Except in these cases, the putative father DID do something–he acted as father. In effect, by accepting the child as his, he adopted the child. If you adopt a child and later get divorced, you can’t get out of child support for your adoptive child because a DNA test proves the child wasn’t yours, can you? Same thing here. The child is yours because you didn’t contest paternity, which means the child is legally your child. The genetic parentage of the child is irrelevant.
The analogy to adoption here is wrongheaded. Adoption is an informed decision to take a child who is not your biological offspring into your family.
That’s a very different situation from a case where the husband is being lied to by the wife in saying that her child is also biologically his, only to later learn the truth that the child is not his.
At least, that’s the way I see it.
The putative father has the opportunity to demand proof of paternity before assuming paternity. If he doesn’t dispute paternity, then he’s assuming paternity.
Whether the mother of the child is a lying skank of a whore is irrelevant. The father’s responsibility is to the child, not the mother. You can’t assume paternity for X years, then when you split up with aforementioned lying skank of a whore, decide to dispute paternity. The time to dispute paternity is when the child is born, not X years later.
It is a matter of long tradition that the children of a married woman are presumed to be the children of her husband, and the husband must explicity dispute paternity of those children if he doesn’t want to be the legal father of those children.
Again, if you assume paternity of your wife’s children, then you are the legal father of those children, regardless of the results of any DNA test.
Does the “short list” contain any sports teams (eg 2009 Pitt Panther Football team)? Any vague descriptions without names (eg cute guy with one of those little beards)?
Until the mother wants custody of the child in a divorce and asks for paternity testing. Then your “legal fatherhood” entitles you to maybe some visitation, the type grandparents/step-parents are able to get based on having been a concerned party in the child’s life. If they don’t move away. Sometimes not even that much. :mad:
Probably just a difference in legal culture, then.
I think so. My reaction would be more like Noel Prosequi’s than Elendil’s Heir. I’ve often thought (based solely on my own reading, etc.) that it seems the practice in the US courts to take more stuff to a judge than is customary in Canada. It may be a difference in Commonwealth legal traditions from US ones.
I was practicing as a third year student, prosecuting criminal cases in district court. The type of environment where you meet the victim/chief witness five minutes before trial. This one was an assault - the guy had been at the mall and a security guard got bent out of shape with him and took it too far, using pepper spray on him. Of course, that’s just what the complaint said. The defendant (who turned out to be a police officer) testified that the “victim” had indeed gotten into an altercation with him, and had threatened to pull a knife on him. I believe there was a corroborating witness to this. *That *was an awkward closing argument, let me tell you.
Under “things the ADA shouldn’t have to learn from a student,” that year I also happened to save a case because I was less sure of myself than the ADA. I looked up the elements of the crime, and discovered that offering to blow someone for ten bucks isn’t “prostitution,” but “solicitation to engage in crimes against nature” or some such.
So Bricker, have you ever had a client testify in the narrative?
I should not have to learn during Cross examination conducted by the opposing counsel that your husband abused your daughter.
Especially after several multi hour long meetings where I attempted to elicit such stuff.
Sort of.
I had a client that was serially dissatisfied with with lawyers, representing to the judge on the day of trial that he had serious conflicts and needed to get a new lawyer, thus forcing the judge to continue the case. I was number 3 in the line. The judge made him go to trial, let him represent himself, and ordered me to serve as hybrid co-counsel/advisor. He insisted on telling his story, which I (and undoubtedly his two prior attorneys) had strongly advised against, which was basically that the police were conspiring to get him and the recording they had of him committing the illegal transaction at issue was faked by hiring a famous actor who could impersonate his voice.
That testimony was in the narrative.
Natch! Criminal clients are particularly excellent historians regarding details they give to law enforcement.
Me to Prosecutor: You still have to prove that my client knew the material in the bag was in fact, marijuana…
In Police Report:
Officer: “Son, are you sure this is just marijuana? I’m not going to find out it is laced with cocaine or something…”
My Client: “No, sir, it is definitely just marijuana. We smoked some earlier. And if it had been laced, it would have cost more than $10.00.”
:smack:
Sorry, I missed this before. The excuses for abuse, in no particular order:
[ol]Bitch is lying. It never happened.
