OK so here goes.

your W gets pregnant with OM.
You and your W reconcile and do the NC
OM now wants to raise the kid

Ive heard someone say that the OM deserves rights to the child.

How can you enforce a NC rule or even get over the whole A. If the OM is going to be in your lives?

Could you even trust your spouse around that person?

what if you gave OM custody of the child with a NC?

I only have opinions and I only from my experience of how things went with us keeping the child and OM is out of the picture.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

If this goes to family court, is that who you want to decide it? What is best for the child? What are the OM's real reasons for wanting to raise the child? Will his current reasons last? What are your wife's reasons? Will her's last.

IMHO, that is where the deciding factor will be. How sad that 2 adults are making this sooo difficult.

Remember the lesson of King Solomon (before he went into the fog).

L.

RMX,


First, let's address the legal aspects then move on to the moral aspects which are more sticky.

OM's have no legal rights but fathers do.

It is my understanding that any child born inside a marriage is legally considered a product of that marriage. The OM can't claim custody of your children any more than some stranger in a grocery store can come up and say "Hey! Little Johnnie's kinda cute. I think I'd like some visitation rights." If you present yourself as the father to the child, then the OM has no legal standing.

However, if you legally went out of your way to prove the OM was the father and get child support then he has all the legal rights any father would have. He'd be legally entitled to visitation.

Morally is a different story. It is my opinion that secrets like these (paternity, etc) just don't really last. Eventually, people will find out. Eventually, the child will find out. Often, the later it happens, the more devastating it might be. Secrets seem to grow in magnitude relative to the amount of time kept. If it were me, I'd let the child know his/her paternity in age appropriate ways. I'd treat it similarly as an adoption with lots of love and assurance that the child is wanted and isn't "bad" or a problem.

I don't think the father needs to be in the child's life anymore than adoptive parents need to. If, at 18, the child is curious about his/her biological father, then I'd be supportive of him/her seeking the OM out.


You make all communication go through you instead of your spouse. It's not NC, but it's the best you can do.


Nope.


Good luck with that. I think it would be very, very hard for a mother to give up a child she gave birth to for the sake of NC. I think in many cases, mothers will do what's right for their children before their spouses. It's not that they don't love their spouse, it's just that the urge to protect their children is that strong. It might work depending on the mother -- but it's a huge long shot in my opinion.

Just my $.02

Mys

"It is my understanding that any child born inside a marriage is legally considered a product of that marriage. The OM can't claim custody of your children any more than some stranger in a grocery store can come up and say "Hey! Little Johnnie's kinda cute. I think I'd like some visitation rights." If you present yourself as the father to the child, then the OM has no legal standing."

This depends on the jurisdiction. Where I live paternity can be challanged up to 4 years after the birth of a child. A DNA test is ordered by the court. If 4 years pass, the right to sue for paternity is gone. This works both ways . . . a woman has 4 years to establish paternity and so does a man.

It is true though that the presumed father is the birth-mother's husband and he is placed on the birth certificate by default.

I think that many parents will put their children before their spouse in certain situation. I would end my marriage before I would abandon my child. To me it isn't even a question.

Fathers, well this one anyway, have a very strong urge to protect their children too . . . If I had an other child you can bet the farm that I would be in child's life. It is the way that I am and I am not sorry for it.

No, you should be proud that in todays society of "me, me me" you still value your children more than yourself.

Now if we just had more fathers like that, the worlds children would be so much better off.

RMX,

Thank you.

I know this issue is personal to you and if your OM is a punk I would try to keep him out of your life too.

With paternal rights come responsibilities, one being financial. I would fully support any child that I had. I would establish a path for that child to receive any legacy that I could afford.

Everyone has a different idea of what parentage is, I for one see it as the utmost responsibility in life. I approach it with that heavy burden, but I hardly notice the weight at all. Parentage is the one major joy in my life and I get a little worked up when I read that any old smuck could feel the same thing that I do about my kids. . . that I, as father don't really matter, and in fact that in reality I am just a convenient sperm donor. I just do not believe that in the least.

The OW IS a punk......

The reason I stepped up was because SOMEONE needed to mother up for these children....and if there was a legal way to take care of ALL of her progeny (not just my FWH's two OCs) I've little doubt we'd do it.

Once we determined that OW was NOT putting the children first, and showed no signs of ever putting them at the top of the list, then we made our moves to gain custody of them.

RMX - I'm sending you my BEST wishes. I am on the road you are on...it might be a harder one than others travel, but the view is stunning.

- Kimmy

Yep,

She sounds like a punk.

This may have some bearing on this discussion.

