Pops,

The US Supreme Court will not be reviewing this decision.

Guaranteed.

They already decided the issue 20 years ago in Michael H v. Gerard. It WAS a split decision but the court is even MORE conservative now and, thus, much more unlikely to undertake expanding the Due Process Rights under the 14th Amendment of bio-fathers given them a "liberty" interest to parenting their off-spring. Rather the court seated today desires to interpret the term "liberty" more narrowly than previous courts.

Here's a brief summary of the case which the US Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Courts denial of standing to Michael H, the interloper and biofather. If you read Jim Rhodes website you'll see that the facts are nearly identical to the Rhodes v. Ricketts Kentucky case:


Here is a link to the actual courts decision.

Link to Michael H v. Gerard

It is my professional estimation that Mr. Rhodes has a better chance of winning the power ball lottery than getting the US Supreme Court to hear his case, let alone winning such case. This matter is OVER. He'd be best served by taking down his website, repenting and attempting to make amends to the Ricketts (particularly Mr. Ricketts) in hopes that they MAY allow him some visitation or something with his bio-child, Anthony. Less fighting, more contrite butt-kissing is in order for him to have any hope of EVER having a relationship with his child. IF he keeps attacking the Ricketts he MAY end up being hated by his own bio-child, Anthony, and even when Anthony turns 18 he'll want NOTHING to do with him.

Mr. Wondering

Lucks I will reply tomorrow. Just reading today. Got a bug from one of the kids and not really here yet.

Mr. W: So much has happened in America in 20 years. I can't elborate right now.

I see a MUCH BIGGER chance that he will hate his mother and pseudo father for keeping the bio dad out of his life. I think he is likely to see the website and other actions for what they truly are...an attempt to see his son against all odds. I strongly think the ones that should be concerned about their child hating them is the Ricketts. You continue to act as the champion for Mr. Ricketts and frankly he is not the main concern here.

If I were that child...and I suspect most people outside the little world of MB would feel likewise...I would like the chnace to know my bio dad...and the ONLY people preventing that right now are the Ricketts.

"RIGHT NOW" the Ricketts SHOULD be protecting their child, Anthony, from this unrepentent interloper (he may try to breastfeed Anthony again or, perhaps, take even MORE pictures and post them on the internet). They can change their mind and the ONLY person preventing that right now is James Rhodes. Of course, it could be too late for him. The Ricketts may have such distaste for him as a result of this whole process and the website thing that they NEVER change their mind, but that would, of course, be Jim's consequences for his continued sinful mindset and, ill-advised, ill-conceived and ill-timed legal prosecution.


AS for the resulting child, here's what one OC said on this very thread. Please note that KaylaAndy's posts reflects her feelings way before MB.




Mr. W

I KNOW what KA said. As you pointed out, she is one person. I do not think for a second that her reaction would be the norm...time will tell. Based on comments I have read about this case from numerous sites...I imagine a lot of people...including some that were OC feel entirely differently.

Mr. W...you have the lawyer thing down pretty pat with this guy...it is twist and smear as far as Rhodes goes.

then i guess this topic has nothing more for me to ramble on about

pops

"yet you continually try and twist the subject"

I feel the same way about you.

"are you an attorney by any chance"

No. I try to look at all sides. Legal, moral, right, wrong, least future damage, and to the OM, WW, BH, COM, and the COM.

You, to me only look towards what's best for the OM.

"1st i NEVER said that mr rhoades does not have to follow the law. i would never enter a debate over such a obsurd topic."

When ever the point has been raised that Rhodes had SF with a woman that was not free to be his wife. That if he was to get her pregnant, the law of presumption would not recognize his paternity claims, You and other Rhodes followers have remained silent.

You bring up every thing you can to support Rhodes but you never offer a counter view of when it's pointed out Rhodes and his disregard of the law.

"(as some would put it) i knocked up a gf"

For a person that said they hate the phrase KNOCKED UP. I think it's hypocritical then to go and use it. Especially when you have made your objections known to my use of it in the past.

Classic example of when one is debating and has a weak case. That is to attack the person you are debating because you can not attack his points.



FINALLY, I KNOW WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM!


