If you do everything, everyone here suggests, you might lose her forever. It's a huge decision. If you love her, go after her, and either give the OC up for adoption, or raise the C as your own. You now have choices. <P>Good luck, ember

<BR>ember,<P>You are right that by formally denying paternity milton could alienate his wife. But doing so is still the optimal course of action. Lets face the facts here. First, milton's wife deeply betrayed him and he may need more than the two years the infamous "assumed paternity" laws provide to decide whether she can ever be trusted. Second, if his marriage ends, and the probability is pretty high that it will, he will pay so much in "child support" that it will substantially cripple his ability to biologically father his own children in a second marriage.<P>Finally, I want to speak to the "raise OC as his own" line. By and large, fathers don't have rights in the current family court environment. I recently read that the ratio of dollars spent on "child support" enforcement to visitation enforcement was 340:1. That speaks volumes, in my eyes, about how our society really views fathers. So if the marriage ends, he won't even have enforceable rights to raise the OC "as his own." All he'll have is an extortionary "child support" order and 18 years of indentured servitude.<P>His wife acted unilaterally in getting pregnant. Its quite understandable that milton should act unilaterally to protect himself from economic hardship because of *her* actions. If she's unable to look past that, then IMO she doesn't value the marriage enough herself.<P>Bystander

Bystander, I agree. The laws should change. MAD {mother's against drunk driver's], changed the law. Why can't we? I agree that fathers are screwed. A ratio of 340:1 is extremely poor.<P>Too bad BW's do not have this option. They either leave, and lose one-half, or they stay and have money from the family taken away for 18 years. Where is the justice?<P>Why can't a BW be protected unilaterally?<P>ember