[evian07]

My current husband and I met when I was 4 months pregnant. My son's biological father had abandoned me at the time. My (now) husband and I got married when my son was born so he was named on the birth certificate. We recently seperated after just 4 months of marriage because found out he is a complete fraud. and plan to petition for an annulment. Will this allow me to remove him from my son's birth certificate more easily? He is obviously not the biological father so under the circumstances I definitely don't want him on it.

[GV70]

Where do you live in

[evian07]

Where do you live in

California

[seniorjudge]

Q: Will this allow me to remove him from my son's birth certificate more easily?

A: No; you will need to file a lawsuit to terminate his parental rights. You will also need to explain to the court why you falsified a government document. You may be in really big trouble.

[GV70]

Q: Will this allow me to remove him from my son's birth certificate more easily?

A: No; you will need to file a lawsuit to terminate his parental rights. You will also need to explain to the court why you falsified a government document. You may be in really big trouble.

In Ca there is 2 year statute of limitation.You can file in Court for paternity disestablishment if your child is under 2 .
seniorjudge,YOU ARE NOT RIGHT-his name/as a husband/ has to be put on BS

[Xena]

seniorjudge,YOU ARE NOT RIGHT-his name/as a husband/ has to be put on BS

The way the OP worded her post was that her and husband got married when her child was born. Since the OP didn't state that they were already married when the child was born, it's safer for the OP if we assume that they were not married at the time of birth. Actually, you are both correct, but it depends on when OP was married as to which is correct for this particular situation.

[GV70]

The way the OP worded her post was that her and husband got married when her child was born. Since the OP didn't state that they were already married when the child was born, it's safer for the OP if we assume that they were not married at the time of birth. Actually, you are both correct, but it depends on when OP was married as to which is correct for this particular situation.

My mistake.Sorry!
I assumed they were married...

[evian07]

Q: Will this allow me to remove him from my son's birth certificate more easily?

A: No; you will need to file a lawsuit to terminate his parental rights. You will also need to explain to the court why you falsified a government document. You may be in really big trouble.

I didn't falsify any documents... we were married. In the state of CA if you are married the husband is presumed to be the father and is then on the birth certificate.

[GV70]

I didn't falsify any documents... we were married. In the state of CA if you are married the husband is presumed to be the father and is then on the birth certificate.

Ca 7630.(2) For the purpose of declaring the nonexistence of the father
and child relationship presumed under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of
Section 7611 only if the action is brought within a reasonable time
after obtaining knowledge of relevant facts. After the presumption
has been rebutted, paternity of the child by another man may be
determined in the same action, if he has been made a party.


BTW you have to name the real father.
Your husband has right to sue him for back CS.

[evian07]

Ca 7630.(2) For the purpose of declaring the nonexistence of the father
and child relationship presumed under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of
Section 7611 only if the action is brought within a reasonable time
after obtaining knowledge of relevant facts. After the presumption
has been rebutted, paternity of the child by another man may be
determined in the same action, if he has been made a party.


BTW you have to name the real father.
Your husband has right to sue him for back CS.

I am not completely clear as to what you are saying. I need to name the biological father on what? When? What if my husband never actually provided for my son financially? He would have no reason to sue then.