Can I force my wife to have a DNA test on a child? Long story cut short my wife had an affair while we were still living together and I found out she was pregnant shortly before finding out about the affair. She resists talking to me about the unborn child now we are separated as she doesn't want her new partner to know we were sexually active during the affair. Can I force a DNA test to be carried out as we are still married and weren't separated at the time the child was conceived.
Both parents are legally responsible for the financial costs of raising a child. If you don’t have day-to-day care of the child, you may have to pay child maintenance to your partner or she may apply for maintenance and name you as the parent who has to pay maintenance. You are allowed to deny that you are the father of the child and if she wishes to pursue it further, you both may be asked to take a DNA test in order to prove or disprove that you are the father. You cannot force her to do this. It must be voluntary on both sides. If you're just looking to force her to have a DNA test based on the morality of raising a child then whilst I admire your attitude, unfortunately this is not something you can force her to do. For more information on this matter, head over to this article on the citizens advice website. I hope this helps
Yes, it is illegal in North Carolina, which defines your sex as what's on your birth certificate. At any point in your transition, even when it's long complete, you'll still have to use the restroom for the gender on your birth certificate (hypothetically assuming the law is still in place). See e.g. this CNN coverage and this followup. Will you actually be arrested? Probably only if there's a complaint. The police haven't yet figured out how they're supposed to enforce this law.
I did a lot of digging through case law and statutes, but I don't see a definition for "biological sex" anywhere in federal law, though after looking through those cases, it seems pretty clear that courts think of "biological sex" as a definition of "sex," and that they take it to mean the sex listed on your birth certificate. Even if we could find a straightforward statutory definition, it probably wouldn't do much to inform the interpretation of this memorandum, as it would only apply to the specific section of law in which the definition was included.
In the USA, at least, it has never, to the best of my information, been legally mandated to add a name on marriage, or even for husband and wife have the same last name. It has long been customary in the US for a woman on marriage, to adopt her husband's surname. This is no not nearly as common as it once was -- it was once almost invariable, but some women did not do so, or kept a pre-marrige name for professional purposes, even many generations ago. When a woman married, in some social sub-groups it was common to simply drop her former surname and replace it with her new husband's surname. In others, the new surname was added to her existing name, potentially leading to the kind of long series of names mentions in the question. In the 1990s Judith Martin, writing as &quot;Miss Manners&quot;, wrote that the first of these was the more &quot;traditional&quot; but both were not uncommon. When I was married, the clerk asked my wife and I what name each of us would be known by after the marriage, and that constituted a legal change of name. But we were free to make any choice we wanted. I think this has been the usual procedure in the US for a long time now. On divorce, a woman in the US (and the UK and Canada) traditionally kept her former husband's last name, although some returned to a pre-marriage surname. On remarriage, some added a new husband's surname, others replaced the former husband's name. Some said that keeping the former husband's name was a statement that the woman had been without fault in the divorce, or want to remain associated in some way with her former husband's family. There were, of course, also women who remarried after a former husband's death, rather than a divorce. In any case, I do not think any of this was legally required, but custom can sometimes be as strong as law. Other cultures had and have different customs on marriage and divorce. But in most places these are not a matter of law. I do not know of any country that legally mandates a change or modification of name on marriage, but some may.
No The argument is vacuous in any event because AFAIK all jurisdictions that enforce sex discrimination laws have parental leave (paid or unpaid), not maternity leave so a man is just as likely to need it as a woman. This, of course, raises the issue of discrimination by marital status (on the basis that unmarried people are arguably less likely to have children) or age (on the basis that people outside 'childbearing' age are less likely to have children; fortunately these types of discrimination are also illegal. Notwithstanding, the loopholess you think there are in the laws are simply not there. For example s14 "Discrimination in employment or in superannuation" of australia Sex Discrimination Act 1984 starts with: (1) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities: Later in s30 "Certain discrimination on ground of sex not unlawful" it says: (2) (a) the duties of the position can be performed only by a person having particular physical attributes (other than attributes of strength or stamina) that are not possessed by persons of a different sex from the relevant sex; If the job requires excessive strength or stamina, then you test your recruits for the level of strength or stamina the job requires.
There is a report about a male-to-female transgender woman here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/2017-06-27/8651398#transcript She managed to do the following: 1. While legally being a male, she got a preliminary passport as a woman so she could travel to Thailand, have an operation, and not run into trouble returning with a male passport and a female body. 2. While legally still being male, but with a female body, she married a woman in Australia. That was fine because legally she was male. 3. She has received a passport as a female. 4. She was refused a change of her birth certificate as long as she is married. So the current state is: She is (in fact, biologically) a woman. She is married to a woman in Australia. That marriage is perfectly legal, however, it is officially a marriage between a man and a woman. She has a woman's passport. The Australian government cannot and doesn't want to do anything to make her marriage illegal. BUT she cannot change her birth certificate without getting divorced first, and if she got divorced and changed her birth certificate, she couldn't remarry the same woman, or any other woman.
It is probably illegal in all of the jurisdictions in the US where a fetus is legally declared to be a person and where the murder statutes are written to not explicitly exclude abortion: that is, in no jurisdictions. No law existing or proposed for Georgia specifically addresses "travel for the purpose of getting an abortion". The underlying theory behind the claim (advocated by some Georgia attorneys) is that a person may be open to a conspiracy charge for taking a woman to another state to get an abortion, which would be a crime if committed in Georgia. If a conspiracy exists in Georgia to do something illegal (in Georgia), that is a violation of OCGA 16-4-8 ("when he together with one or more persons conspires to commit any crime and any one or more of such persons does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy"). The substantially same law exists in Washington, and most if not all other states. The theory is apparently that "conspire to commit a crime" means something like "conspire to perform an act which would be a crime if performed in in this jurisdiction", e.g. "purchase marijuana, or take a job at certain payday loan companies". No state has successfully claimed extraterritorial jurisdiction, where a Georgia resident can be prosecuted in Georgia for a legal act carried out in another state, so this theory is a bit of a stretch.
Yes ... ... apart from the impracticality of it. Basically, the bureaucratic process of marriage and divorce doesn't fit within a 24-hour cycle. For example, in australia it is a requirement to notify the state one month before you intend to marry and divorce is a legal process that takes as long as it takes - typically years. But, assuming those obstacles did not exist, your scheme would not fall foul of the law. In general, you can remarry a person you previously divorced. kentucky [apparently]1 says enough is enough after the third time. Unless adultery is illegal (as it is in much of the Muslim world) there is no law against polyamory so long as no one person in the relationship is married to more than one other person. Your headline of "Concurrent Polygamy" is wrong - what you describe is "Consecutive Monogamy".