"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal
father of a child. When parents are married, paternity is
automatically established in most cases. If parents are unmarried,
paternity establishment is not automatic and the process should be
started by both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the
child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child
is biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was
reversed, do you think "maternity" would be "automatically
established" even though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's
chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should
start the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for
the "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
start a process that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until
that point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion
or hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of
unwed births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she
has no idea who the father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father
helps the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to
keep.

And then you woke up.

1. The only "parental" right is mother's right.
2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support"
is a ridiculous concept.
3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken.

I think some of the commenters above have made the mistake of confusing
adoption laws and paternity laws. Adoption laws have nothing to do with
establishing CS orders. In fact, when an adoption occurs no CS is paid by
either parent.

A putative father registering with a state's database never obligates him
for CS.

Likewise, handing a lighter to a child doesn't start a forest fire; but it
sure does help.

It is the legal process used to establish paternity that drives the CS
obligation. And in the case of voluntary paternity acknowledgement the
declaration can be challenged for up to 12 months depending on state
statute limitations.

This father being ahead of potential adoptive parents is mythical at best.
Any judge, at any time, can rule ANY way they please, thus rendering such
place in line only an illusion!


BTW - I was a CP father. Several of the other posters here were CP
fathers too. The problem fathers have regarding CP status is the initial
court orders are biased against them. It is not uncommon for a father to
be the CP parent for older children, particularly boys.

That all depends on just what your definition of "common" is.