Open mariages and paternity

[MadImmortalMan]

Hey people change.

That's my point. I don't understand the idea that a person can stop being in love with their child... no matter what blood runs through their veins. The idea that "people change" can affect that is alien to me.

The other possible father might try to take the kid away or something.

And if he did, one would think that the father who raised the kid would fight for him. At least, I would do so, and I don't understand not doing so.

Yep. That's what I mean. If your cousin and other guy both don't know which is the father and don't currently care, that's fine. But if the mom were to die or something then somebody's gonna get that kid.

If your cousin wants to keep him/her, it's a good idea to find out the paternity from the get-go. If the kid is his, he'll get the rights. If the kid is not his, he can choose to stay with the kid. He can't control other guy though. If other guy is the father and decides to leave with the kid, your cousin might not be able to do anything. Or if other guy is the father and decides to leave without the kid, your cousin might not be able to get support if no paternity had been established.

[Legbiter]

"Open marriage" means the guy is gay. Do we want gays to raise children?

Hey now, he could just be a loser.

[Malthus]

Hey people change.

That's my point. I don't understand the idea that a person can stop being in love with their child... no matter what blood runs through their veins. The idea that "people change" can affect that is alien to me.

The other possible father might try to take the kid away or something.

And if he did, one would think that the father who raised the kid would fight for him. At least, I would do so, and I don't understand not doing so.

Yep. That's what I mean. If your cousin and other guy both don't know which is the father and don't currently care, that's fine. But if the mom were to die or something then somebody's gonna get that kid.

If your cousin wants to keep him/her, it's a good idea to find out the paternity from the get-go. If the kid is his, he'll get the rights. If the kid is not his, he can choose to stay with the kid. He can't control other guy though. If other guy is the father and decides to leave with the kid, your cousin might not be able to do anything. Or if other guy is the father and decides to leave without the kid, your cousin might not be able to get support if no paternity had been established.

I see only a downside risk to getting a paternity test if the guy wants to be dad.

As it stands, it may not be easy or even possible for the other guy to get a paternity test done. If the wife dies, what proof has he that he's the dad, other than his say-so that they had sex? Would a court order such a test based on that evidence?

The dad enjoys the status quo that he's married to the mom. Ordering the test creates evidence that may prove otherwise.

[merithyn]

Huh? You are willfully misreading my posts.

No. I misunderstood your point. I'm sorry for that.

My point (I'll put this simply): once the choice is made by a non-bio-parent, that choice is "just as good as" the bond of a bio-parent.

However, bio-parents are different from non-bio-parents, in that the default position is that they are parents. Non-bio-parents have to go through more "effort" to get into the position where that choice is made - either by an act of will as in adoption, or by the passage of time as in loco parentis.
In either case, biological or not, once the determination is made that one is a parent, there is no "going back".

Your position, if I understand it, is that you make that choice (or would make it) instantly, based on what I don't know, to a kid you have never seen and who is not related to you. Moreover, that you would not care if other people have legitimate ties to that child.

That's fine, as long as it doesn't land you in legal trouble, but it is hardly a "surprise" that others don't share your POV.

I see where you're coming from, and it's not quite right, so let me try to clarify.

If Max came home with a child that was his, then the assumption is that the child would be mine to raise as well (unless this was his twisted way to ask for a divorce). Based on that, it wouldn't take long for me to fall in love with it. Probably, a minute and a half. Maybe two minutes, tops. (Though I'd probably take a little longer to get over being angry with Max for the infidelity and lack of communication during the woman's pregnancy.)

The bolded part above is where the confusion stems from. "The passage of time" doesn't give much information, but based on this thread, I'd guess that that length of time would be much longer for many of you than it would be for me. It would require the decision to allow myself to love the child, and then it would be done. That decision would be based on the chance that the child would be taken away more than anything to do with the child itself. Would it be safe to give the child my heart because it's going to be raised as my child? If so, then it's given.

[merithyn]

Yep. That's what I mean. If your cousin and other guy both don't know which is the father and don't currently care, that's fine. But if the mom were to die or something then somebody's gonna get that kid.

If your cousin wants to keep him/her, it's a good idea to find out the paternity from the get-go. If the kid is his, he'll get the rights. If the kid is not his, he can choose to stay with the kid. He can't control other guy though. If other guy is the father and decides to leave with the kid, your cousin might not be able to do anything. Or if other guy is the father and decides to leave without the kid, your cousin might not be able to get support if no paternity had been established.

Right. That's why I asked. I wondered what would happen.

The law-talkers are saying that by being the father for the duration and being married to the mother at the time of the child's birth, he is establishing paternity.

[MadImmortalMan]

I see only a downside risk to getting a paternity test if the guy wants to be dad.

As it stands, it may not be easy or even possible for the other guy to get a paternity test done. If the wife dies, what proof has he that he's the dad, other than his say-so that they had sex? Would a court order such a test based on that evidence?

The dad enjoys the status quo that he's married to the mom. Ordering the test creates evidence that may prove otherwise.

I don't understand that thinking. Getting a paternity test shouldn't automatically bring an assumption that he doesn't want to be a father to the kid.

It's a piece of information. How can there be a benefit to leaving a piece of information not-known?

[MadImmortalMan]

Right. That's why I asked. I wondered what would happen.

The law-talkers are saying that by being the father for the duration and being married to the mother at the time of the child's birth, he is establishing paternity.

