"If the woman is married at the time of birth, her husband is presumed to be the biological father and through the civil act of their marriage, is accorded the same legal “custodial” rights as the mother." This is all completely false. If the biological father is not the spouse of the mother, the name on the BC should be the ACTUAL father. The spouse of the mother does not have some sort of automatic "custodial rights" as you call them. Sure, a mother could probably try to falsely claim that her H is the father, but that can be contested and the true father can get custody. This is no different than with any stepparent.
First of all dear boy, my statement was not false; unless evidence is provided to the contrary, the husband is presumed to be the father and married parents have equal rights. In fact, this is what ARS 25-814(A)1 says:
A man is presumed to be the father of the child if: He and the mother of the child were married at any time in the ten months immediately preceding the birth or the child is born within ten months after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity or dissolution of marriage or after the court enters a decree of legal separation.
I’m sure you will find similar laws in every state.
Second, your rebuttal has nothing to do with my statement not too mention that it is ridiculous. Think about it…what you are saying is that a husband has no rights.
Third, how often in the history of man has a “biological” father been granted custody over the “presumed” father? I would also like to provide the following from ARS 25-814(B):
If another man is presumed to be the child's father under subsection A, paragraph 1, an acknowledgment of paternity may be effected only with the written consent of the presumed father or after the presumption is rebutted. If the presumed father has died or cannot reasonably be located, paternity may be established without written consent.
Note that you are only talking about “paternity” and nothing else.
And fourth, you are confusing what “should be” with what “is”. Yes, the biological father’s name SHOULD BE on the BC, but that’s not what the law says.
No, I am not going to have to show you either the law or statute. I don't have a law library at my fingertips, thanks, and this wouldn't be worth it if I did. It is a criminal offense to knowingly falsify birth certificates, as well as social security or any other official documents. I do remember that the statute number is posted at the county admin building where you get the BC, and at the federal building where you get the SS card.
First of all Frank, if you are going to say that something is a criminal offense and someone asks you to prove it…then you need to provide the applicable information.
Second, I’m pretty sure that what is posted at the county administrative building and at the federal building is NOT in the same context as our discussion.
And third…what about all the men who have knowingly falsified BCs…are you going to prosecute them? I’m talking about men who KNEW that the baby wasn’t theirs, but for whatever reason, accepted responsibility. Are you going to turn them into criminals?
"If the woman is married and states that her husband is NOT the “father”, then it is left blank." Is this the world according to Gecko??? If you know who the father is, that is the name that goes in the blank! Why would you leave it blank unless you don't know who the father is?
Yes it is. At the time my friend Dawn had her third child, she and her husband David that been separated for five years and so David was NOT the “father” of her child…her boyfriend John was. But the hospital would NOT allow her to put John’s name on the birth certificate because she was still married and so it was left blank. Not long afterward, Dawn obtained a “default” divorce from David and it states clearly in the Decree that David is NOT the “father” of Dawn’s third child. About a year later, Dawn gave birth to twin girls and John’s name IS on the BC, but ONLY because he signed an “acknowledgement of paternity” at the hospital. Had he not signed that document, then the hospital would NOT have put his name on the BC.
"If a woman is single at the time of birth, she has de jure “custody since she is the ONLY “legal” parent until such time as paternity is established…either through a “voluntary acknowledgement” or through a court order. And the establishment of paternity does not automatically confer any “rights”." The establishment of MATERNITY does not confer any more "rights" than paternity does. PLEASE understand that, if you understand nothing else. Why is it sooo hard for people to understand the concept of equality?
First of all, I agree that once paternity is established, the father should have the same “custodial” rights as the mother, but we KNOW that that is not true…otherwise, why would the father have to file for “custody” and “parenting time”? Hmmmmmmmm? I can give you the links to several states website for form and they all pretty much have the same kind of forms: Establish Paternity Only or Establish Paternity With Custody, Parenting Time and Support and the “custody” part is for the “father” since the mother already has “custody” since until paternity IS established, she is the ONLY legal parent.
Second, I went through all this with my friend John when he and Dawn split up and she left their children with him. We (I was his paralegal) had to establish paternity for their son and then we had to file for custody for all three children so he could get them into daycare, seek medical attention and receive assistance.
‘Nuff said.