I get this.

Thank you for explaining it so well.

I do believe though, that the presumption law, and the best interests of the child are not mutually exclusive. I believe they go hand in hand.

So, they may not have ruled, based on or even taken into consideration, the 'best interests', but the ruling was in the best interest of the child, imo.

Oh wait... or were you talking about the best interests of the om? lol.....

I pray he does...and not for his sake...but for the reason that the children would be better off having their best interests guarded...and not some archaic presumptive law that will automatically see children given to the BH and WW.

BTW, Mr. W..I see this stance on this as harmful to families. I believe that if women were aware that they could be challenged in court...and even potentially lose their child, they would be a little more likely to keep their knees together (or at the very least, use protection during their affair).

And the last I checked, there are a lot of lawyers that disagree with the decision as well. Being a lawyer does not automatically afford one good judgement(you are excluded obviously).

The law of presumption was written when science had yet to provide the DNA tools to determine paternity without a doubt.

If the legislatures were moved to address presumption today. I think it would not be a slam dunk decision for any view point. I have tried to look at this from all view points.

In this case if it was decided that DNA trumps all the OM and maybe the OC would benefit. That's one to maybe two people that benefit from the change in the law. The WW, BH, their two COM and maybe the OC are harmed. That's four to five people harmed and possibly a marriage damaged beyond repair. Broken marriages place extra burdens and strain on our society.

If after the legislature debates and the law is not changed because DNA does not trump. Because the legislature when examining the situation realizes that the affair and it's results can not be undone. So they base their decision on how to do the least harm. That means OM and maybe the OC would be harmed. Potential is for One to two people that are harmed.

1 What is not harmed is the sanctity of marriage.
2 & 3 WW and BH can put the affair behind them and heal.
4 & 5 The COM do not have to come from a broken home.
6 The OC will have the stability of one home one family.

How would a legislature justify enacting a law that puts the needs of so few verses the needs of many?

I can not see how when ever an OM puts himself as a third person into another's marriage that his interests, the interests of one come ahead of a whole family.

This falls in line with what I've said so many times concerning my situation, and others similar to it....

There is no PERFECT solution, (that will not hurt), EVERY person affected when a ww gives birth to an oc, but there is a BEST solution for the MOST amount of people affected by it.

TheRoad

Very good post. They have protected this M and the children involved, all of them. Instead of allowing a sperm donor to destroy the family. If only it could also work the other way. The OW is completely allowed to destroy the sanctity and welfare of the M of the MM involved in A resulting in OC, even when the OW is also M'ed. They shouldn't be there but when they are there are no winners, and the prevention of the destruction of the lives of the innocent COM should come before the 100% OC first stance the courts currently take. The courts are not interested in a man's freedom of reproductive choice like a woman's. But they sure will jump right in to punish him and make sure that he can not let the child be adopted. This view of the courts is also very damaging to the M's that try to recover.

FTS

Thanks or recognizing that. I do have big shoulders but AM working on getting those smaller only in staute not strength

Now back to reading........as it's been busy today.

I don't neccesarally agree with that. The older I get the more I am seeing the MAN regardless of single or married and not necessarly talking about MM with that statement comeing up and stepping up to the plate when it comes to there children. I wish i could see more serioulsy as both parents play such an important role...........but my hair dresser told me a story of one of her x-freinds child. I can it is increasing with MM to be a part of there child's life but yeah they mainly run as fast as they can. I have a friend here in town that her husband cheated has an oc and they have joint custody and no it's not easy on her, but with time it's gotten easier and she loves that little girl as her own.

My hairdresser is young so the friend is YOUNG too. Ealy 20's. This girl basically was sleeping with too many men and doing some major drugs. Once she found out she did stop the drugs. Thank goodness. But the baby was born with adisorder (i can't remember the name of it) that affected her motor skills but not hr mental skills. It was a genitic thing and not from the drugs. Well this girl after having the baby went back on drugs and welware. Our state does not play around with wanting to play and this is no lie the girl went through 5 paternity tests and not one was the father. By now the girl is about 3 or 4. the condition is worsening. She finally remembers she had sex with one other person ONE time. They find him do the dna and yes he is the father. He took resposnbility for that child right away, and ended up taking full custody away from this girl. he is doing a great job raising her and helping her deal with her condition. And this is a young man.

With what mkeverydaycnt points out I agree with but also, the other point is the WW put the OM in a position of bonding and being a father. Most WW that don't want the om apart of it don't even go there. Or don't put a bond there in the first place. He bonded with that child and I don't for one moment believe that she had no choice. We all have choices and when it comes to our child's safety if I had to choose telling my husband over putting my child is harms way I choose telling my husband.

