Could I be Forced to Pay Child Support for someone else's Child?
Similar pages:
- Blog of law articles: Custody Reform: H.1306 & H.2684 - Is Changing the "Best Interest" Standard Necessary?
- Blog of law articles: Custody Reform: S.847 – Shared Custody Above All Else?
- Blog of law articles: Custody Reform: S.659 – Change that Goes too Far?
- Blog of law articles: Custody Reform: The Current State of Massachusetts Child Custody Law
- Blog of law articles: Custody Reform: What is it?
- Blog of law articles: 5 Worst Divorce Mistakes - MISTAKE #1 "My kids have a right to know what's happening."
In Massachusetts, a person who is married within 300 days of the birth of the child to the mother is the legal parent of the child even if they are not the biological parent. This is a presumption that can be overcome with a paternity test. However, even if the paternity test proves that the husband is not the biological father, this does not necessarily mean he is not the legal father. Someone who acts like a parent for a period of time long enough for the child to be attached to them as a parent has certain rights and obligations. The best interest of the child require that a "de-facto" parent continue to be involved in their life (i.e. have custody and visitation rights), and in some cases also pay child support.
Even absent a marriage, if a father signs a Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity and is added to the Birth Certificate, then they are presumed to be the Father. After one year passes it becomes almost impossible to undo this legal acknowledgement of parentage. In the case of a faked paternity test or other fraud it might be possible to have a Court undo the acknowledgement even after the one year period. However, in many cases, as was the case with Mr. Kerkorian, the father has now been involved in the child's life and would be considered a "de-facto" parent anyway.
Although, California law may be different than Massachusetts law regarding these types of cases, it is still refreshing to see Mr. Kerkorian willing to pay significant child support and take responsibility for a child that is biologically not his. Of course, this reinforces what we've already learned from so many other non-traditional and adoptive families: You don't have be genetically related to a child to be a good parent.
More related web entries for - Could I be Forced to Pay Child Support for someone else's Child?:
- undefined
- 5 Worst Divorce Mistakes - MISTAKE #1 "My kids have a right to know what's happening."
- If I leave the House, will I lose my Kids?
- Can DCF records be used in my Custody Case?
- We agreed to a new Parenting Plan; should we go back to Court?
- Should Parenting Plans include Holiday schedules?
- What is a Caregiver Authorization?
- Does a Criminal Record affect Child Custody?
- What's in a Name? - The Problem with Labeling Parents "Custodial Parent" vs. "Visiting Parent"
- Can I Prevent my Ex from Moving Our Children if they Still Live in-State?
- What is a Parenting Plan? What is the best Parenting Plan for my children?
- What is Nesting and Why Would I try It?
- Divorce and Taxes: Issue #3. Child Dependency Exemptions
- Dramatic Impact of Mediation on Children of Divorce
- Is it Possible to have More than Two Parents?
- Can I be sued for Divorce in Massachusetts if I don't live there but my spouse does?
- Most "Non-Custodial" Parents can still be significantly Involved in their Childrens' Lives
- Should I bring my new Significant Other or my Children to Family Court with me?
- What happens to my case if I move out of state?
- What is Parental Alienation?
- Are there any provisions of a Separation Agreement then must Merge?
- Who Gets Hurt when You Play Telephone with Your Kids?
- I'm Married but my Husband is not the Father of my Child; What Now?
- College: Is it the Right Choice?
- Can I go to Jail for not paying Child Support?
- Q OF THE WEEK: How do I calculate child support?
- Are Gifts from my Family considered Income by the Family Court?
- Divorce & Taxes - Issue #2. Child Support v. Alimony
This entry was posted on at 8:15 AM and is filed under child custody, child support, de-facto parent, legal parent. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
My students and readers of this blog know my support for Dana Corp 's approach to ensure that employees' right to select union r...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...
-
I know how much Judge Silverman loves to preserve and celebrate our heritage, particularly as it relates to the courts and our rich South Fl...