I didn't see this part before my last reply... sorry.

It is only sexism, if you assume I think this was a good decision because she's the woman/mother.

It is only sexism, if you assume the KY supreme court made this decision because she's the woman/mother.

I'm saying it went much deeper than that.

She was not presumed the better parent because of her gender.

They decided this child's best interests would be best served within this family and marriage.

Didn't KY already have the law on the books that a child born within a M is presumed to be a product of the M? I'm not sure if that's the law in KY, but if it is, then the court ruled within the law.

Jeeze, I was only asking, because I don't know, and thought maybe you did.

~~~~~

They may've set a precedent, but that doesn't mean it's a set in stone ruling for every single similar hearing in the future. Of course, I think it happens to be a wise precedent. I stand by my belief that far more children will benefit from it.

They did NOT make a decision that results in a case by case review....so, it isn't THIS CHILD...it is EVERY CHILD born in similar situations.

Most likely KY did have a law for that...heck, some states have laws that forbid oral sex. This law should be changed to look at every case and determine what is in the best interest of the child. There should be no assumed parent....the best interest of the child should be the ONLY determining factor.

I was not at the offering of visitation agreements.
I was not at the trial.

What I do know from when I was growing up us guys were always ready make out with a pretty girl. But we always warned each other with these following things. Stay away from jail bait. Be careful about STD's. Don't get a girl pregnant that you would not want to marry because you will wind up having to pay child support for eighteen years. If you messed around with a married woman you run the risk of getting your [censored] kicked.

Last but not least if you knocked up a married woman the courts were going to assume the OC is child of the marriage and you will have no rights concerning you desire to be a dad to the OC.

The OM in this case is old enough so I am sure the OM had to of heard this from his peers stating these facts of life.

I have posted these facts before but those that support the OM here also choose to ignore that he had no rights before he had the affair, no rights after he knocked up the WW, and the courts have confirmed that he had no rights then.

Mr Wondering:

"he's been reading here for days and emailing me"

Have you had the opportunity to address his lack of legal rights before during and after the affair? If so how did the OM justify that he is special enough that the law should not apply to him?

Wow, as teenagers you were all lawyers in training. I NEVER heard anything like that growing up and suspect you didn't either. The others, yep...I agree...but not this one.

Wishing or wanting for a law to be changed is not a reason to justify ignoring the laws one does not agree with or effect us in a way one does not like.

Want to see a law changed, good. Want to work to change a law, even better. Ignore laws you do not like, great, that is until you get caught.

TR...how are laws changed?

They are frequently changed by those challenging them.


Example...blacks ride on the back of the bus. No, wait...Rosa Parks challenged that by her defiance of the law. She gets arrested and history is made.

That is how laws change.

I do not make up things just to post here.

This KY case is nothing new. I have heard of cases like this before were the courts have ruled against the OM for the same reason.

As for the usual response when you can not argue the point you then attack the person.

I've argued the point very well.

As for my attacking you..I can just picture a bunch of teenagers sitting around discussing the merits of the law that disallows an affair partner from being a parent to a child.

And BTW TR...It was YOU that was attacking another poster on this thread...so much so, that a mod had to step in an refocus the thread.

TR, these were your words earlier in the thread. You now seem to be arguing for the reverse.

If the judges only took into consideration, the exact law, (child born during M is assumed product of M), and/or that the mother should be the assumed parent--- it would've only taken a split second to make this decision, but it did not. I believe they weighed several factors.

Uh oh, I agree with medc.

My H and I, as adults NEVER knew this. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing my om did not either.

In fact I was so ignorant of the laws, that it took 'K' to assure me that my H didn't need to adopt my oc, because he was already the father.

However, ignorance of the law does not mean you don't have to live with the consequences of the law. That goes for om, ww, and many times, sad to say, the bh too-- depending on bh's perspective. For my bh, the law provided relief instead of a consequence, as I'm sure it did for the bh in the KY case.

***edit bc quote didn't work.

IF what you are saying was correct...and it isn't...then the judges would have ruled that the best interests of the child is the law of Kentucky. They DID NOT do that. They ruled that there is a presumptive father...they did NOT rule that the cases will be decided on the best interest of the child.

A broad sweeping decision like this means that in the future, absent abuse, the WW and her BH will keep the child...even though the OM and his BW might be better parents.

That is the crux of the decision. I don't know how else to explain it you.

If they said case by case...I would be all for it....they didn't.

Look at the Supremem Court of the US. They KNOW the law...yet it takes them months to make a decision...why...because of challenges to the law. Same with KY.

Aren't the two bolded statements, the same?

The bh is the presumptive parent in the KY law.

