Replies

Umm, no it won't.

I learned this in pre-law 101. It's as old as the hills.

This isn't like a murder or a rape. This isn't just dealing with the victim, there's someone else involved.

If you accept a child at birth, without question, it's the same as adoption. What, are you going to argue that parents that adopt kids should be able to 'divorce' their kids if they divorce their spouse as well? Rediculous, for obvious reasons. This is no different.

DNA DNA DNA DNA changes alot of old laws it will change this one also. If I accept any legal binding contract under false pretenses then the contract becomes null and void.

If you accept a child at birth, without question, it's the same as adoption. What, are you going to argue that parents that adopt kids should be able to 'divorce' their kids if they divorce their spouse as well? Rediculous, for obvious reasons. This is no different.

This is not the same and you know it. He didn't adopt the kid, once you adopt a child it is yours. He accepted the child because he was TOLD by the mother is was his, he didn't accept it because he was being benevolent and taking on the support of another man's child, he was doing it because he believed the lie that it was his. Entirely different. You have your head squarely up your a** if you think other wise.

If you accept a child at birth, without question, it's the same as adoption.

With adoption you know the truth.

The child accepted at birth is taken under the assumption no one is cheating you.

There is a difference.

What, are you going to argue that parents that adopt kids should be able to 'divorce' their kids if they divorce their spouse as well? Rediculous, for obvious reasons.

Red herring sold here! The adoption scenario is a knowing commitment to raise another man's child. There is no fraud involved.

Whether or not this is a long-standing "legal principle", the ruling is absurd. If the wife stole money from a bank and the husband unknowingly used some of that money to buy a car, does the husband get incarcerated for theft? He probably would lose the car, but he shouldn't be sent up the river for doing nothing more than trusting his spouse, right?

Punishing the husband does NOT protect the child. It only punishes the father and rewards the deceitful mother.

Yours is a slippery slope argument in support of the Nanny State.

"If you accept a child at birth, without question, it's the same as adoption. What, are you going to argue that parents that adopt kids should be able to 'divorce' their kids if they divorce their spouse as well? Rediculous, for obvious reasons. This is no different.

Yes it is. An adoption is entered into knowingly. This woman defrauded this man plain and simple. If the actual father is aware of it, he too is complicit.

"If you accept a child at birth, without question, it's the same as adoption. What, are you going to argue that parents that adopt kids should be able to 'divorce' their kids if they divorce their spouse as well? Rediculous, for obvious reasons. This is no different."

I think you are painfully wrong, and I proved that in court when DNA testing was first being used in court.

I married a woman that had a bastard child nearly 2 years old before I ever met the mother.

Being an nice guy that thought the child should have a last name before she started school, I (foolishly) signed a paper that my x-wife brought home that would claim parentage and change the child's last name.

I don't think it was even legal, but somehow she had it registered and the name and birth certificate was changed.

In a divorce about 2 years later, child support was demanded and after legal battles the tests were done and the judge said he hated the fact that legally he couldn't force me to pay one dime in support.

Even though the mother lied and claimed it was my child, and the records showed it was mine.

Now when the mother and her lawyer found out that I planed to order DNA tests, they withdrew their claim for support, but the stinking liberal judge refused because he still wanted to force me to pay and said as much in open court.

If you accept a child at birth, without question, it's the same as adoption.

No it isn't. Are you going to then suggest that at the moment of birth, the husband accuse his wife of adultery by demanding a DNA test to make sure the child is his? There is such a thing as trust in a marriage and if he has no reason to suspect his wife of adultery, there would be no reason to suspect the child is not his. Of course he's going to accept it as his; it's the only reasonable thing to do. But that is not the same as adoption. That is accepting a child that you KNOW is not yours as your own. In this case, the husband didn't know and could not make a fully informed decision.