"my thought was that she would meet someone else and the 3 of them would live happily ever after.
wrong. after about a year and a half i get court papers for cs. courts orders cs and typical visitation for the time, every other weekend, period.
so things are going along this way for a year or so and then she remarries. BAM. now she wants me to have nothing else to do with my son because she has her new little family. so i have to fight to keep visitation.

before you say anything, yes i know that the boy was not born to a married couple. the point i am making is that julia had already allowed visitation and then changed her mind as did my exgf. just as my exgf couldn't have it both ways neither (imo) can julia."

You are still comparing apples to oranges.

Julia was and still is married to her BH.

Your girl friend was not married to any one. There was no law of presumption to deal with. No BH. Your paternity and rights to be the dad, share custody and pay CS are 100%.

Again you choose to ignore that Julia was married. Is still married to the BH. That Julia was not free to be Rhodes wife. That the fruit of her womb ( knocked up ) by the law of presumption will not allow any one other than Julia's husband to be the dad. As it should be. The family unit needs to be protected.

Your personal case would of and should of yielded the same results even if you where married to someone else or had married XGF. A XGF/XW and her new husband can not cut out the dad ( you ). There is no grounds to deny you your rights as the dad. The law of presumption deals with paternity during the marriage. Not before a marriage or after a marriage is over.


WHY DID YOUR XGF MOVE TO END YOUR RIGHTS TO YOUR CHILD?

It was wrong for your XGF to bring you in then move to cut you out.

Why did you think she did this?

Her new husband had to feel threatened that his wife's XBF being involved in his marriage.

How many times are BS's here told they must get their WS's to have NC. That marriages can not recover with 3 people involved. The countless times where affairs have restarted because there still was contact.

In your case if the new man can not handle the baggage when they are to marry a single mom/divorced woman. Especially with children. You do not marry them.

If your XGF's husband could't handle having you in the picture then he should not of married her. He gets the package deal, her, step child, and you.



"10 years go by and they D. both parties have bad words, something slips out and mr ricketts demands dna tests and finds he was dupped.

now because julia used this ruling to keep rhoades at bay her now exh is is paying cs because julia committed fraud."

Based on the law the BH got screwed over and will continue to get screwed over with continued CS for the OC.

This is an area where the laws need to be changed for there is know marriage to be saved. WW should be criminally prosecuted for fraud. Sued for taking money under false pretenses. The OM can claim he never new he was the dad until now still should have to be forced by the courts to repay every cost associated with the OC. From maternity clothes, hospital delivery, everything to the time the fraud was determined. Then be responsible for the rest of the OC's life until his 18th birthday.


"you say that i have not given any reason to back my position. yet you have not given any arguement other then the law should be followed. and that it is to protect the sanctidy of marriage."

I have stated the rights for Julia to realize her affair was a mistake and to recover her marriage.

The Rights of the BH to not have a third party involved in his marriage. Which is following the Harley's position.

The rights of the COM to have their family restored and protected. I have mentioned these thing many times but you as usual chose to ignore what you can not find a way to challenge.

I do not care why Julia had an affair. You bring it up that she was unhappy was the reason and there by justify it. There is no reason to justify an affair.

Yeah, more conservative now... today.

Not so much, if President Obama were to appoint, say-- 3 judges.

....AD you are funny. I could not pass that one up. Love you AD! Muah!

""If your XGF's husband could't handle having you in the picture then he should not of married her. He gets the package deal, her, step child, and you.""

this is the same position that julia's h (or anyone else) should be following. if they want to stay in the picture (marriage) he should have to accept the WHOLE package, himself, julia, her baby and the baby's bio father. there is no law on the books forcing him to stay in the marriage.

there are many, many bw's out there who have done just that. accepted the whole deal.

""WHY DID YOUR XGF MOVE TO END YOUR RIGHTS TO YOUR CHILD?

It was wrong for your XGF to bring you in then move to cut you out.

Why did you think she did this?

Her new husband had to feel threatened that his wife's XBF being involved in his marriage."'

she wanted to do this for the same reason that julia wants to do it. to protect her h now that she has AGAIN changed her mind as to whom she wants to spend her life with.

and i am sure that julia's h feels threatened also.

