[superdave]

Can presumption of paternity (where mom was married at time of conception and birth) of the husband be challenged in Colorado from the putative father? It sounds like in PA, it can't be, and I wanted to know if that's the case in CO. Thanks.

[GV70]

19-4-105. Presumption of paternity.
Statute text
(1) A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if:

(a) He and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage, within three hundred days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity of marriage, dissolution of marriage, or divorce, or after a decree of legal separation is entered by a court;

(2) (a) A presumption under this section may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence. If two or more presumptions arise which conflict with each other, the presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls. The presumption is rebutted by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man. In determining which of two or more conflicting presumptions should control, based upon the weightier considerations of policy and logic, the judge or magistrate shall consider all pertinent factors, including but not limited to the following:

(I) The length of time between the proceeding to determine parentage and the time that the presumed father was placed on notice that he might not be the genetic father;

(II) The length of time during which the presumed father has assumed the role of father of the child;

(III) The facts surrounding the presumed father's discovery of his possible nonpaternity;

(IV) The nature of the father-child relationship;

(V) The age of the child;

(VI) The relationship of the child to any presumed father or fathers;

(VII) The extent to which the passage of time reduces the chances of establishing the paternity of another man and a child support obligation in favor of the child; and

(VIII) Any other factors that may affect the equities arising from the disruption of the father-child relationship between the child and the presumed father or fathers or the chance of other harm to the child.



ANNOTATION

No provision for father not married to married natural mother to establish paternity. This article makes no provision for a male claiming to be the natural father of a child to bring an action to establish his paternity under circumstances where he was not married to the natural mother and the child was born to the natural mother during her marriage to another. R. McG. v. J.W., 200 Colo. 345, 615 P.2d 666 (1980).

Any presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted in an appropriate action by clear and convincing evidence or by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man. People in Interest of R.T.L., 780 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1989).

When presumptions of paternity arise in more than one potential father, trial courts must take the best interests of the child into account as part of policy and logic in resolving competing presumptions. N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354 (Colo. 2000); In re Ohr, 97 P.3d 354 (Colo. App. 2004).

[GV70]

In re the Marriage of Ohr.
Synopsis:
Juliane R. Ohr (wife) and Roger Bruch (intervenor) appealed from the judgment determining that Gerry Ohr (husband) was the legal father of the child born during husband's marriage to wife.The child had been conceived and born approximately three years before wife filed for dissolution of the marriage. Two months after the petition for dissolution was filed, intervenor filed a petition to establish his paternity based on the results of genetic testing, which showed more than a ninety-nine percent probability that he was the father of the child. The dissolution and paternity actions were consolidated.
After a three-day hearing, the trial court found that husband enjoyed the presumption of legitimacy because the child was born during the marriage and the parties held her out as their child. The court also found that intervenor enjoyed the presumption of being the biological father as a result of the genetic testing. The court further found that all the adults knew or should have known that the child was intervenor's biological child prior to her birth in June 1999. Nevertheless, husband received the child into the family as his own, and intervenor did not assert parentage until May 2002.
Here, because intervenor was neither a legal parent, nor a qualifying nonparent under 14-10-123(1), he did not have standing to seek parenting time.The portion of the judgment determining that husband is the child's legal father was affirmed, the portion awarding intervenor parenting time was reversed, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for correction of the judgment consistent with the views set forth herein.

[DebRid]

In re the Marriage of Ohr.
Synopsis:
Juliane R. Ohr (wife) and Roger Bruch (intervenor) appealed from the judgment determining that Gerry Ohr (husband) was the legal father of the child born during husband's marriage to wife.The child had been conceived and born approximately three years before wife filed for dissolution of the marriage. Two months after the petition for dissolution was filed, intervenor filed a petition to establish his paternity based on the results of genetic testing, which showed more than a ninety-nine percent probability that he was the father of the child. The dissolution and paternity actions were consolidated.
After a three-day hearing, the trial court found that husband enjoyed the presumption of legitimacy because the child was born during the marriage and the parties held her out as their child. The court also found that intervenor enjoyed the presumption of being the biological father as a result of the genetic testing. The court further found that all the adults knew or should have known that the child was intervenor's biological child prior to her birth in June 1999. Nevertheless, husband received the child into the family as his own, and intervenor did not assert parentage until May 2002.
Here, because intervenor was neither a legal parent, nor a qualifying nonparent under 14-10-123(1), he did not have standing to seek parenting time.The portion of the judgment determining that husband is the child's legal father was affirmed, the portion awarding intervenor parenting time was reversed, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for correction of the judgment consistent with the views set forth herein.

This judgement is used repeatedly,as an example, in paternity cases. It is not worth the paper and money it took for the father to be acknowledged as his daughter's legal parent. The Mother and biological father have enacted every traditional method to exempt the husband from communicating, seeing, or having any contact with his daughter. He has not been allowed to contact her on any holiday, birthday, school or any events. The boyfriend continues to live with the mother, share in half the husband's marital property, allow the husband to pay child support for a daughter that is only his biologically. He influences the mother and ensured the husband has not been allowed to have any contact. The husband has spent the last few years fighting the mother's accusations, the boyfriend's threats against himself and family and friends. There should actually be a law against making laws that are never going to be enforced. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I have watched a man go broke fighting for his rights. The judgement made for great media, but it was a farce. Lawyers make laws that the normal person can not afford to fight. The legal profession should be held accountable for making a mockery of the justice system. Lives are ruined by half judgements. Please make sure others do not use this case to garner hope for their case.

