Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Dannyalcatraz]

As it was presented to me, questions of paternity are considered to be an issue to be handled in a separate legal proceeding. Divorce courts often just operate from the legal presumptions present in that state, and don't deal with rebutting those presumptions. (That part is actually is pretty common.)

What is uncommon is that they made it so complicated. In most states, you'd contest the order by providing a DNA test proving you're not the father with the clerk, who would pass it on to the presiding judge, who'd review it and vacate the child-support order and order repayment of the past support. No expensive hearing required.

Instead, their regime requires a hearing, one in which proof of non-paternity is not inherently sufficient to vacate a child support nor to order repayment of past support unjustly awarded...which may require an additional hearing. The reasoning is that their regime means that there is always someone responsible for supporting the child, reducing STATE resources being spent on the same.

Which is all well & good for the kid, but it is a terrible law for men who are unjustly saddled with supporting children not their own. At least the prevailing methods in the USA spread those costs over millions of taxpayers instead of an individual.

 

[Kramodlog]

Is Canada different than what I outlined (which is what Umbran was likely thinking by his reading of your original words)?

Does a married people pair in Canada have more rights than an unmarried people pair?

I do not know about Canada, but in Québec you get all the same rights except that you do not get half of what your partner use to have and a pansion if you go you separate ways.

 

[Kramodlog]

Nope.

Yup.

Because adopting a child is *not* a right. It is a privilege. You are asking the state to turn over custody of a child to you, and that child has rights, too. The state, acting as advocate for the child, is setting some minimum standards for the environment they'll allow the child to enter.

Nice arguments that applies to prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting or mix-race couples from adopting. The state needs to have standards right? And having a kid ain't a right, right? Not discrimination at all. *wink*

 

[Umbran]

Well, I found that courts.ca.gov says, basically, "Questions of paternity are complicated. Consult a lawyer to determine if you can question paternity, and if you can, whether you should." So, I don't doubt that California is hairy on this point.

Mind you, California also says that in divorce, "Along with restoring the parties to single status, the court will issue orders for custody and visitation of the minor children of the marriage, child support, spousal support, and confirm or divide community and separate property assets and debts." So, they don't do divorce without giving some consideration to the disposition of the child.

While they may not directly address paternity as part of the proceedings, I'm going to guess that walking into those proceedings with clear proof of non-paternity may have significant impact - especially if that is the basis for the filing for divorce. As you note, in CA it seems that not being the biological father may not actually get you off the hook, but if it will, the other party may be hard-pressed to negotiate for much child support if everyone knows what's going to happen going forward.

 

[tomBitonti]

From what I've read, one has a very small window of opportunity to contest Paternity in Pennsylvania:

Pennsylvania status: http://www.janarbarnettesq.com/fl-paternity-statutes.htm

(b) Limitation of actions.

(1) An action or proceeding under this chapter to establish the paternity of a child born out of wedlock must be commenced within 18 years of the date of birth of the child.

(g) Rescission.

(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a signed voluntary, witnessed acknowledgment of paternity subject to 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 shall be considered a legal finding of paternity, subject to the right of any signatory to rescind the acknowledgment within the earlier of the following:

(i) sixty days; or

(ii) the date of an administrative or judicial proceeding relating to the child, including, but not limited to, a domestic relations section conference, or a proceeding to establish a support order in which the signatory is a party;

(2) After the expiration of the 60 days, an acknowledgment of paternity may be challenged in court only on the basis of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact, which must be established by the challenger through clear and convincing evidence. An order for support shall not be suspended during the period of challenge except for good cause shown.

Also, regarding the other half of the posting, the judge stayed his order:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-main_lesbian-couple-ap-115pm:homepage/story

Judge Scott N. Johansen, a juvenile court justice in eastern Utah, struck language from his original order requiring that the 9-month-old be removed from the home within a week “in favor of a heterosexual foster adoptive placement.” He has set a hearing for Dec. 4 to determine the best interests of the child.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yup.

Nice arguments that applies to prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting or mix-race couples from adopting. The state needs to have standards right? And having a kid ain't a right, right? Not discrimination at all. *wink*

Those couples can marry, so how, again, does it do what you say it does?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Yes, it's considered, but with input. If the divorcing couple ask for an arrangement that doesn't include child payments, then it's possible that the judge could agree and award it as such. But that doesn't stop (and won't) the state from going after the divorced not-father to repay support if the mother files for welfare programs. My point was (and it was poorly worded) that the divorce could address this very thing, and it wouldn't matter a bit if the mother files for state programs resulting in the state garnishing the not-father's wages.

 

[Janx]

Nope. Because adopting a child is *not* a right. It is a privilege. You are asking the state to turn over custody of a child to you, and that child has rights, too. The state, acting as advocate for the child, is setting some minimum standards for the environment they'll allow the child to enter.

yup. really picky standards. Just finished our $1500 home study so a social worker could review us and our home. Lots of forms for us AND forms from references (friends and family). As well as an inspection of our home.

We went through more qualifications than natural parents go through (none), which is frustratingly sad given how many crap-tacular parents there are...

We actually just got a happy surprise recently, or we'd be going to the next step of writing a brochure to convince a birth mother to pick us over other prospective adoptive families.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just as an aside, I commend anyone willing to go through the process of applying for adoption, knowing you're opening your household for state examination. (For the right reasons, of course.)

 

[Umbran]

Nice arguments that applies to prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting or mix-race couples from adopting.

It has been used as such in the past, yes. However, now that same-sex couples are allowed to marry nationwide, the argument weakens considerably. You see, the state can't set *arbitrary* standards, because those get tossed out in courts on a pretty regular basis.

Same sex couples were often disqualified previously because the statistics showed clearly that kids in married households fared considerably better than single-parent households, so the state could include that in their determinations. And, since same-sex couples weren't legally allowed to marry, they were left having to have only one of them adopt, which looks like a single-parent household, and thus in the statistically problematic pool, by default. This was discriminatory, yes.

Now, thanks to the SCOTUS, there's no bar to the marriage! And there's precedent that the equal-protection clause applies to sexual orientation. Now the state would have to make the specific case that children in same-sex households don't fare well - and the numbers are not there. Quite the opposite, the numbers say that having married parents yields a clear positive benefit for the child, but a same-sex couple (of similar economic status) yields about the same result as a mixed-sex couple.