but had your ow been married and your h had wanted c then i don't think that there should be a law that keeps him from that.

and please forgive if i have forgotten the specifics of your individual sit. to many cell phone hours are rotting my brain.

does that make any sense?

gem sorry to here you are going back to court. that is something fh would never do. om has taken her back to court 3 times in an effort to lower his cs. it has backfired each time with them raising it on him. i wonder if he has learned his lesson?

Pep,

For whatever reason I could not find the article I read. Probably poor Google skills. But, here is an article that might help someone like Mr. W find the correct citations.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville2.html

I am not sure of this guy, but I think what he says could probably traced given what he says.

But, it was not Mary L. This was a local, CA, teacher who is serving time for statutory rape of this child, was pregnant and the state of CA came forced the kid to pay child support.

Hope this helps with the search. There are many articles on men's rights if you just google, Minor child forced to pay child support. Most of them would not be of interest to you probably. I tried the local papers, one doesn't seem to have a search function for old (more than a year or two) and the other one seems about as effective as the MB search function.

Hope this helps.

JL

JL interesting article! UGH~~~~
Pops we pay more than the amount FH gets. We live in OHIO and pay full coverage HealthI, something h and i now raised deductable to ten thous per person on ours all self pay.We are older and premiums are killing us financially I want to drop it!

And oc is self pay w/huge premium, huge and we pay everything after that first 100.00 ow pays. Dental and all. And he had baby teeth extracted by ow H's relative and we paid dearly. I worked for dentist and know they don't always have to be extracted in surgery,,,, long story.

We are quickly sinking as H had a few 'no-pays'w/work and paid for mechanics leins,,,Not worth it.

I do not care if we lose our home due to ow wanting more, I simply think its all in Gods plan.
Not to mention I cannot spoil GrDau bcuz I never have any money extra and it hurts my heart(for my H) oc gets the biggest nut of income.
I am happy, H is miserable as to 'what he has done to our family'
Money isn't everything. Money isn't everything.
Pops I remember omw saying those things... so how's the ole truck running these days lol!!!!!

It is what it is and ain't gonna change in my lifetime!

Gem

I hope it works out in your favor. I have been waiting for this to happen in our world as well. OW took a reduced amount of CS because she was still boinking my H and thought she would "win" the prize. Too my utter surprise we are 1.5 years out from the official end of the A and not a word from her. I wonder if she is afraid we will go for visitation if she reopens the case. I hope so cuz we really can't afford to pay her much more than we already do.

HI Gem!

Long time no see girl. How have you been besides that? Should probally start a new thread uh?

Just in case anyone stumbles over this thread while investigating paternity presumption laws...particularly in the state of Kentucky then you should be aware that the Supreme Court of Kentucky, in May, 2011, reversed it's decision.

Adulterers can sue for Paternity in Kentucky


Kentucky Supreme Court Recognizes Paternity Claim from Adulterous Affair



Now this doesn't mean that the OM that this thread discussed years ago gets access to his child and he's now the winner of his case. It just means that this Chris Egan (the OM in this new case) won and can assert himself into a marriage against the will of a husband and wife.

It's an unfortunate decision. It was close. Mr. Rhodes (the OM discussed on this thread) lost his case by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision and now the OM Egan won by a 5-4 decision.

Therefore, if you are a married couple in Kentucky trying to protect yourself for another one of these predatory OM's, you have two options to protect yourself.

1. DON'T discuss or show OM any dna test results. Don't give him any proof whatsoever of having had sexual relations with the wayward wife and leave him to his proofs. You see...the majority opinion requires a prospective father attempting to assert paternity rights and forcing paternity testing to have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" (typically a criminal standard not often used in family courts), that OM is the prospective father BEFORE the court will give the OM standing to challenge paternity. If you are fortunate to research the issue BEFORE getting a test and communicating the results to OM than you may yet be able to protect your family. Don't talk, email and/or text OM. NO CONTACT.

2. MOVE. There are still states that still honor and protect marriages from these shameless predator OM's. I won't list them right now because I realize (now) these threads/discussions exist into perpetuity and laws change. It may be tricky getting out of town and perhaps OM can still sue where you left within a certain amount of time but you can try to leave and go to a state that respects your marriage and rights to all children born of that marriage.

I may be following up on this post as I read more about this case. Upon first reading, I was shocked to read that the idiot district court judge that first said it was OK for Mr. Egan to pursue a paternity claim against the wayward wife and her betrayed husband was because she (the judge) considered the marriage over when the wayward wife began her affair and thus the child was deemed by paternity presumption to be the fathers. The things district court judges do are just shocking sometimes.