I see it has the WW put the om there in her marriage and had so many opportunities to tell her husband before she got pulled in further by creating a bond between the bio father and son.

I can't imagine loosing a child when I've created a bond to them knowing they are here on in the world, and I have no more rights to my child.

As I see it again a double standard. The ow alone did not destroy the family. she had help with the MM. Yes the ow can choose to have her child and or not have it, put it up for adoption with the consent of mm or keep it, and have then do dna proving the MM indeed is the father. But is that NOT what the WW is doing to the OM in this case? She went off birth control 3 weeks before she had sex. Had sex with both the om and the bh. She knows that this child is probally the om's before she leaves the hospital and CHOOSES to bring the OM into that child's life, do a DNA test with him, and allows him to babysit this child and it goes on and on. At the same time playing daddy with her husband. The WW in this case was playing both with a child involved. Then chooses to take that child away from him.

A MM is resposnbile for his actions just as much as the ow is. The MM may have to pay cs, but he is also given the choice to walk away from any type of bonding, love connection, that he wants. He can also choose to walk right back into that childs life as he sees fit.

The bottom line is there are no winners here. I don't see the om as being selfish. I see him as wanting what was given to him from the WW offering him bonding and everything else then changing her mind and taking away a child that is his. Her husband had no idea until she told him. he too was bonding with this child.

By her own words she the Om offered to stay out of the way. SHE brought him back into it.

mary

Would you please tell me where you saw this information. I did not see it in the OM's blog. Thank you.

"She went off birth control 3 weeks before she had sex"

This, to me, is the most important factor in this case. We are not talking about a WW who gets pregnant from OM, never tells OM, has the baby and then raises that baby strictly as a COM.

What we have here is a WW who knowingly had SF with OM while off birth control (by the way, did she tell OM she was off the pill?), OM knows it's his baby, WW allows the OM to be a part of the OCs life, and then she changes her mind and takes the baby away from him.

Had she never allowed the OM any contact and had done anything in her power to prevent him from knowing about the baby or being a part of the babies life, I could maybe agree with this decision. But that is not the case here.

Let's also look at it in a terms of a theoretical argument. Suppose this marriage cannot withstand the stress of all this. They get divorced. She ends up back with OM. She and OM get married. Now you have the mother and biological father raising the child, and the xBH has to pay child support? From a legal standpoint, this could happen. Does this seem right to anyone?

I read it last week sometime so I "think" it was in her depo. I'm like 99%. Somewhere in there she is asked about it and she tells when she went off the birth Control and then about sleeping with both her husband and the om.

Excatly!

I found it before you got back to me, but thank you.

After reading it in the deposition it makes me wonder why the OM's lawyer did not also ask if her husband and if the OM new she was went off of the pill.

Maybe it is because as a lawyer you are taught to never ask the question that you do not know what the answer is going to be.

1 Why did you WW, go off the pill?

2 Did WW make the decision with her BH?

3 Did WW make this decision on her own?

4 Did WW make the decision on her own and kept it quiet and why?

5 Did WW not care who got her pregnant?

6 Did WW tell the OM she was no longer using protection and why?

7 OM, knowing that the WW was no longer using protection, was OM willing to get WW pregnant?

8 OM, being in his late thirties, did hear about paternity lawsuits, and the law of presumption, would OM want to get the WW pregnant when the law most likely would not grant his paternity rights?

Unfortunately we will never get the truth to these questions for the WW and OM are trying to win a case in court not at being honest.

I read in her deposition the WW claimed that during their trysts the OM only O'd three times during her 18 month affair and did not expect him to O inside of her after she went off the pill. Why would the OM or any man want to have SF for 18 months where he never O's? Hard to believe WW.

At one time did WW want to have her affair OC, but got cold feet? We will never know the truth.

If she wanted the to have OM's OC did she keep this choice from the OM? We will never know the truth.

Did the OM want to get the WW knocked up hoping it cause the WW to get divorced and be free for him, and without concern that the two COM would now come from a broken home? If yes this show's OM's sterling character.

Did the OM feel the ends justified the means in that if he got the WW knocked up he was willing to make take long shot gamble that he could beat the laws of presumption, regardless of the amount of destruction that his actions had on the BH and COM?

The WW and the OM wronged the BH and the COM.

The WW and the OM wronged the OC.

The WW and the OM hurt the sanctity of marriage.

I think that the courts have moved to protect those that have done no wrong.

The WW has been punished even if the OM can not see the OC until he is eighteen.
She has to live with what she has done and face her family with the effects of this for the rest of her life. WW will have to tell her children how she messed up. She will have to say to her children do as I say not as I do.

