Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you weren't married, you must establish paternity (maternity being established at birth, usually) and get a separate court case dealt with, and it does not apply if the person isn't the kid's biological parent.

As I recall, California has paternity laws I find particularly pernicious. You're deemed to be the father if you are named as such on the birth certificate, and are therefore responsible for support. The nasty part is that proving you are not the parent- which otherwise costs very little- does not automatically cease your legal responsibility for support. Instead, you must prove this in a court case, during which time you are still responsible for support of the child. This takes time and money...during which time you're still paying support, of course.

The nastiest part, though, is that the unearned back payments are not automatically refunded, either. Not only do you have to remember to ask for those in your pleadings or a motion, the court is not obligated to award you those mistaken payments.

The overall justification is, of course, "best interests of the child", which, while laudable and the standard in all states, has been taken a bit too far in that state. Last I heard, there are cases pending challenging this law. Surprise, surprise.

 

[Ryujin]

As I recall, California has paternity laws I find particularly pernicious. You're deemed to be the father if you are named as such on the birth certificate, and are therefore responsible for support. The nasty part is that proving you are not the parent- which otherwise costs very little- does not automatically cease your legal responsibility for support. Instead, you must prove this in a court case, during which time you are still responsible for support of the child. This takes time and money...during which time you're still paying support, of course.

The nastiest part, though, is that the unearned back payments are not automatically refunded, either. Not only do you have to remember to ask for those in your pleadings or a motion, the court is not obligated to award you those mistaken payments.

The overall justification is, of course, "best interests of the child", which, while laudable and the standard in all states, has been taken a bit too far in that state. Last I heard, there are cases pending challenging this law. Surprise, surprise.

I seem to recall that there ar ea few States with this sort of law. So your wife cheats on you and a child is the result. You find out she cheated and divorce her for it. You're still on the hook for child support because you're *presumed* to be the father.

 

[tomBitonti]

To be honest, I don't see it as much of an issue if the LDS doesn't want to baptize the kids of gay parents. It's a church. They have their beliefs, regardless of backward and wrong as I consider those beliefs to be. We shouldn't be pushing people or groups to believe certain things. We should be pushing and groups of people to not harm others. What the judge did in the previous article? That's harmful to kids. What the Mormons are doing? Not a big deal. If a kid really wants to become a Mormon, he/she can. He just has to turn 18 and turn against his/her parents. That's not likely to happen. More than likely, the LDS church is just alienating these kids and their families. That means there'll be less people that'll join the LDS church. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. A very good thing.

A difficulty that I have is the notion that conflict can and must be avoided. That seems to frame the issue in an unhelpful manner. Families have to deal with all sorts of issues -- learning difficulties, death or debility of a family member, alzheimers and other forms of dementia, mental illness in general, issues relating to poverty, substance and other abuse, legal issues -- which cannot in general be removed from a child's life. A standard based on an avoidance of conflict seems unrealistic.

(I imagine a response that preventable conflict can and should be avoided. But, also, that putting homosexuality as a conflict item next to the above is not reasonable.)

A possible more core standard might be the following, which is taken from the discussion that I linked, above:

In order for a child to be baptized there simply needs to be a well founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith

But, that answer is challenged later in the same discussion:

With some elisions:

they have rejected Catholic teaching on marriage and family, so it is legitimate to ask why they want to raise the child in a faith they reject, or at least do not understand, and which they themselves do not follow.

That's not a very Catholic viewpoint of the situation. Just because someone struggles in one area of morality/life/faith does not mean they struggle in all areas. Just because they aren't living the right way in one area does not mean they reject everything about the faith/Church. Sin is a part of everyone's life. We need to be careful not become "total depravity" Protestants.

Sinners raise children in the Catholic faith all the time.

Delay of baptism is always a last resort.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Umbran]

As I recall, California has paternity laws I find particularly pernicious. You're deemed to be the father if you are named as such on the birth certificate, and are therefore responsible for support. The nasty part is that proving you are not the parent- which otherwise costs very little- does not automatically cease your legal responsibility for support. Instead, you must prove this in a court case, during which time you are still responsible for support of the child. This takes time and money...during which time you're still paying support, of course.

There has to be some step in which the fact that he's not the father must enter into the legal record, and payment for support cannot cease before that point, right?

If he is divorcing her because she cheated, he's going to have proof in hand at that time, isn't he? Can't his support be severed as part of the divorce settlement? I mean, if he has the paternity test in hand, he should be able to say, "As part of this divorce, we agree that I pay no support, and if you don't agree to it, I'm going to sue you, and then you'll have to pay the legal costs if you lose that suit, which you will, because I have the evidence right here..."

 

[Deset Gled]

I seem to recall that there ar ea few States with this sort of law. So your wife cheats on you and a child is the result. You find out she cheated and divorce her for it. You're still on the hook for child support because you're *presumed* to be the father.

To be fair, a lot of these laws made sense before DNA testing was readily available. Otherwise, if a man found proof that his wife cheated on him at any point in the marriage, he could try to claim that the kids weren't his to try and walk away. These laws exist to counteract that, and assure that if a man was acting as a father, he was obligated to remain in that role financially.

 

[Umbran]

To be fair, a lot of these laws made sense before DNA testing was readily available. Otherwise, if a man found proof that his wife cheated on him at any point in the marriage, he could try to claim that the kids weren't his to try and walk away. These laws exist to counteract that, and assure that if a man was acting as a father, he was obligated to remain in that role financially.

Yeah. It would hardly be the first time that law hasn't kept up with technology.

 

[Ryujin]

There has to be some step in which the fact that he's not the father must enter into the legal record, and payment for support cannot cease before that point, right?

If he is divorcing her because she cheated, he's going to have proof in hand at that time, isn't he? Can't his support be severed as part of the divorce settlement? I mean, if he has the paternity test in hand, he should be able to say, "As part of this divorce, we agree that I pay no support, and if you don't agree to it, I'm going to sue you, and then you'll have to pay the legal costs if you lose that suit, which you will, because I have the evidence right here..."

Sequence of events:

- Wife cheats
- Wife has child fathered by the other man
- Couple divorces
- Wife files for public assistance
- State agency sees that there was a husband
- State government garnishes ex-husband's wages, based on presumed paternity
- Ex-husband must now prove that he is not the father. Process begins. Payments are still made and are not refundable.

 

[Umbran]

Sequence of events:

- Wife cheats
- Wife has child fathered by the other man
- Couple divorces
- Wife files for public assistance
- State agency sees that there was a husband
- State government garnishes ex-husband's wages, based on presumed paternity
- Ex-husband must now prove that he is not the father. Process begins. Payments are still made and are not refundable.

In what jurisdiction do they conduct a divorce *without* discussing child support as part of the separation? Question of paternity is introduced at the divorce, not several steps later.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In what jurisdiction do they conduct a divorce *without* discussing child support as part of the separation? Question of paternity is introduced at the divorce, not several steps later.

It may have been and the divorce proceedings didn't include child welfare at all. Doesn't stop the social services office from doing so themselves at a later date. They don't have to even pay attention to the divorce proceeding.

 

[Umbran]

It may have been and the divorce proceedings didn't include child welfare at all.

I repeat - in what jurisdiction does this occur? I don't think any jurisdiction is going to allow a divorce to go through without consideration of kids. I don't believe this happens in reality.

There may be an edge case where she does not know she is pregnant at the time of the divorce, but if the kid has been born before the divorce, who gets custody, and who pays what, is going to be part of the proceedings.