""The Rights of the BH to not have a third party involved in his marriage. Which is following the Harley's position""

now i have said that i agree with the Harley's priciple's. which is true. they have done excellent work and put together some terrific programs to survive an A.

BUT they are not the judicial system. their ideas no matter how great and successfull are certainly looked on by some thru a negative light. there are still many that buy into the idea that once a cheater always a cheater so when caught a ws should be kicked to the curb for life.

your argueing and trying to support a judicial ruling because the Harley's say it is right holds no weight with me.

""No. I try to look at all sides. Legal, moral, right, wrong, least future damage, and to the OM, WW, BH, COM, and the COM.

You, to me only look towards what's best for the OM.""

""

i am glad you try and see things from all perspectives. as do i. i have lived on practically all sides of this agruement.

to assume that i only argue what is best for the om because i disagree with a blanket ruling (again IMHO) is ludicrous. i am a bh and quite frankly have no use for those who KNOWINGLY enter a relationship with a married person

agian it has been an interesting discission but from by standpoint it is over. feel free to engage anyone else who may want to continue.

and with my last sentence, i am in no way, shape, or form insinuating that you need my permission.

Pops

"""If your XGF's husband could't handle having you in the picture then he should not of married her. He gets the package deal, her, step child, and you.""

this is the same position that julia's h (or anyone else) should be following. if they want to stay in the picture (marriage) he should have to accept the WHOLE package, himself, julia, her baby and the baby's bio father. there is no law on the books forcing him to stay in the marriage.

there are many, many bw's out there who have done just that. accepted the whole deal."""

Again you compare apples to oranges.

Julia's husband is protected by the law ( presumption ) he does not have to include the Rhodes/OM.

Mr Ricketts is not marrying a woman that has a preexisting child as it was in your case.

In your case your XGF was not married, your right to your child is protected by the law.

Pop's, what you, your XGF, and her husband have gone through is not the same as Julia, her BH and Rhodes.

Similar because both husbands don't want the XM/OM involved in their marriage.

Similar is not the same!

Mr Ricketts paternity rights are protected by the law.

Pop's your paternity rights are protected by the law.

Similar but not the same!

Mr Ricketts has the law of presumption.

Your paternity was established by the courts prior to your XGF's marriage.

Then about your most absurd point is the one where there are BW's out there that have accepted the whole deal.

This topic is about a dads paternal rights. I never heard of a woman that had SF and got pregnant that had to prove she is the mother.

These cases you mention are where there is no question of paternity. It's do we recover? Then do we share custody of the OC? When the OW is single then the law of presumption does not into play. If there is a BH, then it is position to use the law of presumption or waive it.

Again you sited examples that do not match the Rickett's/Rhodes case. Your arguments' continue to hold no water due to your faulty assumptions.

I support the legal postion of the case not because the Harley's view point on NC, but because of the law itself.

actually TR, I find Pop a bit more convincing than you...you main cry is the law, the law...so..if the law changed tomorrow, your opinion would???

My thoughts about right versus wrong are not rooted in laws that can change on a moments notice.

Road, I think Pops said he was done, so I'll answser for him. That happened to him years ago.

Pops wife had an affair which resulted in an oc that the bio father (who is also married) has shared visation and pays cs to Pops oc. So Pops IS in alot of ways just like Mr. Ricketts.

However, he's not.

I do not believe Mr. Ricketts has any other children not his wife's nor is it alleged Mr. Ricketts was ever a WH in his past. I would think/hope Mr. Ricketts worldviews about family differ greatly from Pops. Not that Pops is a bad guy, TODAY. I commend him for overcoming his wife's adulterous affair (and her his) and pregnancy and he didn't deserve to be cheated on just because he cheated on her first but comparing Pops to Mr. Ricketts (granted we don't know everything about Mr. Ricketts) is on it's face, unwarranted.

I also doubt Pops OC's bio-father tried to breastfeed his child, he didn't sue Pops to take the OC away and he didn't put pictures of Pops, his wife, the adulterous affair and the OC all over the internet for everyone in the world to view and comment upon.

Mr. Wondering

Where did you see that pops said he cheated on his wife?