The OM claims that he should not be punished. The most he can be punished is for 18 years. He chose to have an affair with a married woman. A woman that is part of a family unit that is protected by the law from interlopers as is this OM. He had no moral or legal rights to this woman or the children that she gives birth to.

My best guess at why the WW went off the pill 3 weeks before getting pregnant is because she wanted to lose weight and look her best for OM and was dieting for 3 weeks before OM came to town.

You can find it on page 3 of the Infidelity Diet.

IMO, despite appearances, it's highly likely Julia had no intention of getting pregnant whereas considering the abusive nature exhibited by OM, he likely, IMO, left it in and risked it somewhat consciously as a animalistic baseless instinct to POSSESS this woman and her womb. Classic (adultery) abuser mentality (exhibited by most wayward men on some level).

BTW, their "intent" was completely irrelevant to the case as they denied OM's standing to even make a claim for paternity.

Another note regarding this case in KY.

Upon further reading I will state the obvious. The courts today ARE biased towards women, but not as much as men presume. Most men settle out of fear whereas women rarely settle without primary custody. Men can only typically win primary or full custody by getting the courts to like them and prompting them to want to give the man something. This OM in Ky from the get-go failed to recognize that. The courts are FULL of men DEMANDING their rights. Demands don't work. They are ignored at best and otherwise imply an unnurturing unreasonable abusive nature. Not someone the court trusts, likes or WANTS to give custody of small children to. Even though I like the decision the KY court made in this case part of the reason I like it IS because James' makes for an unempathetic case to me (and I know, the judges). Judges can make any ruling they want to achieve the predetermined desired outcome. That's right, they often decide on impressions. It's what they often do absent specific legislation tying their hands. James' blew it and blew it big time. His lawyer blew it also. It's a matter of misbehaving and then DEMANDING rights that frustrates judges to no end. Humbly requesting rights and demonstrating humbleness and repentence for one's actions WAS the only way Jame's would have won anything. His public outcry, reaching out for public support, criticizing the court system and specific judges along the way, criticism of the BH, criticism of the mother (then possessively defending her), calling the BH a step father, titling himself the "real father", etc was his undoing. He failed and now KY has precedent which actual (unlikely) good guys will find themselves up against from here on out (absent legislative directive). It's likely that this is how the recent case law precedent came about in other jurisdictions including the Supreme Court as well. When you walk into court with unclean hands you better be contrite and have frustrated EVERY effort at coming to a resolution beforehand. He didn't...he lost.

It's not that men don't have rights, they do (though not equal in nearly every courtroom in America especially with relation to infant custody), it's just a man's nature to fail to recognize how to go about obtaining their rights.

IMO, James has NO ONE to blame but himself (and his attorney) for losing this otherwise winnable case and the sooner he starts repenting and making amends and dropping this thing completely the sooner he MAY exact a peace offering enabling him some gratuitous contact with his bio-son.

Mr. W

MR. W:
Are you saying that Om could have won this case?? That HE could have had his rights as Bio Father of this child?

Yes,

But if he had come to me he would have not liked my advice. He would likely have gone out to find himself a pitbull attorney that would have been MAD and taken on OM's cause with spite and vigor.

I would have referred him to a church.

I would have had him counsel with Steve Harley (who does have some interesting opinions about bio-parents)

I would have had him exhaust every non-legal course of action to ad nauseum.

If after a year or so the Ricketts still denied him any visitation and, if they sought legal protection from my repentent, always apologizing and contrite client in the form of restraining orders forbidding him to contact them begging anymore....Then and Then only would I have considered legal action.

Such legal action I would have encouraged him to bring to force the Ricketts to the table to negotiate a settlement and nothing more.

I'd encourage a mature extra-judicial remedy to the situation with gag orders and third party professionals involved to maintain the peace and help all of them see to the best interests of the child.

IF after all that the Ricketts still refused to offer any visitation and stood fast in their resistance to my fully repentent and contrite reasonable client, then and only then would I recommend vigorously pursueing the legal cause of action (and bringing in a professional compassionate litigator). At that point, my client would have obtained the higher ground and the Ricketts would have lost much sympathy. They would have seemed the unreasonable party. Hopefully, then the courts would want to step in and help my client after he exhausted all possible avenues to a peaceful non-litigous resolution to the matter.

He HAD to shed the "interloper" lable as clearly stated by the US Supreme Court in the Michael H case before testing the yet untested Kentucky paternity presumption statute.

And we would have won in court because the court would have no longer seen James as an interloper but as a worthy strugling human being wanting some/any rights to his biological offspring. The added bonus, that James and his attorney's lost sight of, is that even had they won and got the right to prove paternity, he STILL would have had to win visitation rights using a best interests of the child test. Using my strategy, he would have had a much better chance at obtaiing a more liberal visitation schedule because the court would have desired that result.