In this case, there's another dad in the mix though. Does it still work that way? Maybe it does, I dunno. If both dads live with the kid all that time, can they be legally required to maintain joint custody between them after mom is gone?

[Caliga]

his wife

is she hot

[merithyn]

I don't understand that thinking. Getting a paternity test shouldn't automatically bring an assumption that he doesn't want to be a father to the kid.

It's a piece of information. How can there be a benefit to leaving a piece of information not-known?

A paternity test establishes "true" paternity, in which case it can be used against the husband should the wife die. Without it, the best friend has zero claim, regardless of whether he is the "true" father or not.

[merithyn]

In this case, there's another dad in the mix though. Does it still work that way? Maybe it does, I dunno. If both dads live with the kid all that time, can they be legally required to maintain joint custody between them after mom is gone?

There's another penis in the mix, not necessarily another dad.

[Malthus]

Huh? You are willfully misreading my posts.

No. I misunderstood your point. I'm sorry for that.

My point (I'll put this simply): once the choice is made by a non-bio-parent, that choice is "just as good as" the bond of a bio-parent.

However, bio-parents are different from non-bio-parents, in that the default position is that they are parents. Non-bio-parents have to go through more "effort" to get into the position where that choice is made - either by an act of will as in adoption, or by the passage of time as in loco parentis.
In either case, biological or not, once the determination is made that one is a parent, there is no "going back".

Your position, if I understand it, is that you make that choice (or would make it) instantly, based on what I don't know, to a kid you have never seen and who is not related to you. Moreover, that you would not care if other people have legitimate ties to that child.

That's fine, as long as it doesn't land you in legal trouble, but it is hardly a "surprise" that others don't share your POV.

I see where you're coming from, and it's not quite right, so let me try to clarify.

If Max came home with a child that was his, then the assumption is that the child would be mine to raise as well (unless this was his twisted way to ask for a divorce). Based on that, it wouldn't take long for me to fall in love with it. Probably, a minute and a half. Maybe two minutes, tops. (Though I'd probably take a little longer to get over being angry with Max for the infidelity and lack of communication during the woman's pregnancy.)

The bolded part above is where the confusion stems from. "The passage of time" doesn't give much information, but based on this thread, I'd guess that that length of time would be much longer for many of you than it would be for me. It would require the decision to allow myself to love the child, and then it would be done. That decision would be based on the chance that the child would be taken away more than anything to do with the child itself. Would it be safe to give the child my heart because it's going to be raised as my child? If so, then it's given.

Seems to me "act of will" covers it.

You would make the choice as an act of will - same as a parent who fills out the paperwork to adopt a kid they have never seen and are not related to from an agency.

For others, who have not made such an act of will, it takes time to get to know the kid and form a bond.

In either case, the bond is not made until it is made, and is not really revocable once made.

[garbon]

In this case, there's another dad in the mix though. Does it still work that way? Maybe it does, I dunno. If both dads live with the kid all that time, can they be legally required to maintain joint custody between them after mom is gone?

There's another penis in the mix, not necessarily another dad.

I feel like I have to explain that all the time!

[MadImmortalMan]

Another question for the lawyers: If the bio dad vanishes, and the dad-by-choice stays, then mom dies, can bio-dad take the kid away from dad-by-choice? They both fit the definition of parent as Malthus stated it, right?

What about cases of surrogate mothers trying to get the kid later?

[Malthus]

I see only a downside risk to getting a paternity test if the guy wants to be dad.

As it stands, it may not be easy or even possible for the other guy to get a paternity test done. If the wife dies, what proof has he that he's the dad, other than his say-so that they had sex? Would a court order such a test based on that evidence?

The dad enjoys the status quo that he's married to the mom. Ordering the test creates evidence that may prove otherwise.

I don't understand that thinking. Getting a paternity test shouldn't automatically bring an assumption that he doesn't want to be a father to the kid.

It's a piece of information. How can there be a benefit to leaving a piece of information not-known?

Think like a lawyer here, not like an engineer.

Without the test, the would-be bio-dad has no case. He is unlikely even to have a case enough to get a court to order the test.

So why would existing-dad order the test? He's already in the best position - he's the legally-recognized dad. The results of the test can only weaken his position.

[Barrister]

I see only a downside risk to getting a paternity test if the guy wants to be dad.

As it stands, it may not be easy or even possible for the other guy to get a paternity test done. If the wife dies, what proof has he that he's the dad, other than his say-so that they had sex? Would a court order such a test based on that evidence?

The dad enjoys the status quo that he's married to the mom. Ordering the test creates evidence that may prove otherwise.

I don't understand that thinking. Getting a paternity test shouldn't automatically bring an assumption that he doesn't want to be a father to the kid.

It's a piece of information. How can there be a benefit to leaving a piece of information not-known?

There are plenty of times when, dealing with genetic information, you don't want to know.

My wife's cousin has a 50% chance of getting Huntington's disease, and if he has it, he has a 50% chance of passing it on to their kids.  They have a test for the Huntington's gene, but he has not taken it.  Getting a positive result would impact so many things for them, including their decision to have kids (they have 2, with 1 more on the way).

I can see the same situation here.  If the guy is planning on raising the kid he is saying it doesn't matter whether he is bio-dad or not.  Getting a paternity test would show that it DOES  matter to him.  Once you know "you are NOT the father" (to quote Maury) that knowledge will always impact your relationship with that child.