Some of the posts on Marriage Builders involve situations where a child is born as the result of an affair. There are obviously times when the father does not want to be involved in the child's life, but other times the father does want to be involved.<P>I have not read what the Harleys recommend for mothers to do in this case. All of the examples in their books involve affairs that have not resulted in a child. Or, have I missed an example? Should the mother cut out the father? The reason I ask is that the law in many states is that the parent who would provide the other parent with the most unrestricted access to the baby and foster a loving bond would have a higher probability of having custody. To deny visitation would be to risk losing custody of the baby.<P>Any thoughts?

Mirriam,<P>I'm raising an OM's baby, so I have a "biased" opinion on this, but I'll state it for the record.<P>When a child is born to married parents, the state assumes that the child is a product of the marriage. So legally, the only way the OM can challenge that is to go through the court system to fight this. Blood tests, dna, etc. So unless the OM does this, there is no "parentage".<P>Now, the legal system comes in if the OM does challenge. Lots of questions here: did the mother know definitively that the baby was the OM's? (In our case, yes). Did the OM know about it, or was he lied to (in our case, he knew). There are cases where the mother knew (hard to establish), and the OM was either lied to or purposely excluded. This could be construed as "denying" visitation, but courts interpret these issues in varying ways.<P>In our case, as I mentioned, the OM knew. I knew. My wife knew. The affair broke up in part due to the pregnancy. Harley's advice for this is like much of the advice he gives: the married couple should handle this situation using the Rule of Complete Honesty and the Policy of Joint Agreement. If that includes sharing visitation with the OM, so be it---although Harley would state that the OM and the wife should not have contact, that the husband be the contact person. If the couple agree to either lie to the OM or fight the OM in court; great---as long as there is an enthusiastic agreement.<P>Mirriam, in my case the real question centers around what's best for the child. In our case, I love this baby boy as much (if not a touch more) than my other two "biological" children. I'm thrilled to have the opportunity to raise him. So he's being raised in a loving two-parent home. There are times where I feel for the OM---knowing that he's not involved in seeing this child. I've never had any contact with him (after I discovered their affair)---I'm sure at times this must upset him, but I don't know how much. But if he were involved in the child's life, I can't truly see how the child would benefit. There would be the confusion of having two families (like divorce, but not). There would be the trauma to our children, who don't know about the affair, as well as his children, who presumably don't know about the affair either. Overall, our decision was made in the interests of the child. It's really hard to imagine a "win-win-win" resolution to this situation for the three parties (us, them, and the child) involved. It's a tough situation---just another illustration on how affairs aren't a good choice for resolving problems.<P>So, in summary: the OM must legally establish himself as a biological parent, and then Harley would say "use the POJA" to come up with an agreed upon decision.

K,<P>Thanks for your response. Very detailed and thought out.<P>In the case I am familiar with, the married woman and the OM had DNA work completed to establish paternity. Also, this woman acknowledged the OM's paternity during the pregnancy and after the birth. There is no dispute that the father is the OM.<P>The OM does wish to maintain a relationship with the child, without contact with the mother. Now, about the POJA, has Dr. Harley actually discussed it in the context of child custody and visitation? It sounds like a logical approach, but where can I find Dr. Harley's coverage of this specific topic?<P>Thank you!

Mirriam,<P>The best that you're going to get is on these two consecutive letters on the Q$A section:<P> <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5063a_qa.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5063a_qa.html</A> <P>and <P>[urlhttp://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5063b_qa.html[/url]<P>The second one is where this issue is discussed. It's not a legal definition, but rather a "what's the best for the marriage" slant.<P>It sounds like this case isn't very straightforward. It's unclear why you would want to test the OM (establish he's the father), unless you were interested in child support. And if you are going after child support, than the presumption is that the biological father should be involved with the child, if that's what he wants.<P>You could discuss this "in person" with Dr. Harley on his radio show. The show airs from 2-3 pm Central time, and the number to call is 888-332-5169. Give it a try, if you're interested---he may have more to say about how to handle the custody situation.

