If a man&#39;s name is on the birth certificate, but all were aware that he is not the blood father, and the couple separates, is he responsible legally? Mother was already pregnant with twins when they got back together. She asked him to be on the birth certificate so that the bio dad couldn't have any claims on them. The bio dad has not ever even asked about them or their well being. The man in question here, has helped raise them, in doing 90% of the care for the twins who are now six. The couple separated and she now is trying to threaten him with having to keep the kids 50% of the time and pay child support and they're not even really his children. Can she do this???
british-columbia Parentage For all purposes in British Columbia law, a child's parent is the person determined under Part 3 of the Family Law Act (see s. 23(b)). Outside of the context of assisted reproduction, there are a series of presumptions that apply unless the contrary is proved. A &quot;male person&quot; is presumed to be a child's biological father in any of the following circumstances: he was married to the child's birth mother on the day of the child's birth (s. 26(2)(a)) he was married to the child's birth mother and, within 300 days before the child's birth, the marriage was ended by his death, a divorce, or voiding (s. 26(2)(b)) he married the child's birth mother after the child's birth and acknowledges he is the father (s. 26(2)(c)) he was living with the child's birth mother in a marriage-like relationship within 300 days before, or on the day of, the child's birth (s. 26(2)(d)) he has acknowledged that he is the child's father by having signed a statement to register as the father on the birth certificate or agreement (s. 26(2)(e)) he has acknowledged that he is the child's father by having signed an agreement under section 20 of the Child Paternity and Support Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 49 (s. 26(2)(f)) If by operation of the presumptions, more than one person may be presumed to be the biological father, then no presumption applies. If parentage can be resolved by one of these presumptions (based on the facts in the hypothetical, it is possible that presumption s. 26(2)(d) might apply, and also likely s. 26(2)(e), since he is on the birth certificate), that answers the question, unless someone attempts to prove that the presumption is incorrect. If someone wants to disprove the presumption, they can apply for an order declaring parentage. When hearing such an application, the judge will consider all relevant evidence, including testimony of parties and witnesses, physical evidence, genetic testing, expert opinion, etc. The burden is on the party seeking the order to displace the presumption, on a balance of probabilities. Parenting arrangement Parenting arrangements (&quot;trying to threaten him with having to keep the kids 50% of the time&quot;) can not be imposed by one party on another. Parenting arrangements must be by agreement, or by court order (s. 40). If done by court order, the court &quot;must consider the best interests of the child only&quot; (s. 37). Child support If a person is a parent, they generally have a duty to provide child support for the child (s. 147). Child support from stepparent Even if the person demonstrates that they are not a parent, they can owe child support by court order if they are a stepparent (&quot;a person who is a spouse of the child's parent and lived with the child's parent and the child during the child's life&quot;) who has contributed to the support of the child for at least one year (s. 147(4), (5)).
Married (or married at the time of birth) fathers have equal rights to custody as mothers in AZ. There are no (active) laws establishing that a mother is to be given more rights to a child in a custody arrangement than a father. This is a little different for unmarried fathers because paternity is not assumed, it must be established. Married fathers are presumed to be the father of the child automatically. AZ used to follow the tender years doctrine where preference was given to mothers during the child's younger years. There is an entire somewhat interesting history there on the linked page. This has mostly been phased out in the United States in favor of the &quot;best interest of the child&quot; doctrine. So provided that you are financially stable, have a stable living environment, and can provide for your child, you as the father should have equal standing in a court with regards to custody. I say &quot;should&quot; because many judges still lean towards the mother. For your specific case I'd immediately talk to a family court advocate. They can get you in front of a judge with your estranged wife either being &quot;in absentia&quot; (not present) or ordered to be in court and produce an order to return the child to the home state. It will also help a custody case later on to establish that you are actively seeking a relationship with the child and you are being denied that (keep records of everything, phone calls, texts, letters, emails, etc).