He should sue his attorney for malpractice or, at least, demand a refund. I'm not even a litigator and I think I could have won his case. Besides pit bulls are expensive to feed (with money) and worthless in father's rights cases. I would have been substantially more effective and less expensive.

It's too late now. He's lost and he'll have zero success on appeal. He's back to hoping and begging the Ricketts which after the ordeal he's put them through they are unlikely to capitulate to him ever (not that I think they should at all unless and until he gets seriously repentent).

Mr. Wondering

If in the future James becomes repentant (doesn't appear in his character so far to do so - but he could, at some point in the future realize the error of his ways), there may come a time when the child - as an adult seeks him out.

But - if the paper trail of press clippings continues with his current character/personality running the show, that child, if raised with any kind of moral compass will run from any overtures.

This I know as a child that was conceived during an affair. I went through three years of therapy to deal with my hatred of the interloper and my feelings of being rejected by my father (purely imaginary, but very painful for a time)...

And the OM in my mother's life did nothing to the measure that James has done - his actions, had they been comparable would have been perceived as pure evil attacks against my father...

James needs to consider that he's sowing a lot of bad seeds right now that will sprout and backfire on him in his relationship with the child - whether that comes during the child's childhood or as an adult. There's no way this can be kept from the child - the publicity is far too extensive. But it's ALL THERE - All of James' selfishness, the mother's deceit - all of it. The only one looking good is the man James seeks to remove from the picture of the child's life and the illusion of a happy family....

Mr. W:

What changed your mind?

May I add I agree with you on his attorney. My impression of him was not that great to be in the posistion he was in. I know from personal exerpience going up against a bull dog attorney and still winning. May I add that in 3/4 into my case I got into a fight with my lousy attonrey who was basiclly useless and took the bulldog on myself and won.


I also want to add this about the OM in this case. He has not had time to sink all of this in yet. He has gone from being in an affair being in love, to fighting his butt off for his son. He has not had the normal time it takes and stages that the om/ww/ow/mm has to go through to get to the place of remorse for there actions of this as well.

I can only assume that his mindset was/is the woman he thought loved him, that he loved that he had this child with that he bonded with and got to know was snatched from him.

Then because of everything IMHO This is heart wrenching again, IMHO.

K: I am so sorry for what you've gone through. I was trying to explain to someone I know why I can't lie to my kids about this especially my oc. She totally did not get it and even got really mad at me and said I'm heading my oc for therapy because I won't lie to her when the time comes that I do explain it al to her. At some point the lies have to stop. They stopped for me when I got pregnant. If things are handled correctly and ready to do the damage control and you have shown a good moral life since the mistake I think you have a better chance of raising a child that does not grow up with the mental baggage that COULD come with this.

Some adult OC's are perfectly fine. Some are not and have real issues with it all. It shows me even more that it's all in how we handle it to begin with. We can turn back the clocks to change it, but we sure the heck and change ourselves and live a better life for those affected.

Mr. W:

The stargery that I see you using if he "would" have come to you I understan it. As my NEW attorney w/xh for our children has done simular with me to use with my xh (although I did not cheat on him or do anything wrong) to get my xh to basically fall himself. It's been the hardest thing for me to do,as patience is not one of my virtue........but it's working. My attorney has yelled at me, and he has talked to me, then yelled at me to sit back and let him fall. He's tied his own nuse bascially and he has done it all on his own as his interest are not that of his kids, but his own agdena, which is sad because my kids know there dad as a liar now and broken promises althoug they love him very much still.

I'd love to have more time to myself..........so it's not my agenda to take my kids away from there dad. It's my agenda for him to step up to the plate.

Mr Wondering

Morally Right Verses Legally Right.

Tobacco companies are legally allowed to sell products that are addictive and kill. The law has still protected tobacco companies after they designed their products to be more addictive. The law has still protected tobacco companies after they designed products that became more lethal due to the additives that they put into their products.

Can anyone explain how this is morally right?

Have we not all heard the phrase: there ought to be a law. When ever there was a situation that was morally wrong but the offending party was never stopped or punished because it was not illegal.

Your advice for the OM seems logical. So it seems as it would of had a good chance to work legally. But I would not hope so for a judgment for the OM would hurt the innocents here. The BH and the COM. A decision that would hurt them would be legally right but not morally right.

Why do the supporters of the OM here never address the rights of the BH and the COM?

Would it add too many shades of gray to this argument for the OM's supporters? No longer making it only an issue of the OM's rights to be a father would then make defending OM's position vastly harder.