He's not the real father--can he still get custody?

#1 05-01-2006, 07:22 PM

I have a friend who was married for about 2 or 3 years. When he met his wife she was already pregnant by somebody else. They decided to get married for the sake of the child. The child was given his last name but the father's name was left blank on the birth certificate. Does he have any rights? Can he get custody of the child even though he is not the real father? Kind of confusing because the child has his last name....

Any advice on this....

kat

Mutt · #2 05-01-2006, 07:51 PM

It depends primarily on the body of law of your state. Some states hold that the non-paternal father, even though not having adopted the child, is the pschological father of the child for child support purposes.

I would suggest that since the child has his name, and was born of the marriage that he would have a shot at custody. However, there is also a body of law in some states that the child is best left with the mother during its formative years. That being the case, there must be cause for custody to be given to the father.

Most states have a shared custody arrangement, with one being designated as the primary custodial parent.

I hope this helps somewhat.

Mutt

weishaupt1776 · #3 05-01-2006, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aznkat

I have a friend who was married for about 2 or 3 years. When he met his wife she was already pregnant by somebody else.

That's cool. That is a much better situation than if it was the opposite, thus indicating a milkman-related incident

Livefire · #4 05-01-2006, 10:38 PM

If she is divorcin' him, you best believe the bastards are gonna attempt to make him pay support whether or not he is the biological father. Might as well try to get a custody arrangement!

weishaupt1776 · #5 05-02-2006, 06:35 AM

Wow. In fact, get some case law holdings of why you would have to pay support if such a situation would happen

#6 05-02-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

It depends primarily on the body of law of your state. Some states hold that the non-paternal father, even though not having adopted the child, is the pschological father of the child for child support purposes.

I would suggest that since the child has his name, and was born of the marriage that he would have a shot at custody. However, there is also a body of law in some states that the child is best left with the mother during its formative years. That being the case, there must be cause for custody to be given to the father.

Most states have a shared custody arrangement, with one being designated as the primary custodial parent.

I hope this helps somewhat.

Mutt

If he could get custody then he would want to go for that but he doesn't know how much of a shot he'll get in Texas. TX like you said, primarily will side the mother more than the father...but if he's not able to get full custody he at least wants half or have visitation rights. She doesn't want him to see the kid and has already filed for no contact order. They're already divorce but nothing on paper about the kid...

#7 05-02-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livefire

If she is divorcin' him, you best believe the bastards are gonna attempt to make him pay support whether or not he is the biological father. Might as well try to get a custody arrangement!

Well the divorce as already been finalized. Nothin on paper about custody or child support...she doesn't want to have anything to do with him. She's filed for a no contact order for her and her child. All he wants is to be able to visit this kid...He thinks he doesn't have a chance of custody because it's not his biological kid...

Livefire · #8 05-02-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aznkat

Well the divorce as already been finalized. Nothin on paper about custody or child support...she doesn't want to have anything to do with him. She's filed for a no contact order for her and her child. All he wants is to be able to visit this kid...He thinks he doesn't have a chance of custody because it's not his biological kid...

I think you might want to take a look at this....
http://www.falseallegations.com/estop-2.htm

If a man acts in the role of father towards a child, the court can view this in equity and decide the man has been estopped and can indeed be assessed support for a child not his own.

planetmark · #9 05-02-2006, 11:55 PM

"custody", "support", "visitation"... this is all statutorily defined B.S. And it's all financially driven B.S. There has to be a remedy against this statutory crap. There's lots of research and remedy suggestions regarding statutory driver's license requirments, speeding ticket penalties, etc. But what about "child support"? Take away the money (for the mom, and for the state), and mystical magical alikazam, there is suddenly no motivation to fight over the children! Amazing.

Child support falls under FEDERAL statutes, under So******t Security Act, under sec. 666 of title 42. That whole subchapter IV in title 42 is strictly about $$$ finances for the states. To get bucks from the feds, the states "have to" implement certain "laws". Then the states use the subchapter IV Fed statutes as authority for implementing their own statutes. In other words, it doesn't appear to me that 42 USC subchapter IV is mandating or even giving states authority to implement ANY "laws", but rather, they are saying "if you want our money, you have to do this huge list of things to prove yourself worthy to get it". Then the states say "the feds MADE us do it!"

B.S.

Children or not, married or not, YOU, and EACH OF YOU, are affected by 42 USC 666, or will soon be. Period. And it is statutory B.S. And all the good sheeple think to themselves "I'm not getting divorced, so who cares". And all the good sheeple let the Fed's shove this B.S. down our throats, and let our States shove this B.S. down our throats, and nobody seems to have remedy for this one taboo issue. B.S.

And did I mention that I think the whole subject is B.S.??

I've got my CS agent strapped to a 1.5 million dollar "agreement". Just waiting for them to test me now, and send out that statement this week. If I can figure out how to manage this, I may have found my remedy. I want to sieze all their assets, and shut down the whole state operation for a few months while they try to figure out what happened. And all the dads said "Amen".

scooterdog · #10 05-03-2006, 08:58 AM

I dont' care what state your in, it would be for the "best interest of the child". I would think the man would have a constitutional right to shared custody. If she is trying to deny visitation, well, she may not be seeing this child for very long.

Is he a bad father?? I don't see what she's trying to do here. In my situation, the mother, more here lawyer "hinted" that I might not be the father. That blew up in thier face. Doens't matter, what matters is the best interest of the child. I now have "FULL CUSTODY AND CONTROL", the state doens't even question me, and can't.

A "third party" can have visitation, as long as its in the childs best interest. Maybe I shouldn't say this, but... Sounds to me like "mommy" thinks she owns this child, and I hate to be the one to burst a bubble here, it just doesn't work that way.

If this guy is good to the child, there shouldn't be a problem. Mothers pull this crap all the time, some have good reason too, others simply because there ins't alot of help for men in these situations. Of course, I'm sure now that she wants out, the usuall "he beat me, he touched the child wrong, he's dangerous, ect.." will come out. Custody can and will change hands if a mother denies visitation, its just that simple.