Mr. Wondering

I think this should of had it's own thread.

Or added to the end of the rhodes vs rickett's thread.

Which state was the rhodes rickett's case?

But glad it got posted.

What happens next with this lastest case?

Ummm...isn't this the end of the rhoades vs rickett's thread???


Here's a decent article about the newest case and it's impact. I'm still shocked that the wayward wife and her betrayed husband had to sit in a trial court having a hearing completely about how much sex they (the married couple) had during the 10 months prior to the baby being born only to have the trial circuit court activist judge rule:


In law...what exactly does "as a practical matter" mean???? This judge, against all the testimony offered in court that day in an effort to establish whether or not the husband could have been the father ...decided to completely ignore the evidence presented and just judicially deem their marriage over "for practical" purposes when the ww had an affair (which evidence should have been inadmissible as it was completely irrelevant to the point of the hearing).


Anyway...the story goes on to discuss Rhoades case. The Ricketts lawyer's don't think it means anything. They believe their case is settled. Conversely, as expected, Rhoades attorney's think their case has new life. The article states that Rhoades wants to settle the matter with the Ricketts privately. I hope that can be accomplished and that Rhoades has abandoned his entitled attitude that he once had. He emailed me a few times years ago as this thread progressed and I suggested he take a much more contrite and repentant approach. We'll see if that wins the day for him and he gets to perhaps see his son under supervised visitation procedures for a few years. The boy (Anthony if I remember correctly) is over 5 years old now....I wish he was older before being forced into this, most likely, corrupt relationship. But maybe James Rhoades has grown up. He used to have a website with all sorts of pictures, emails, letters and even videos on it "exposing" the affair and the fact that Anthony was most likely his illegitimate bio-child. It was really vulgar and...PERHAPS, as I told him back then, the Rickettes will KNOW his repentant heart and allow him some time with his bio-son.


Mr. Wondering



oooopps- here's the link Ky court says bio-father

This all happened again in Kentucky. The earlier 5-4 decision was reversed as their was a new judge on the court that decided families don't matter.


What happens next is that Christopher Egan (the OM) gets to prove he's the father back in the Circuit Court and the activist judge I mentioned in my last posts likely will get to make a determination of child custody and support. I don't anticipate that judge going out of her way to protect the child from Mr. Egan as she (the judge) went so far out of her way to help Mr. Egan before.



[sidenote: you see...I could understand if the trial circuit court ruled against Mr. Egan and his paternity claim and HE appealed to the matter all the way to the Supreme Court of Kentucky....however, that wouldn't have worked. The circuit court judge (Judge Bushelman) KNEW that the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court was the one that wrote the opinion in 2008 denying Mr. Rhoades paternity claims and as Chief Judge he most likely had some control or influence over allowing another paternity claim to be heard by the full court again just 3 years later (I'm presuming the chief judge controls what cases get heard in Kentucky to some extent)...so what's a lower court judge to do but find some other way to get what she believes are Mr. Egan's rights before the court. She ruled for Mr. Egan completely against the evidence and the law so that the wayward wife and betrayed husband would have to be the one's appealing and the Chief Justice would have to hear the case (or just allow Mr. Egan to win). This was a complete run around perhaps hoping that the new guy on the Supreme Court would be able to change this decision. "They" (the anti-family agenda in Kentucky) were unable to pass a law through legislature so they had to go a different route.]


So...continuing. Either Julie Stephens and her husband, Randy come to some settlement agreement regarding custody and visitation or this circuit court (Judge Bushelmen most likely) will impose one. IMO, Mr. Egan shouldn't get more than very limited supervised visitation but that's likely a huge stretch to expect in front of this judge. I just hope common sense prevails and the judge doesn't give him 50-50 custody. Hopefully, the Stephen's get primary and, if I were advising them, I'd suggest they later petition the court for a modification and move far away from the interloping meddling Mr. Egan such that he only gets a few weeks in the summer and some holidays with his bio-child that he pays for the trips and he stays far away from the FORMER wayward wife.

I also counsel them to try to get a different circuit court judge somehow. Perhaps by moving to a different county or something. Judge Bushelmen may have had an agenda from the get go and even if she didn't, judges don't like their orders getting challenged and tested very much. Judge Bushelmen was likely very pleased to have her result upheld (in law) by the Supreme Court even though they ignored her legal basis.

Mr. W

I was suffering poster fog.
Thought this was a new thread for some reason.

Thanks for explaining the obvious.

Also that lower level judge playing games with the law is upsetting. It appears that the end ALWAYS justifies the means. When you do things to get your way.