Rights Of Husband Versus Rights Of The Biological Father

[Lawrence D. Gorin, Atty.]

Is a vasectomy considered 100% positive sterility by the court?

ANSWER: No.

[GV70]

Is a vasectomy considered 100% positive sterility by the court?

ANSWER:It depends on the judge.

[jk]

ANSWER:It depends on the judge.

only a foolish judge would accept merely the fact of a vasectomy as proof of sterility.

There are too many failures, especially in the short period after the procedure where there is still sperm left in the vas deferens that makes its way out via ejaculation.

Not saying a judge may not accept it as proof, merely they would be foolish to do so.

[GV70]

only a foolish judge would accept merely the fact of a vasectomy as proof of sterility.

There are too many failures, especially in the short period after the procedure where there is still sperm left in the vas deferens that makes its way out via ejaculation.

Not saying a judge may not accept it as proof, merely they would be foolish to do so.

I know A LOT OF CASES where the judges order DNA tests and medical analyses with and without reasons...The first one was Cole v. Cole
328 S.e.2d 446, 74 N.c. App. 247 /"Thus in light of the district judge's findings that scientific evidence demonstrated that defendant was sterile at the time Jonathan Cole was conceived, and that if defendant was sterile, the blood grouping probability of paternity was reduced to 0%, his conclusion that defendant fathered Jonathan Cole is erroneous. Rather, the judge's findings compel the conclusion that defendant did not father Jonathan Cole"/.

would assume that the fact that I have had a vasectomy (at my wife's request a couple years back) .

[Tangledweb62]

I am in the same boat as Robert44, so I understand his position. My wife had an affair and is now pregnant with the baby due in Sept. 08. We have 3 children and do not feel that they should be subject to their mom's indiscretions at this time due to their ages and upbringing. I like Robert do not want the interference from a third party as the biological father. I live in Arkansas, but to preserve my family as we know it I would move. Besides the states of Oregon and Pennsylvania, what other states allow an intact marriage to basically wipe out the rights of the biological father of a quasi-marital child?

[Baystategirl]

But your wife solicited the "interference" of this "third party" by having sex and getting pregnant with HIS child. YOU are really the third party to this baby. You are not the father or the mother. Hence you are the third party. Lying to a child about their parentage is wrong and will cause problems in the future.

[Lawrence D. Gorin, Atty.]

Besides the states of Oregon and Pennsylvania, what other states allow an intact marriage to basically wipe out the rights of the biological father of a quasi-marital child?

I do not know the answer to that question. You would have to check the laws of every state in the nation to get an answer. I have not yet had a chance to do that.

HOWEVER, the rule that we now have in Oregon is pretty definite and certain. (I know this because I am the lawyer who drafted the law.) In simple terms, so long as husband and wife remain married to each other and continue residing together, the husband's presumptive paternity of his wife's child may not be challenged (unless, of course, husband and wife consent to such challenge).

The Uniform Parentage Act (2002 version) has been adopted (thus far) by the following states: Delaware, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Under UPA sec. 607 a proceeding brought by a individual to adjudicate the parentage of a child having a presumed father (i.e., a child born to a married woman) must be commenced not later than two years after the birth of the child.

However, a proceeding seeking to disprove the father-child relationship between a child and the child’s presumed father (i.e., the man who was married to the child's mother when the child was born) may be maintained at any time if the court determines that (1) the presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception; and (2) the presumed father never openly held out the child as his own.

Oregon is a pretty good place to live. Look forward to seeing you here.

[Baystategirl]

I do not know the answer to that question. You would have to check the laws of every state in the nation to get an answer. I have not yet had a chance to do that.

HOWEVER, the rule that we now have in Oregon is pretty definite and certain. (I know this because I am the lawyer who drafted the law.) In simple terms, so long as husband and wife remain married to each other and continue residing together, the husband's presumptive paternity of his wife's child may not be challenged (unless, of course, husband and wife consent to such challenge).

The Uniform Parentage Act (2002 version) has been adopted (thus far) by the following states: Delaware, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Under UPA sec. 607 a proceeding brought by a individual to adjudicate the parentage of a child having a presumed father (i.e., a child born to a married woman) must be commenced not later than two years after the birth of the child.

However, a proceeding seeking to disprove the father-child relationship between a child and the child’s presumed father (i.e., the man who was married to the child's mother when the child was born) may be maintained at any time if the court determines that (1) the presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception; and (2) the presumed father never openly held out the child as his own.

Oregon is a pretty good place to live. Look forward to seeing you here.

Congratulations on drafting a law that allows children to be denied their right to know their true father. Good job. Hopefully one of these children won't have a disease that requires their biological father to donate blood or bone marrow...

[Tangledweb62]

Baystategirl, you need to read before you preach. I never said anything about denying this child the knowledge of their heritage. We just want things to be on our time frame for telling the child and it's siblings, not to be determined by an outside party. We have three children that are at ages where it would be difficult for them to not hold resentment towards her. What she has done is a contradiction to everything she and I have taught them. Now as for the involvement of the biological father in this child's life that simply isn't going to be an option, I will take whatever actions I must to prevent this.
I came on here for legal advice, not a lecture. It would be real simple for me as a man to divorce my wife on obvious grounds and my children would choose to live with me out of their resentment of what she has done. This is a throw away society that is very selfish,throw away your old wife get a new one. I had 16 good years with her and believe we can salvage our relationship and with 3 kids from 11 to 15 I also have to do what is best for them. I am 45, a professional with a college degree, in decent shape, work out 3 times a week, make good money and I'm respected at my job. I can get women, but what I want is my family restored. So again don't lecture me before you know me.
Thanks to the Oregon attorney, I might just take you up on that invite!
I've got a cousin out there and he wouldn't think of leaving!

[Lawrence D. Gorin, Atty.]

Congratulations on drafting a law that allows children to be denied their right to know their true father. Good job. Hopefully one of these children won't have a disease that requires their biological father to donate blood or bone marrow...

Thank you. Of course, there are strong and valid arguments for the view you express. (Much like death penalty, abortion, and other controversial issues.) Ultimately, it boils down to public policy decision-making by the legislature(s) and the courts.

Here we have a conflict between the right of a biological father (and perhaps the right of the child) to a paternity determination based on biological reality (giving riise to subsequent demands for visitation and, perhaps, custody), as opposed to the right of the child's mother and her husband to maintain the integrity and security of an intact marriage and cohesive family unit (notwithstanding mother's prior affair) and who wish to protect themselve and the child from intrusion, interference and involvment by the child's biological father and safeguard against the stress, strain, emotional and psychololgical problems that might otherwise result. It is a balancing of interests.

Your point re the child's "right" to know his/her "true father" is valid. But what happens if the child's true father chooses not to know the child? While the law may declare a legal parent-child relationship based on biological reality, the law cannot force the parent to be emotionally. psychologically or in any other way (except financially) invlved in the child's life.

Further, the concern you express regarding the prospect of the child having a disease that requires the biological father to donate blood or bone marrow, etc., is also valid. But what happens if the biological father chooses not to assert or claim any paternal rights? Indeed, what if he refuses to donate his blood or bone marrow to save the child's life? Should the law force and compel him to do so? After all, doesn't the child have a right to "LIFE, liberty and happiness"?

No easy answers. All depends on one's point of view, and perhaps, a choice as to the least detrimental available alternative.