What kind of law is that?

Let me add that is how it is in the state of KY. If the husband doesn't want the kid then he would have to terminate his rights.

What kind of law is that?

 

It was a Supreme Court ruling. We covered it in Constitutional Law.

It was a Supreme Court ruling. We covered it in Constitutional Law.

 

So it does apply to all states?

Let me add that is how it is in the state of KY. If the husband doesn't want the kid then he would have to terminate his rights.

 

 

So if a married woman, has an affair, her husband automatically becomes the father of the child since he is married to the woman, and the man with whom she had the affair does not become the father until the woman's husband terminates his rights? Wow!!! That is mind boggling news to me.

So it does apply to all states?

 

Here is the citation It is Michael H v. Gerald D. 109 S.Ct. 2333.

I don't know what I'm allowed to say b/c of law school and what I'm not, but my best guess is that since it is a matter of Fundamental Right (i.e. Constitutional Question), it would apply to the states.

They showed the birth certificates on 48 Hours last night. It had MJ listed as the father. I think it is an unlikely scenario that someone will discredit MJ as their father/legal guardian and therefore his wishes for the children's future will be granted. Jmo.

 

Probably so, I wasn't posting what I did thinking that. I ws just meanng that imo it was going to be a circus before all is decided and the chldren would be the ones that it hurt. I also saw where Jackson's name was on the birth certificate as the father and although reports that he did not legally adopt them I can't see the judge/courts going against the wishes that were designated in Jacksons will.

I do look for (as in most high profile cases, especially involving millions$$$) for some to try and contest anything and everything about the will. I don't know if Rowe would but I wouldn't doubt it, imo the woman has used the kids as a bank account deposit ticket from their birth. Rowe gave up her parental rights to them when she was paid extremely well to do so. I wouldn't doubt that now that Jackson is dead that Rowe tries to regain rights so the money for the kids can pour into her hands again .

So if a married woman, has an affair, her husband automatically becomes the father of the child since he is married to the woman, and the man with whom she had the affair does not become the father until the woman's husband terminates his rights? Wow!!! That is mind boggling news to me.

 

I agree with you. This does not sound right and I would be stunned if this is accurate.

So if a married woman, has an affair, her husband automatically becomes the father of the child since he is married to the woman, and the man with whom she had the affair does not become the father until the woman's husband terminates his rights? Wow!!! That is mind boggling news to me.

 

That's what I was thinking as well.

I agree with you. This does not sound right and I would be stunned if this is accurate.

 

Then I guess you're stunned.

I mean, come on. Is this really a surprise?

 

Thats what I was thinking....

So if a married woman, has an affair, her husband automatically becomes the father of the child since he is married to the woman, and the man with whom she had the affair does not become the father until the woman's husband terminates his rights? Wow!!! That is mind boggling news to me.

 

It caused an uproar in our class as well. The court said that it wanted to keep the family structure stable. In otherwords it was better for the child to be raised by two parents than split custody b/n a woman and the man who she had the affair with. Kind of unfair for the natural father, but then again, don't go around messing w/ married women and this doesn't happen.

It caused an uproar in our class as well. The court said that it wanted to keep the family structure stable. In otherwords it was better for the child to be raised by two parents than split custody b/n a woman and the man who she had the affair with. Kind of unfair for the natural father, but then again, don't go around messing w/ married women and this doesn't happen.

 

So what if the (married) man and woman had separated and were living separate lives, but just hadn't gotten officially divorced? The woman then has a child with a new boyfriend while still technically married to her husband. The boyfriend has no paternal rights to the child at all and the estranged husband does?

It caused an uproar in our class as well. The court said that it wanted to keep the family structure stable. In otherwords it was better for the child to be raised by two parents than split custody b/n a woman and the man who she had the affair with. Kind of unfair for the natural father, but then again, don't go around messing w/ married women and this doesn't happen.

 

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

So what if the (married) man and woman had separated and were living separate lives, but just hadn't gotten officially divorced? The woman then has a child with a new boyfriend while still technically married to her husband. The boyfriend has no paternal rights to the child at all and the estranged husband does?

 

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

I did a quick Google search, as it just sounds so illogical. Apparently, if the marriage has been deemed to be over for ten months - regardless of whether they are still officially married - the father would have no paternal rights to a child born "out of wedlock" to his estranged wife.

 

http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social/families-children-family-law/10204373-1.html