Mr. W I commend you for your beliefs and forgiveness to your wife, but it's like you are a reformed smoker. The judgment you are passing on people for not believing as YOU believe is not right. Nor are all your facts.

You assume and judge as if you are "god" and have that right to judge. It's not becoming of 'anybody"! that includes you. Please show me where you saw that Pops cheated on his wife.



Since you are in contact w/Mr. Rhodes ask him about that comment. I am interested and if you don't...I will. Just because she said it does not mean it's true.....After all if we can't trust one adultious person why should we trust either one of them to say the truth?

mary

Pops was referring to when he got his girl friend pregnant. Then left her. This happened before Pops got married.

He used that example of how he got paternal rights and the XGF's new husband wanted to cut off Pops from the XGF and Pops child. The courts supported Pops right to continue shared custody.

Pops tried to use his case as the basis for supporting Rhodes.

I then went point by point showing how I thought Pops was wrong. That his comparisons where faulted.

Now that you know I was not talking about Pops or his wife's affair would you please go to Pops 06/02/08 05:09 PM post and my post 06/03/08 05:51 PM.

Mary, please take the time to compare my post to pops line for line point for point. Do not cherry pick.

Then show me how my logic was wrong. How Pops was right.

As usual when I make a bunch of factual points the Rhodes camp never contests them. I think it is because they can't. Can you. I anxiously await your response to our debate. Thank you.

Road, I was talking to Mr. W where he said that Pops cheated first.

I will re-read the post you were talking about but can not do so right now. It will be later on this eveing.

My last post above was directed to Mr. W. As it was the quotes I quoted of Mr. W.

Quote from Pops on 6/1/2008 at 8:12 pm.

MEDC

It's easy to bash, and say things as pop is more convincing without backing up your statements.

I extend the same request that asked of mary. Show how pops words support that what he went through and Rhodes did are the same. For this is how pops supports Rhodes.

If paternity laws on presumption were to change in favor of Rhodes then the courts would give Rhodes some level of custody based on what is done now. Based on what is the best interests of the child and the mother and DNA dads ability to best provide for the child.

Actually, if the paternity presumption laws were to change and Bio-dads could sue to establish paternity to a married couples child and succeed then the courts would then have to do a best interests of the child analysis and, I contend, based upon such analysis they should give the OM very, very, very little to no visitation in nearly every situation. Visitation is not a guaranteed right as Pop's former SIL can attest to.

I think the opposing viewpoint to the paternity presumption has merit, but in practice, I feel the paternity presumption merely shields a recovering marriage from having to deal with the OM at all, if they choose, and permits them to avoid completely a "best interests of the child analysis" that the OM should lose anyway. The presumption merely handles this nicely, preemptively.

I also don't like the idea of my/our tax dollars paying for the courts to open their doors to persons like Mr. Rhodes and grant him recourse. As Justice Scalia said in Michael H. v Gerard: "The courts do not have a history of assisting interlopers [paraphrased]". These matters should be handled extrajudicially by adults and I prefer the BH to have the upperhand, legally, in such negotiations which may be with a marital terrorist such as Mr. Rhodes.

Absent the presumption imagine how disgusting a "best interests" fight with Mr. Rhodes would have been for Mr. Ricketts. Imagine the humiliation and absurdness of Mr. Ricketts having to argue in depositions, interrogatories and court that he, the innocent betrayed husband, is the more fit parent. Remember, he believed the child was his for quite some time. Further, it's very difficult to prove a negative and Mr. Rhodes would have come in armed with all of Julia's revisionist wayward history. Some of it documented in letters and emails. There is a taste of it on Mr. Rhodes website. He still believes the fog-crap Julia told him about her husband.

Now...at least in Ky and some other wise states, BH's don't have to deal with that. THEY, with their FWW's can decide what's in the OC's best interest, which, I submit, if the OM is such a great guy...THEY, without court intervention, should come around and do right by the child and permit some visitation. I certainly trust the betrayed husbands in these situations to consider the OC before the OM's or even the WW's. I think we ALL can agree (and, perhaps, because I'm a lawyer I understand this better) that the court is not necessarily always the best arbitrator of what actually is in the child's best interest anyway.

Let parents parent, not courts.

Mr. W