K,<P>Thank you for the reference to the Q&A. It was good information.<P>I have a hypothetical question for you. Assuming that there is no question about the OM's paternity, that he will not give up his parental rights, and that he was permitted visits every week for a few months until recently, there doesn't appear to be a legal way to cut him out. Even if there were a legal way, it wouldn't be moral because the OM loves the baby and wants to be a part of the baby's life, including financial support.<P>Here's the hypothetical question: The marriage is first and foremost from all that I have read on Marriage Builders, so would it be better if push came to shove to give the baby to the father if it would save the marriage? A legal battle seems to be an uphill battle, and especially during the reconcilement, the stress of a court battle could be overwhelming. <P>I do plan to call Dr. Harley on his radio program. Thank you for your advice.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>it wouldn't be moral because the OM loves the baby and wants to be a part of the baby's life, including financial support.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Moral??? Hmmmm, if there were morals involved here, there wouldn't be a baby. <P>I really can't say what would be "best", because I'm not involved. It's the old use of the rule of complete honesty and the POJA.<P>I wouldn't give up a child because the OM wanted it. But that's me. I would deal with visitations, made through me, before I'd even consider "giving" the baby away. And although a protracted court battle might be difficult and stressful; it could serve two purposes. It might bring the reconciling couple together. And if the battle between the OM and the mother is particularly mean-spirited, it's a great way for ending an affair and completely depleting that lovebank.<P>But it's really up to this couple to "learn" the MB skills and apply them to the situation.

K,<P>Thanks for your thoughts on this.<P>I spoke with Dr. Harley today. He indicated that the marriage was more important than custody of the child. He thought that the initial attempt in court to take away the father's rights was worth a try, but that if custody was lost to the father, rebuilding the marriage was more important. Adopting out the baby was another good option.<P>The mother about whom I speak would never give up the child, so losing custody would be devastating to her and adopting the child out would be out of the question. To her, the kids are her highest priority in life. That is an admirable trait in many ways, but it doesn't conform to the Marriage Builder concept (i.e., the marriage is the priority). Looks like she has a rough road ahead of her. She has my prayers.<P>K, you have been great with your prompt responses. You have been a lot of help.<P>Thank you.

Mirriam,<P>I'm glad that I could help. I'm interested; what is the position of the husband in this? Was he separated from his wife when this child was born? How does he feel about raising the child? Could he deal with being the conduit between the OM and the child?<P>It's interesting how you phrased Dr. Harley putting the marriage "before" the child. The MarriageBuilder concepts state that your spouse should come first, and that children are next in the priority list (in other words, don't neglect your duties as a spouse for the duties of a parent). But this case sounds different.<P>I called Dr. Harley for his suggestion on when to tell the child about his "biological" origins (and when to tell our other children). What interested me was his opinion that raising the child would always be a "reminder" of the affair (a thorn). I disagreed with him on the "negative" impact of this---to be fair, he was only dealing with me for a few minutes with no background. My counselor and I had been over this issue, and he agreed that this issue wouldn't be a problem for me. And that counselor was Dr. Harley's son Steve Harley. But Steve had the benefit of many (many) hours of counseling me, and he had seen me through the whole process, so he had a better feel for how I would react and deal with it.<P>So although I'm a huge Harley supporter, I sometimes have to choose my Harley carefully... <P>It all comes down to using the POJA and the husband and wife coming up with something they agree on. The trouble is that the estrangement in the marriage makes this fairly radical policy pretty hard to do---there's not much trust between the husband and wife, and these are huge decision to be dealing with.<P>Well, I wish them luck. But you can tell the husband that it is possible to find great joy in children, even though they may not be biologically be yours. I never look at my son as someone else's.

K,<P>This is an interesting situation.<P>The mother carried on the relationship with the father during the entire pregnancy, and didn't drop him until weeks after the baby was born. Some friends with psychology backgrounds have opined that the mother is going through an "Ozzie and Harriet" phase common to mothers when a baby is born. That is, the mother has a keen desire to have a nuclear, traditional family. Usually the phase lasts up to a year or so.<P>The husband is apparently going along with the idea of raising the child. How enthusiastically, I'm not sure. <P>Obviously, the court costs are going to take a healthy bite out of the family's limited income, which will be a shame if the result is what is expected (the father gets standard visitation, at a minimum). Also, many in town are aware of the paternity of the child, so it isn't something that can be kept undisclosed. The husband refuses to move out of the area, so that is out. Finally, the child favors the father in facial features, so that will probably be an unwelcome ongoing reminder of the affair.<P>Lots of obstacles. Rebuilding a marriage will not be easy under the circumstances when the focus will be on the baby rather than on each other. <P>I have the benefit of knowing the OM too. He is actually an ok guy, who lost his family because of the affair. The general concensus around here is that the mother is being selfish and unreasonable by keeping the father away from his child. Until the dust settles, no one wants to take sides for fear of polarizing the individuals involved.<P>I am sure it will work out in the end with lots of prayer and the caring of friends.<P>Thanks again, K.