[GV70]

The Mother and biological father have enacted every traditional method to exempt the husband from communicating, seeing, or having any contact with his daughter. He has not been allowed to contact her on any holiday, birthday, school or any events. The boyfriend continues to live with the mother, share in half the husband's marital property, allow the husband to pay child support for a daughter that is only his biologically. He influences the mother and ensured the husband has not been allowed to have any contact.

Maybe...BTW the court decisions have binding force.It is not my business to comment them.
According to "Denverpost" Gerry Ohr was charged with solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder, said Lynn Kimbrough, spokeswoman for the Denver district attorney's office. He is free on $200,000 bail.
Judges often scolded Gerry Ohr for repeatedly violating restraining orders.On May 5, 2002, Adams' office filed a restraining order against Gerry Ohr after he took $2,500 from his wife's home along with pictures and pages from her journal, court records say. In early June 2002, a relative of Gerry Ohr's reported to police that he threatened to beat Bruch up and then "take care of both of them (Bruch and Julie Ohr)."

[DebRid]

Maybe...BTW the court decisions have binding force.It is not my business to comment them.
According to "Denverpost" Gerry Ohr was charged with solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder, said Lynn Kimbrough, spokeswoman for the Denver district attorney's office. He is free on $200,000 bail.
Judges often scolded Gerry Ohr for repeatedly violating restraining orders.On May 5, 2002, Adams' office filed a restraining order against Gerry Ohr after he took $2,500 from his wife's home along with pictures and pages from her journal, court records say. In early June 2002, a relative of Gerry Ohr's reported to police that he threatened to beat Bruch up and then "take care of both of them (Bruch and Julie Ohr)."

Thank you for your thoughts. Sorry if you thought I was asking you to explain. Things can get misconstrued from the outside. Funny thing is... Mr. Ohr would not have to constantly be proving the false accusations against him, if he would just let go of any right to his daughter. He refuses to because he loves her and is scared for his daughter's safety.

Did any articles mention that it took an innocent man two years of his life, after great stress and financial hardship, to clear his name from lies and false charges, from a paid police informer? An informer who was mad because Mr. Ohr fired him. The same man, Mr. Ohr had refused to bail out of jail, a few months earlier? An informer with a proven record of lying in court?
Or were there any articles mentioning how the charges against Mr. Ohr, were finally thrown out last August? Did Lynn make any public statements where the courts cleared him of any charges? Did she address to the public that the police did not have any facts, but charged Mr. Ohr on circumstantial and incomplete evidence? No apologies or explanations were given by the legal system.
Yes, to the Judge scolding Mr. Ohr for violating restraining orders. Did the orders explain why? Once he was at his son's game and his ex turned up with her boyfriend. Because she was upset that her son did not want her at the game, she used her cell to call the police and report him. Mr. Ohr, by law, was violating a restraining order, by her showing up where he was. He was expected to immediately leave.

Another time he was at a Christmas program for his daughter, and she and her boyfriend again called the law. The other couple of times were exactly the same. He also had witnesses, who mentioned that she put a restraining order on him, claiming she was scared, and then constantly showed up wherever they knew Mr. Ohr was going to be. The law apparently never listened to these people or Mr. Ohr. Why? I won't speculate as to the reasons. If you wonder how much of this is true. How much of this man's life has been deliberately destroyed by a woman and her boyfriend... look to her own lawyer.

Colorado does not have reciprocal restraining orders. It allows the party who asked for the restraining order, to show up wherever she knows the ex is and then call the Sheriff and have him arrested for violating the order. It helps when the Victim's Advocate is her friend, the Judge is still seeing things from a traditional woman as the victim, and the Advocate's husband is in law enforcement. See a pattern in a small community? Who is the real victim.

Court records did say Mr. Ohr took those things, but he was not able to prove he didn't. The pictures they knew he did not take. Someone else did in the family. The pictures she had taken out of the family home. The person was wrong to take them back, but was young and didn't know the was a law being broken. He thought he was just taking something back to where it had been. She, on the other hand,with a family member, did take $300,000 of the joint money in Mr. Ohr's family safe.

The relative of Mr. Ohr's disliked him and had reason's but no proof for making her claim about supposed threats, that later proved to be false.

My intention wasn't to get into a debate, just to tell other father's not to use this case as an absolute. To at least warn them to get their lawyer to check into the rest of the story. If Mr.Ohr had not fought for his daughter, and been granted legal paternity, his ex and her boyfriend would not have gone to such extreme measures to get him out of the picture. It is a horribly sad story that has wrecked so many lives, not the least, the three children involved.

Thank you for your patience with my explaining. I truly do appreciate it. The law is not always just.