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/adopt.php


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A state Supreme Court ruling Wednesday orders a Cabell County woman, her parents, brother and lawyer to pay $7.8 million to the father of a child given up for adoption without the father's consent. The ruling contained several new points of law. The points, precedents for subsequent adoption cases, include:

The instant a child is born, both biological parents, even though not married, have a right to establish a parent-child relationship. An unwed father must, upon learning of the existence of his child, demonstrate his commitment to it by participating in its care, rearing and support, and by starting to establish a meaningful parent-child relationship.


Any people who "plot, plan, scheme or otherwise conspire" to intentionally and wilfully conceal information from a parent about a birth or the physical location of a child may be held liable for their participation in the conspiracy.


A parent may sue anyone who interferes with his or her parental or custodial relationship with the child. The court listed the legal points that parent must prove.


The person who is sued for interference can use as a defense that the interference was justified to protect the child from physical, mental or emotional harm. They also cannot be held liable if they acted negligently rather than intentionally and had a "good faith" belief the interference was proper.


Anyone who appeals a lower court ruling to the Supreme Court has to post an appeal bond covering the amount of damages they were ordered to pay. If they do not, the appeal will be dismissed, and the lower court ruling will stand.

Here is an interesting phrase I discovered when googling "paternal presumption" & "public policy":

"MOTHERS ARE VESTED WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS - FATHERS OBTAIN THEM"

Marriage, historically, is the one way fathers obtain, in advance, paternal and custodial rights to children of the marriage however conceived. It is one of biggest motivators of the instituition of marriage for men. In fact, with the nearing or closing gap in wages in the workforce it is one of the few pieces of "consideration" remaining in the marital contract period besides just someone to divide the labor with.

If, when and AS the laws change in response to a greater acceptance of non-marital cohabitation, fertility and the rights of unmarried men. Such changes misguidingly and unknowingly increase the prevalence of the same by severly reducing the value of the such marital contract/institution.

Look at this example of extremes:




The "mens" rights many have been advocating the last few days, to me, seem to imply that copulating unmarried men have some property rights to their left behind (and in my opinion "gifted") sperm. That someone like McBecca's OM gained some property rights to Mrs.McBecca's uterus. That he has or should have a legal right to the child, in utero and beyond.

IMO and historical under common law...the only person with any legitimate claim to Mrs. McBecca's uterus and the production of ANY fetus therein is Mrs. McBecca AND the man that married her. As pointed out above, when you change the laws to accomodate the OM and his bio-father rights and/or to protect this child from some imagined harm from being kept from his bio-dad and place such concerns OVER marriage...even if you think it's FAIR or the right thing to do in a particular fact scenario, you end up encouraging, accomodating and enabling the very immoral behavior we all dislike...unmarried fertility. When you narrow the difference between married and unmarried parenthood in law...you end up with MORE of the later.

Morals never change.

The institution of marriage is still our soceities preferred method of raising children and I presume it is this websites preference as well.

Thus the public policy message:

"Men beware, don't have unmarried sex, with a married woman especially. If you do, don't leave your seed behind...wear a dang condom. Though you may both be equally caupable for the resulting consequences, be fully aware that the law and public policy will most likely and undoubtedly shaft you in the end (pun intended), rightfully or unrightfully so"

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - Thank you MEDC and others. This has been a very interesting debate and exercise. I've learned more about this subject in two days and more convicted of my opinion then I was before. I personally like the "paternity presumption" under the Uniform Parentage Act. It's not perfect but the policy is sound. In the case of Mr. McBecca it works. OM has no legal rights. IF he is to get any access to his bio-child he'll need to rely and beg compassion from his victim. That is not impossible. Unlikely for a bit; but, not impossible. I think Mr.McBecca (and Mrs. McB when she's a FWW) is/are best capable to assess the best interests of HIS/THEIR child and whether OM is and will be a continuing and valuable presence in HIS/THEIR childs life.

Thanks for the blessing!, And when you say I hope you DON'T mean that the OW is acting like Glenn Close from fatal attraction.

CN,

That case you cited is interesting:

Obviously the mother was unwed. If she was married, her husband would be the presumed father and HE could consent to the adoption and this case would be moot.

Further, the actions of these people was/is deplorable however, in most situations a good attorney could drive a truck through this exception:



This precedent setting case actually codifies exactly HOW a expecting mother and her family can document and justify such "interference" pretty easily. From now on in that state it might be easier to defeat such bio-father-rights...They just need any old "good faith" basis which the parties to the case were no doubt seriously lacking.

Mr. Wondering

This is the part that I found interesting . . .

"The instant a child is born, both biological parents, even though not married, have a right to establish a parent-child relationship. An unwed father must, upon learning of the existence of his child, demonstrate his commitment to it by participating in its care, rearing and support, and by starting to establish a meaningful parent-child relationship."