Ok, I can kind of get on board with you, in situations where the om is married, and the bw and he would like to raise the child. Then we're a little closer to comparing apples to apples, but from what I've seen and heard over the last 5+ years-- in most cases, the LAST thing a mm & his bw want, is to have contact with the oc. They usually run, and run fast! Some might be willing to raise the oc, as long as ow is out of the picture. I actually asked this as a hypothetical question on this forum years ago. There were some who didn't want to raise the oc, even if they were assured the ow would be out of the picture.

Of course, there are exceptions, and Kimmy comes to mind as one, but honestly, it just is not the case in the majority, (I admit my frame of reference is limited). In fact, if we could find some hard statistics, I bet it's extremely rare that a single om wants anything to do with his oc. I bet most, like my om are only too happy that there's an upstanding man, (bh), who is more than willing to father om's offspring!

no, the statements are directly opposed.

I think you get me now. Now obviously if the OM does not want to be involved, the best interests of the child are to be with the WW and the Bh ...or adoption. But in cases where the child is better off with the OM and his BW, I just want the law to give it a fair look...and NOT what they do by declaring a presumptive parent.

Thanks for taking the time to read and follow me. And yes, Kimmy is a great example.

Below is a quote I found on a Lexington, Kentucky attorney's website discussing the case. It perhaps more eloquently sums up my feelings about the case. I disagree with him with regards to THIS case, as I don't think the Ricketts would be wise to allow James anywhere around their son, Anthony, for quite some time as his ACTIONS are demonstrative of a still very sick and abusive man that I can't believe you (MEDC) would encourage to carry onward with his "fight" instead of bending his knee and repenting. The website alone where he embraces his evil behavior, puts it on display for the world to see, filming "his" baby on an obviously used adulterous hotel room bed (wonder what his first priority was), where he attacks the childs parents Julia and, with vigor, Jon, where he discloses, unrefuted, that he tried to suckle the child on his own breast.

By the way, the court only interpreted a presumtion LAW. This wasn't a case of Judicial activism. They merely deemed the legislative intent was to deny this OM (and OM's like him) the opportunity to petition themselves for paternity of a child in a marital relationship. The correctly upheld and applied such law. The courts didn't entertain the "best interests" question because OM had no standing to even get to the question. The legislature apparently follows the doctrine of clean hands which holds that the plaintiff in an equity claim should be innocent of any wrongdoing or risk dismissal of the case. Sure this doctrine could be applied in many ways inequitably, but HERE, in Kentucky, it's limited to denying OM's the opportunity to claim paternity on their own.

Anyway...here's the quote:

"As for me, the one thing I am confident of is that our judicial system should not be morally mute and that there is basic right and wrong outside of the confines of our laws (there are varying degrees of judicial activism and I believe it should be constrained to areas where statutory laws are silent). I also tend toward the Sanctity of Marriage camp and believe that the marital union, which remains a spiritual union and not merely a civil matter in my mind, trumps biology. My hope for Mr. Rhoades is that he recognizes and atones for the damage he did by participating in an extramarital affair. My hope for baby JAR’s parents is that they are convicted that JAR’s interests are paramount and wrestle with whether denying him his biological father serves those interests best. I doubt that would be the wisest course of action, but the burden is upon them to arrive at the decision. I have these hopes because even though I believe that courts have moral authority where statutory law is silent, the most just results are often found outside the courtroom and they often come out of humility rather than force." [emphasis mine]

-Greg A. Napier, Attorney at Law (Kentucky) Link to Website

I think I was saying something very close to this.

The KY court didn't rule hard and fast on the black and white of the law.

You're welcome.

In law school we are taught to argue in this order.

1. The law (statutes and codes)

2. The Common Law (Judicial Precedent)

a. Binding decisions in that jurisdiction
b. Unbinding decision from other jurisdictions

3. Public Policy

Here's what Greg Napier said about the decision and the chances of Mr. Rhoades succesful appeal:

"As a father, I know I would not want to be denied contact with a child I fathered. As a husband, I understand protecting my family from those outside. This is why the SCOKY decision ultimately rests on the wording of a statute. Those of that opinion pulled into the safe harbor of avoiding the appearance of judicial activism by focusing on the exact language of the relevant laws. By doing so, they essentially said, this is a matter to be decided by the people through their representatives in the Kentucky General Assembly. That is where this debate really belongs.

Mr. Rhoades plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but I will be surprised if he wins. This is because the Kentucky decision is about subject matter jurisdiction and not about whether Mr. Rhoades is the biological father or not and the U.S. Supreme Court will most likely defer to the power of the State to determine such things. So, only the General Assembly can change the outcome for future Mr. Rhoades."

- Greg A. Napier, (KY) Atttorney at Law


I concur. Again, IF Mr. Rhoades desires any contact with his bio-son before Anthony reaches the age of 18, he better start behaving like a repentent person and bending his knee to God for direction. A change in tactics Mr. Rhoades seems incapable of undertaking, but I remain hopeful. It really is his only hope....AS IT SHOULD BE.

Mr. Wondering