Ann may want to go back to law school.
When an unmarried woman gives birth to a child, a man can file a legal suit for paternity and get a court-ordered paternity test. Even under the most liberal interpretations, once the baby is actually born, it and the potential fathers have rights.
Edwards will get right on that as soon as he reads this thread.
You are right about the man’s rights but only if he wants it. If he doesn’t want to know the results, if the woman is not on state support, and/or if the man and woman have agreed as to the finances and visitation rights, then there is no need for a paternity test and the woman can block it. What would be gained from the paternity test at this point? The only possible advantage is inheritance rights and I am not sure but what the father has already made arrangements for that contingency. At this point, it would only further tarnish Edwards and probably impair his earnings and therefore the kid’s and mother’s support payments. She has no reason to grant the rights and the father undoubtedly doesn’t want to publicly confirm what he already knows.
I wonder if some jurisdictions might require the putative father to first file an acknowldgement of paternity as a condition precedent to finding standing to request a court order for blood or DNA paternity test . Whatever , Ann is right , Edwards and this Hunter person are acting in concert .
What if there is a different father’s name on the birth certificate or in the case of this situation, no fathers name listed at all on the document?