Hi everyone!! Hope everyone is doing good today!<P>Like I said in my earlier post the OW notified the state that she no longer wants to pursue this matter. Does anyone know if she can come back on us at a later date? She's obviously very wishy-washy. What if she changes her mind again if the child starts asking questions when she's older? I wondering if maybe there is something that we should do to protect ourselves.<P>Well if anyone knows or knows where I could find out, I'd really appreciate your reply.<P>Hope everyone is smiling today.

Bystander? Your opinion is sorely needed...<P>Catnip =^^=

1) Has legal paternity (DNA test, acknowledgement and declaration of paternity, or signing the birth certificate) been established? If yes, she can pursue legal action at any time until the child is the age of majority in the state of jurisdiction.<P>2) If legal paternity has not been established, but your husband's name is on the birth certificate without his signature, he has 2 years(the general rule of thumb for most states) from the date he was first made aware of the child's existence and his possible paternity, to contest it. After 2 years, he is legally considered the father, regardless of biology, and she can pursue legal action.<P>3) If your husband has not been acknowledged as the father on any formal documents (birth certificate, declaration of paternity, acknowledgement of paternity, etc.) the OW would have to file a paternity suit to establish him as the legal father BEFORE she can collect any child support, and even then, she can only collect from the date she filed. The exception to this rule: if she's on any kind of state aid (welfare or medical benefits) for the child, your husband would be on the hook for the monies the state has put out to support the child.<P>4) IF, for whatever reason, the OW put down a different man's name on the birth certificate AND that man has legally recognized his responsibility as the father (signing the birth certificate, declaration of paternity, acknowledgement of paternity, etc.) AND 2 years have elapsed (meeting criteria for "reasonable amount of time"), then your husband is in the clear. The other man is considered the legal father regardless of biology and a judge will not reverse that. It's not considered to be in the best interest of the child to allow "father hopping". If the other man accepted the role, then he gets to keep it. This scenario is a long shot, but I've seen it happen.<P>At this point, it's a waiting game. You can't really do much except counter her actions. If she does nothing, then you're okay. Your only real "out" would be if they, your H and the OW, agreed to your H giving up his parental rights AND it was approved by a judge. In that case your H would have no legal obligation to the child. I stress "approved by a judge" because in some cases the judge will find that the mother cannot adequately support the child on her own and there is no other man to assume the vacant role of "dad" and assist with the financial welfare of the child. The judge is "protecting" the state's interest by making sure there is sufficient financial support so as to prevent the mother from seeking state aid at a later date. If the mother is already receiving aid at the time the petition is made, the judge won't approve it.<P>Hope this information helps.<BR>

<BR>OB1 wrote:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>2) If legal paternity has not been established, but your husband's name is on the birth certificate without his signature, he has 2 years(the general rule of thumb for most states) from the date he was first made aware of the child's existence and his possible paternity, to contest it. After 2 years, he is legally considered the father, regardless of biology, and she can pursue legal action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think you're wrong, and I would like to see the exact law supporting your statement (and unlike some previous quotations of yours, OB1, please cite the ENTIRE statute plus URLs to avoid false conclusions, OK?). <P>Logically, I can't imagine you're correct, because in cases of unwed births, the burden of establishing paternity always rests with the state. In California, for example, the state asks women to name the father and then turns around and asks the father to sign a voluntary declaration of paternity. What you are saying is that his decision to sign a voluntary declaration of paternity is immaterial, because once named on the birth certificate he will automatically be the father two years later unless he contests it! I have never seen a presumption of paternity assigned to an unmarried man, and I am keenly interested in your citations.<P>Bystander

Bystander, I totally agree with you. My H name was on birth cert for 4 1/2 years and it did not establish paterinity. The dna test did which in this case he was not the father. flowerseed

You may both very well be right. I'm only going by what I've learned first hand, which doesn't make it the only possibility. What I know is that, in the state of California, the father's name can no longer be included on the birth certificate without his consent unless the two are married or after paternity has been established and the court orders an amendment, in which case the old document is sealed. <P>Example: Mom fills out birth certificate and lists dad's name, but they're not legally married. The registrar asks if they are married and mom says yes. Mom lied, but registrar doesn't know that and proceeds to file birth certificate with the state, making it a legal document. Dad can turn her in for falsifying a legal document, but it is a separate issue from the child support and custody case. Anyway, three years go by and then Mom and dad go before the judge for CS/custody and dad tells of falsified document. Judge asks if dad pursued remedy and contested paternity within the "reasonable amount of time". Dad says no. Judge says "you're the dad". You see, the falsified document is a legal issue that needs to be followed up on (within the 2 years of finding out) in order to absolve the father of legal responsibility. If dad just lets it ride, it is presumed that the named father knew of the child and accepted legal responsibility.<P>Just one scenario depicting what people are capable of doing. It's sneaky and underhanded, but it happens.