I'm certainly not a legal scholar, but this seems to give the bio-dad, at least in this state, rights that I never new they had.

I haven't any idea what this means pertaining to a married woman and her OM.

Yeah. Sometimes. She really freaks my monkey out....

But then, anyone who lets their kids have lice for 3+ years and only makes excuses as to why they're still homesteading on the children's cabaza's would freak anyone's monkey out, right?

- Kimmy

The more that I read about this topic the more that I am convinced that the country all over the place on this issue.

A good site to look at is:

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/litigation/ch04.html

One case inparticular sounds like Becca's.

The H and W were separated.

Wife was with OM and the child conceived.

H and W get reconcile.

H wanted to raise the child as his own, even after paternity was proven to be OM.

OM took it to the surpreme court of Iowa.

Here it is:

The Supreme Court of Iowa came to the opposite conclusion in Callender v. Skiles, 591 N.W.2d 182 (Iowa, 1999). In that case, the mother was separated from her husband at the time of conception, although husband and wife reconciled and were once again cohabiting when the child was born. The husband assumed responsibility for the child, and began to raise her as his own. Six months later, the child's natural father filed an application to establish paternity, visitation, custody and child support. Although DNA testing showed that the husband was not the child's biological father, the trial court granted the husband's motion to dismiss the application, on the ground that the biological father lacked standing to challenge the husband's paternity, under Iowa's paternity statute. The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed, finding that the statutory provision violated the biological father's constitutional due process right, because the father had a protected "liberty" interest in establishing a parental relationship with his child. Similarly, a Minnesota court found that a man had standing to seek to establish his paternity through genetic testing, based on a showing that he had access to the mother at the probable time of conception, Witso v. Overby, 609 N.W.2d 618 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).



And here comes California that ruled just the opposite:

For centuries there has been a legal presumption that a child born to a married woman is her husband's child.[11] The presumption was indisputable, if husband and wife were cohabiting at the time of conception, absent proof of the husband's impotence.[12] The biological father was consistently denied any opportunity to establish paternal rights over the child, although certain members of the marital family and their descendents could challenge the presumption if the parents were not cohabiting at the time of conception. The presumption of paternity, which originated in the common law, has been codified in California and elsewhere. (See, e.g. Cal. Fam Code § 7540). Although genetic test results now make it possible to disprove a husband's paternity, most courts will not award substantive parental rights to the natural father of a child conceived within and born into an existing marriage, that wishes to embrace the child. (See e.g., Michael H. v. Gerald D. 491 U.S. 110, 127 (1989)).[13]

Under California law, a child born to a woman who is cohabiting with her husband is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage, unless the husband is impotent or sterile. In Michel H. v. Gerald D., supra, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the presumption infringes unconstitutionally upon the biological father's due process rights, and concluded that it does not. The Court found that the biological father had no protected "liberty" interest in the parental relationship and the State's interest in preserving the marital union was sufficient to support termination of his relationship with the child.[14]

What a mess.

>What a mess.

Yes.

Yes I had read the same page yesterday.

The US Supreme Court case, Michael v. Gerald, is an interesting read. It was a 5-4 decision itself. Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Conner with Stevens concurring in judgement only. The dissents are interesting also. Here is the link ---> [color:"blue"] Michael v Gerald [/color]

BTW, this is the first split decision case is quite awhile that I have actually agreed with the strict constructionalist fools. IMO, Rehnquist and Scalia were and are the worst supreme court justices ever. Thomas is right up there too.

This is a tough debate. No way for us here to resolve it and I respect all the differing opinions.

One benefit to the hard rule: Our public court system doesn't have to adjudicate every single putative fathers claim on it's merits. Our court systems cost money...our tax dollars...Mrs.McBecca's OM can beg compassion and maybe get lucky and have some say or participation in his bio-kids life. My tax dollars don't need to support him having a legal system upon which to "fall back upon" so he can invade these peoples (or just Mr. McBecca's) lives unwantedly. I don't want to pay for such legal rights when HE could have just NOT had sex OR worn a condom. HE knowingly or stupidly presumed the risk having extra-marital sex...period.

our son's adoption was delayed because there was a husband and an OM

and BOTH of them had to be "looked for" in order for them to either relinquish their "rights", or for the court to determine there would be no future claim based on inability to parent (or whatever)

it delayed the final adoption date about 8 months ... but in the meantime, son was foster-adopt living with us ... in the end, his adoption took nearly 2 years

his sisters was much quicker, because the (same) bio-mom was by then divorced, and sperm-donor was "unknown" ...

so

the courts are very careful to consider fathers rights ... even if the father (or potential father) is in prison or just plane "lost" to authorities

it's interesting

and my point is, even the situations that seem "obvious" as to what is best for a child often take a long time (years) to finish up ... legally

Pep