let me clarify some things, yes it was an acknowledgement of paternity form--we live in PA so i don't know what the law is regarding this. i also have a form from the paternity diagnostic center stating the appt. was confirmed by her and then she didn't show up. i have no intentions on EVER allowing the OWC near my family. my children don't know and i have made it very clear to my dh that as long as we are together the C is not allowed anywhere near us. if he must see her then it would have to be at a the c daycare. as for paying child support -- he was giving her cash so there's no record of him taking care of this child up to this point. my h said that he has doubt the C is his now (he once told me he was 99% sure because the child looked like my daughter)and he told her that the only way they will engage in conversation at this point was for her to have the test done. her response was she will give him one week to come see the child--if he doesn't she will then take him to court because she has an acknowlegement form. my dh said he's not going to see the C and he's not concerned with the form because he was under deress--he had a wife and kids to protect. he also thinks she is not going to get the test taken and she's not going to take him to court. he said he is just going to wait for her next move. as far as he's concerned until the test is done the c is not his. i just don't understand if a women is sure that the C is his why won't she have the test.

Hi Lemonpie,<P>Im in PA also. The op in our case declined the test too.<BR>She wanted the money, said SHE knew my H was the father.<BR>There was no need for the test because she had her H<BR>tested and it was neg., so she said! <BR>Guess my H was supposed to take her word for it.<BR>He said no money without test. I actually hand delivered<BR>papers to her...it never went further than that.<P>Yes, to me that sends up a big red flag.<BR>Unfortunately I think in my case the op doesnt want<BR>truth to come out because she is still married.<BR>She wanted to blackmail my H into giving her<BR>money each week...no shared custody...just cash please.<BR>When he said no, test first...and then I told her we<BR>would fight for joint custody...she stopped bothering<BR>us. Too bad she lives a few miles down the road.<P>I hope all works out for you and your H.<BR>It's a tough road. I agree that your H shouldnt do<BR>anything more until she goes about it all LEGALLY!<BR>Take care, fluke

fluke, thanks for responding. the funny thing is--she doesn't ask him for money--she wants him to visit the C. so she says. she actually cried on the phone asking him why is he doing this to the C. i could have screamed B.... you didn't care about what he was doing to my children. I didn't i just listened. she said she is giving him one week to come see the child (which in turns means he will see her) and if he doesn't go she will take him to court. he said he wasn't going until test is taken. all i can do is wait and see.

hi lemonpie,<P>sounds like classic using the child to get to the Husband!<P>If she wants the child to have a full-time daddy then<BR>she needs to find a suitable, unattached, caring man.<BR>They are out there!<P>I believe it's called extortion/blackmail if she is threatening<BR>H with court! She is the one that needs a dose of reality.<P>I understand what you mean about your kids! I feel the <BR>same way!!<P><p>[This message has been edited by fluke (edited September 11, 2001).]

<BR>lemonpie,<P>Your husband's signature on that form works against him, but if you didn't learn of the affair/OC until after he'd signed he could make a plausible argument that he was blackmailed into signing. I still say stop the "child support" until it goes to court. You don't have a downside in this.<P>Btw, any money he's given her to this point will not count towards a retroactive "child support" order. All money to this point is regarded as a gift. All the more reason to tell her no more money until the DNA test is in.<P>Bystander

[B]<BR>lemonpie,<P> I also live in pa and the laws that i am aware of state on an acknowledgment of paternity(I have one from my first child because her father and i weren't married) that a father ONLY has 60 days to retract his acknowlegment and after 60 days he will be consisdered the father till the end of time. She can take him to court for support and will NOT have to take a test since he signed those papers. PA views it that he has been acting as father for all that time and he will continue to do so.. i know this was NOT what you wanted to hear but i suggest getting a lawyer maybe he can find a loophole. PA is one of the states that will do a paternity test if they are not married ONLY if an acknowlegment of paternity was never signed.

<BR>Hi whatif,<P>Generally, what you say about acknowledgments is true, and further, PA is notorious for forcing victims of mispaternity to continue paying "child support." But OTOH, the acknowledgments usually have a duress clause in them. lemonpie's H could argue that he was blackmailed into signing the document, which invalidates the document itself.<P>Bystander

Lemonpie,<P>First of all thanks for responding to my can't cope with husband love child. My husband did a paternity test and as sure as hell the child is his. It is difficult to deal with. I want to say that he should not see the child, but I don't want to push him away from the marriage. But unlike you we don't have any kids of our own yet. Suggest to him that he should not support of take full responsibilities for the child until he does a paternity test. Because at the beginning my husband said that he was sure that the baby was his. But I said that whether or not he was sure he was still going to do a paternity test. Write back.<P>Lakelle

First, whats OTOH mean. Are you telling me that even though you sign this form you are not entitled to take a paternity test? this seems so unfair because if a man slept with a woman he doesn't really know how many people she has slept with so there is always a POSIBILITY. i would think that most men would take the women's word. i really need clarification, if the OW takes him to court, she will not be required to take a paternity test and even if she does and he is not the father he would still have to pay? what if i have a letter from the Diagnostic Center stating she agreed to take test, confirmed appointment an didn't show up. wouldn't all this count for something. PLEASE RESPOND. Thanks

[ <BR> At this point you have to talk to a lawyer. I have never heard of a case where a father got out of paying cs after the 60 days following the signing of the papers. there is a section on the acknowlegment staing he knew his rights to testing and that he wasn't signing under any diress. Asfar as the women not showing up for the test she willmost likely say he, your hubby, threatened her or some crap and that is why she said she would go but also why she didn't. Like i said talk to a lawyer but PA enforces acknowlegnebt of paternity and if she files for support that acnolegment is considered a legal and binding agreement i all cases I have ever heard of. How long ago did your hubby sign. In this state also if a man "acts" like a father meaning has told people he is the father, given money for the child or bonded with child that can sometimes be enough to force him to pay support also.

Wow! PA law sounds horribly unfair. The worst I have heard of. Colorado law is much more lax.<P>MJ

<BR>OTOH means "on the other hand."<P>I agree you need to see a lawyer. Even though the form says that he was not signing under duress, he can make a plausible argument that the OW was threatening to reveal the affair to his wife. So its possible that the acknowledgement could be voided for duress anyhow. Its true that PA is unfair overall.<P>And you're right, its possible that the woman was sleeping with more than one man. That's true in any state, and its also why men should NEVER sign an acknowledgement of paternity. Frankly, the whole practice of asking men in hospitals to sign right after a baby is born should be totally outlawed. Its capitalizing on their emotions, when the real purpose is to nail them to the income shares cross without giving them a shred of enforceable rights. <P>Bystander