What would be the best course of action now? It has been six months with no communication from him or his estate lawyer, and no will has been filed with the court. Since it's not entering probate, is there any guarantee that he has to faithfully execute the conditions of the will at all or notify any of the beneficiaries? Without probate, can he simply choose to not execute the will? A will has no effect or validity until it is admitted to probate. You can't do anything with a will outside a probate proceeding. Usually state law requires that a will that is in someone's possession be lodged with the court, whether or not they plan on opening up a probate estate, but this requirement is widely ignored. Unlike a will, a trust can be administered without court supervision, without being admitted to probate, although usually, the trust is required to file a notice of its existence with the court if it has become irrevocable (a requirement that is also widely ignored). The trustee of a trust has a fiduciary duty to administer the trust in accordance with its terms and to keep the beneficiaries of the trust reasonably informed about it. Again, sometimes the notice to the beneficiaries is overlooked. Also, it wouldn't be unusual for someone to inaccurately say that a will provided that a certain thing happen, when, in fact, that was a provision in a trust. People are sloppy in ordinary conversation about the distinctions between wills and trusts. If a trust was drafted to avoid probate, the will is probably just a "pour over will" which states that if there is any property that is not in the trust as her death that it is hereby transferred to the trust. Normally, a person would not have both a trust designed to avoid probate and a will with substantive provisions at the same time. If you suspect that you know who the trustee is, the first step would be to write a formal letter that you can prove was sent and received (e.g. via certified mail or FedEx), asking if there is a trust, and if there is one, if you are a beneficiary of that trust, and asking for the trust agreement (or at least the parts of it pertinent to you status as beneficiary). If the person that you suspect is trustee is a trustee, he has a legal duty to let you know these things (which doesn't mean that he necessarily will do so). If you fail to receive cooperation or a response after this initial inquiry, you may need to hire counsel to attempt to obtain this information through the courts.
My lawyer answers my question, thinking he is giving legal advice to a non-client when he is actually answering a client's question. But if you read the FAQ, posts at law.stachexchange are not legal advice. In fact, questions that are so specific as to risk becoming a request for legal advice are routinely closed. But let's go further: The issue at hand is not the one your lawyer is hired to help you with. He is not your lawyer for that issue. Even if we considered the relationship through law.stackexchange legal representation, the conversation would not be privileged. You are posting in a public forum, and expecting reply in the same way. You are free to waive the privilege of communication with your lawyer, and you are doing that by using this way of communicating with him. At this point, the only thing your lawyer would have done would be voluntarily giving for free some info that he could have billed you for. What exactly would be the issue here? It is exactly what pro bono is for. The only way to breach confidentiality would be if your lawyer were to convey things that you said to him confidentially to the public, but here it would not be relevant if the OPs author were already his customer or not.
Imputed income is a legitimate concept, but it is hard to prove, particularly when there is an earning history to back up the claim that there is no malingering. Ultimately, the question is what that particular individual could earn and whether that particular individual was intentionally being lazy in order to influence child support. At a minimum an earnings history and testimony from Mary would be strong evidence disproving the claim, and it would probably take expert testimony to make any kind of credible claim that more income should be imputed that would still be unlikely to succeed. If more money were at stake, a battle of the experts with experts on each side with one testifying that Mary could earn more and the other debunking that expert's testimony, would be appropriate. But, for $300 a month at issue, it probably doesn't make economic sense for either party to hire any kind of expert. And, a judge is usually going to take some random statistical study much less seriously than a history of earnings and testimony from the franchise owner about why it earned more or less than average.
It depends on the jurisdiction. The term you are looking for is “paternity fraud”, and depending on where you are in the world, you can challenge paternity even after accepting the child as your own. The wikipedia page lists several examples where the man has been successful. It also lists several examples where the man has been unsuccessful and has been ordered to continue paying child support.
north-carolina A parent is responsible for supporting their minor child, therefore they cannot &quot;kick out&quot; their child (they can arrange for someone else to take care of the child but they are financially responsible for this arrangement). This is true even if the parent is a minor. In that case, the grandparents and the parent (who is herself a minor child) are both responsible for the grandchild. We can turn to NCGS § 50-13.4(b) which states the hierarchy of responsibilities: In the absence of pleading and proof that the circumstances otherwise warrant, parents of a minor, unemancipated child who is the custodial or noncustodial parent of a child shall share this primary liability for their grandchild's support with the minor parent, the court determining the proper share, until the minor parent reaches the age of 18 or becomes emancipated. If both the parents of the child requiring support were unemancipated minors at the time of the child's conception, the parents of both minor parents share primary liability for their grandchild's support until both minor parents reach the age of 18 or become emancipated. The details could be different in another jurisdiction.
Yes, but that doesn't make the theft not theft At the time of the crime, Joe committed theft. The state can prosecute Joe for that theft. Alice's subsequent gift does not change this although it would prevent her from suing for recovery. As a practical matter, if Alice was willing to lie and say that the gift preceded the theft or she had given permission for the item to be taken, this would almost surely create reasonable doubt in any prosecution. However, on a pure &quot;these are the facts&quot; basis, the theft is a theft.