<BR>OB1,<P>You are referencing undocumented anecdote to support your position. It makes for good scare stories, but lets ground the discussion in what really happens today. Unmarried men do not bear a presumption of paternity.<P>Bystander

Above example is actual case:<BR>Hutchinson vs. Skelton<BR>California 2000

Thanks for your replies!!<P>My H's name is not on birth certificate and paternity has not been established. She went through the court system up to the point where the tests were to be ordered and then she sent a letter to state claiming she no longer wanted to pursue the matter. I guess she doesn't want to take the test. Does that automatically close the case? But I was under the impression that the state was representing the child and not the mother, so can the state still order a blood test even though the mother wants nothing from us? Or will she be cut off from state aid? And even if she doesn't pursue it at this time, can she come back to us years from now and try to determine paternity and sue us again? Would we be responsible for back child support from the time she originally filed suit if my H is determined the father? <P>Well thanks for any help you can give me! <P>Eraser<P>

She's receiving state aid. Owww. She doesn't have to cooperate and submit for testing unless your H files a paternity suit against her. However, the DA's office is representing the interest of the state and the child. If she doesn't cooperate, they can and will cut off any benefits she is receiving. That's their way of "cajoling" the custodial parent into doing what they ask, and it oftentimes works. If she refuses to cooperate and your husband denies paternity, the DA has no case. Because paternity has not been established, she can file a suit at a later date, up until the child's age of majority. If your H is found to be the father, then he would only be responsible for CS from the date she filed HER suit. The case you have pending right now is the state vs. your husband.

ohbratti,<P>So if she does at a later date decide to pursue, she will have to get a private attorney? I doubt if the state would represent her again, but I'm not sure. Like you said the DA has no case unless she cooperates and she has written a letter saying she wants nothing from us so is the case officially closed or is there some kind of time limit that she has to change her mind? UGGHHH! I wish this was over

<BR>OB1,<P>Do you have any URLs with that citation?<P>If I take the outcome of the case you (incompletely) cite as a given, my first guess is that: (a) this couple was living together and the judge knew it, (b) the father didn't contest the name on the birth certificate because he didn't want to have his then-girlfriend indicted for a felony, (c) he knew he really was the father of the child and figured that if it ever came to legally establishing paternity, the DNA match would pin him anyhow, and finally (d) he had a relationship with the child in question and acted as a father to the child.<P>There is an enourmous potential for abuse in assigning a presumption of paternity to unwed men. This is why such presumptions don't exist, obviously, and its also why I want to see this case in much more detail.<P>In short, even if your citation is correct (and I reserve judgment for now), I *strongly* suspect Eraser12's H is not in similar circumstances.<P>The rule of thumb runs like this: If you're married, the H is the father of the child, regardless of DNA, unless the paternity is litigated. If you are unmarried, a man is NOT the father of a child unless paternity is litigated. And paternity is only established through marriage, DNA, or voluntary acknowledgement anymore. All the discussion about "names on birth certificates" just muddles things.<P>Bystander

Eraser,Ohbratti1 and Bystander,<P>Everyone who has answered has been right to a certain degree.<P>Bystander is right on target, there are three basic ways through which paternity is established: conclusive legal presumption (e.g. couple was married at the time); admission or acknowledgement (father comes forward voluntary); or adjudication of paternity in a judicial proceeding (go to court).<P>The objective of the court is to establish legal presumption of paternity. The father's name on the birth certificate is EVIDENCE of paternity but is not considered a conclusive determination.<P>Now, where Ohbratti's two-year statute of limitation comes in ... A number of states, in an attempt to limit the rights of children born out of wedlock enacted statutes of limitation on paternity. Some were two years, some four years, Texas was even ONE year.<P>However, once the Child Support Enforcement Amendment was established, this permitted estblishment of paternity for all children until age 18. The Supreme Court struck down several statutes of limitations in various states.<P>The bottom line here is that until 18 years of age the child, or his or her representative, can claim paternity. And even this is flexible, since some states allow this until age 20.<P>Eraser, the statutes on family law are very diverse from state to state. At Marriagebuilders you can get some good advice based on experience and research from other members. But, our advice should never replace seeking appropriate legal counsel. We are here to give you the general framework and to give you an idea of what you are looking for when you seek legal advice. Legal consultations are generally free or at minimal cost and you will then be provided with the most up-to-date information on the statutes of your state.<P>I hope that things work out for you and that the OW goes off to live her life and leave you and your H alone. For now, I hope you will enjoy the release of the pressure.<P>And, Ohbratti1, I hope that Jonas is doing well and giving you a great deal of joy.<P>- Heavenly<P><BR>[This message has been edited by heavenlybody26 (edited January 10, 2001).]<p>[This message has been edited by heavenlybody26 (edited January 23, 2001).]