I’ll have to admit, the no arguments are convincing.
…and when you do find the woman you want to spend the rest of your life with, don’t have a mark like this (the other person will always find out eventually) cast doubt into the relationship with the one you will be legitimately married to.
Another “no” vote from me. I think that the legal risks are too great, and there’s really no payoff for you. If you decide to go ahead and marry her anyway, get her to sign a document stating that she’s already pregnant by another man, and she waives all child support claims on you. Have a lawyer draw it up, get it notarized, all that good stuff. I’ll bet she wouldn’t be nearly so eager to trot to the altar if you suggest this.
[obligatory Simpsons reference]
“Is this a sham marriage?”
“Sure baby; is that a problemo?”
[/obligatory Simpsons reference]
Of course, oddly enough, the moral of that episode was that you shouldn’t bring a child into a sham marriage. Even crazy-ass Matt Groening knows you should bail.
p.s.: regardless of wisdom I’ve learned from animated sit-coms, count me among the learned majority. By which I mean no. No way.
Only if the S in SBF and SWM means silly.
and *silly *means stupid. This woman seems to be constantly making a shamble of her life - do you really want her to make a shamble of yours.
You are a lawyer, right? Don’t you recall from law school what the presumption is when a child is born to a couple who are married? You marry her, and then get it annulled, you may be facing a child support suit a few months down the road. You can’t waive away child support in a prenup so easily as you would spousal support.
Even this might not work, especially if the OP’s name goes on the birth certificate (which appears to be Mom’s plan). Many (if not most) states do not allow a mother to waive a child support claim. In addition, laws vary among states (and can change), so the OP should tread carefully here.
(You aren’t my client. This is general comment and not to be considered reliable legal advice. See a lawyer/lawyers licensed in all relevant states for meaningful advice.)
Another “no” vote. Life is difficult enough without deliberately adding situations like this into the mixture. If she personally considers it a stigma to bear a child out of wedlock, that’s something she should have thought of before having a fling with a married man. You’re better off out of it. Sooner or later she’s going to have to learn how to accept responsibility for her choices, and sooner is better than later.
Go to Vegas with her. Have an awesome booty call. Get drunk, gamble, have a blast. Then get cold feet and run out of the chapel. You’ll probably have to pay for your own ticket home. But it’ll be worth it!
Vegas, baby, VEGAS!!
No, don’t do it. Quite apart from all the other reasons given, simply because it’s dishonest in and of itself. To you and to her and to the child.
I’m going to guess here that it’s not the stigma on the child about which she’s worried, but the stigma on her. I’m wondering if her family are very traditional and would ostracise her?
The only purpose of a sham marriage would be to get your name on the child’s birth certificate. And the only reason to get your name on the child’s birth certificate is to pretend that you’re the father. And a parent can’t sign away the right to child support via pre-nup, because the child support doesn’t belong to the custodial parent, it belongs to the child, nevermind that the custodial parent decides how that money is spent. So the child always has a right to child support, and if you don’t contest the presumption that you’re the father within a certain time limit, then you’re the legal father, no matter what a DNA test years later shows. Even if the mother doesn’t intend–today–to ask you for child support, what if her situation changes? What if she becomes disabled and can’t work? If she gets welfare payments from the state, the state is going to sue you for child support. What if she becomes bitter about her life, and decides it’s all your fault? What if she dies?
Bottom line, a sham marriage means becoming a sham parent, and there’s a non-zero likelihood that you’ll end up paying 18 years of child support for some other man’s child. And, do you know her family? Other friends? Is she going to tell them you’re the father? Do you really want to play the part of the bum that abandoned his wife and child to her family? Why can’t the real bum play that part?
Wow, some gal. She’s allegedly worried about the stigma of bearing a child out of wedlock, but sees nothing wrong with having sexual affairs with multiple married men?
Verrrrrrrry nice. Watch your back. Something’s hinky.
You got that feeling too EJ’s Girl ??
I’m a foursquare NO to this deal. She’s looking to get you on the hook, period. This sham may ending up costing you 18 years of your life.
Say no, no, a thousand times no.
I mean, that doesn’t mean you can’t fly to Vegas on her, have a nice dinner on her, hit it once or twice, and skip town, but for the love of Og, don’t marry this woman.
What? I’m kidding, I’m kidding
Well… IANAL but the impression I get nature of most state CS laws, and the obligations attached to being a parent, is that these laws are taken VERY seriously and rigorously enforced, and if they can find you and attach your assets you might as well put a fork in yourself. If it comes down to the crunch, and the child is in need at some point in the future (and if she’s a somewhat flaky serial adulterer think about the probabilities), and your name is on the birth certificate I think most of these laws might well trump a pre-nups “no harm-no foul” disclaimers re expected child support.
If you do this in the current legal environment, and the aggressive way states go after CS collections you’re insane.
Yeah, I can see this from her point of view. It is a great idea.
Let’s see, 18 years of child support after she dumps your ass, and then, depending on the state she resides in, another 4 years in an Ivy League school for which the court might make you pay half or even all of it?
Shit yeah, marry her, where’s the down side?
I like this idea!
Okay, let’s go with the most charitable interpretation possible for the moment, assuming absolutely no hidden agenda on her part: she wants her kid’s birth certificate to list a father, ANY father, so that the kid won’t be advertising that s/he is the product of an out of wedlock birth every time s/he has to show a birth certificate. Nothing else. Just concern for her kid’s possible future embarassment.
Guess what? It’s STILL not a good idea.
Even if she’s an absolutely wonderful person and never, ever tries to get you to pay child support, there’s still the issue of what would happen in the event of her disability or death, like Lemur866 mentioned. In the first case, the state would force you to pay child support, and in the second, you’d likely get custody of the kid even if someone more appropriate (say, a grandparent or stepparent) was around. (I suggest you bring this up when she wants to know why you’re saying no…)
Plus, she CAN get the real father’s name put on there if she wants to. Even if he’s not willing, it can be added later by court order. Minnesota’s regs on this, which seem to be representative of the norm, are here.
And finally… how often is someone honestly going to want to see her kid’s birth certificate? Just get the kid a passport or something. That doesn’t list parents and it’s usually more useful than a birth certificate anyway.
As a side note for everyone that thinks this is hypocritical or illogical of her to want a registered daddy, a fair number of college educated SBFs are from somewhat fairly conservative, fairly religious backgrounds that absolutely abhor out of wedlock births. In that context her parents and kin may not get too involved in her business is she just dating and sleeping around, but when a kid is coming down the pike that all changes. She may be feeling a good bit of pressure not to bring the child into the world with the (perceived) stigma of it being the result of an out of wedlock birth.