[li]It was an accident/I just brushed against her.[/li][li]She did it to herself to set me up (really? she broke her own arm?)[/li][li]I was just protecting myself from her rampant abuse.[/ol][/li]
One thing I’ll give the family law judges over the civil law judges: they see so many liars, day in and day out, that they’re really good not only at sussing out the BS, but at making decisions quickly and fairly.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Basically, the law says that a child born to a married couple is the child of each of them. You can also establish paternity (if the parents are unmarried) by signing a Declaration of Paternity.
But if the child’s paternity was established by a method other than marriage, the judgment of paternity can be set aside by proof that the child is not the biological issue of the father within two years of (1) the date that the father knew or should have know that there was a judgment of paternity against him or (2) the date of the child’s birth. Cal. Fam. Code section 7646. In the case of a married couple, the father can file a motion requesting blood tests within two years of the child’s birth date. Cal. Fam. Code section 7541. After that, the child is conclusively the child of the father and mother.
There are competing public policy considerations: we believe it is better for a child to have a relationship with both parents, and better to be supported by parents than by the state. As a result, if a man was married to a child’s mother at the time of the child’s birth or has otherwise acknowledged paternity, and has acted as a father to a child for a couple years, he is considered the child’s father for purposes of parental rights and child support. The focus there is on the best interest of the child, not the interest of the adult. That makes sense to me, even if there are outlier cases where a man can be required to pay child support for a child that is not his biologically (but who he has otherwise fathered – frankly, I think those are the saddest cases ever – what child wants to learn that his daddy is such a dick?).
Not in California. The certainty goes both ways – if the mother doesn’t get the testing done before the kid is two, she is estopped to later claim the child’s father is someone else. Once legal fatherhood has been established, the policy in California is joint custody, both legal and physical, if the circumstances warrant.
My reaction would also be more like Noel Prosequi’s than Elendil’s Heir; there may also be more of a practice to bring things to the judge in the US, but it’s a double-edged sword. Some of the judges I’ve been before are only good at splitting babies, even in a pretty clear situation.
Thanks for replying to my question, and sorry I didn’t acknowledge it sooner.
Well, at least extensive TV study gives you a rough idea of the mechanics of a trial, even if you can’t say that about titles and etiquette. For instance, in L.A. County, I don’t think they ever do the “All Rise!” bit, and nor are there any old, ornately decorated, and marble columned courtrooms or courthouses here. Still, anytime there’s a movie of a trial set in Los Angeles, they show that type of court.
Doesn’t LA County have an old courthouse set aside just for studios to rent?
Thanks for the response. It’s about what I expected. I always wonder how much of that stuff those guys actually believe, how well they’ve convinced themselves.
You might think so, but most of the older ones have had to be replaced what with earthquakes, and general growth of the community since 1850. Often they do a close up of the City Hall arcade to establish a courtroom scene. Could be there are still a couple of active court departments tucked away in there. Moreover, the court system does sometimes decide to lease out space in an existing building. For example, what used to be the CNA Insurance building in Koreatown is a prominent landmark with its mirrorlike finish, but now it’s being used for courts. The 1920s-era Hall Of Justice, in which the Manson trial was held is still here but it’s been boarded up for decades.
One of the benefits to rural practice is I get to try cases in beautiful old courthouses, many built on a square in the center of town. High ceilings, polished wood, columns, each courtroom unique in appearance and feel. I hate some of the more modern buildings–especially one built in the 70s in one of my most distant counties. Damn thing is ugly as homemade sin, and sits right off the highway next to a Wal-Mart.
When I get there early, or have some time waiting on a case to be called, I like to wander the grounds, and read the historical markers. There’s always one for WWII, often one for the Civil War, sometimes others for WWI, Korea, or Vietnam.
I used to go to school across the street from there when it was still CNA. I was very confused when that change happened. Now I work in law, but haven’t had occasion to go over there – I think that building is primarily family law.
The judge in my recent experience was treated with a lot of respect. The bailiff did the “all rise!” thing, although he was a bit slow and often we had all stood up before he said it. He and the court clerk were most deferential and attentive to the judge, refilling her water pitcher, opening doors for her, etc.
That court also bans all cell phones from the courtroom. If you bring one into the courthouse, you must surrender it to the security people at the door, who place each phone in a numbered envelope and give you a correspondingly numbered card. After the first day, I started leaving mine in the car.
I had occasion to go into the Salem (Massachusetts) Registry of Deeds building not too long ago, and was required to turn over not only my cellphone but also the point-and-shoot camera I happened to have in my shoulder bag. And I wasn’t even going to a courtroom, just to register a deed. I’m not sure whether there even are any courtrooms in that building.