Waiver of Paternity Rights

[Dogmatique]

I left out saying that the father is a citizen of Mexico and that is his place of residence. All he has is a tourist visa, so I don´t think I could go after child support even if I wanted to.

Of course you could.

He can also still file for visitation etc. once paternity is legally established.

And in case it's not obvious...forms relevant to Texas are useless in California.

[aardvarc]

In addition to Clerk's comments - talking about parental "rights" is generally a mis-nomer. It's the rights of the CHILD that the courts care about - including the right to financial support of two parents, and the right to know who BOTH parents are, and to form relationships with BOTH. It's easy for a parent to give up their "rights", simply by choosing not to exercise them; but such choice doesn't negate the rights of the child, which the court will look out for - and in CA courts are willing to do so for the child's entire life as a minor.

[mrshiggins]

First of all, there is no such thing as a waiver of paternity rights in CA. He has 17 years, 364 days to assert his rights to paternity. You can't stop that.

Second, if you are giving birth to a child out of wedlock, contrary to what you've been told already, you do not have to name the father. In fact, you can't name the father. The child doesn't have a father unless a DOP is signed. Otherwise, the child's father's name is -------

Third, and most important (and I can't believe Dogmatique didn't catch this), unless you are married to this man or a DOP is signed, he doesn't HAVE a child and therefore, he doesn't HAVE any rights. None. - Not. One.

I must've mistaken. I thought I read it on here and other websites that if you don't name the father, and you know who the father is, you are lying... am I missing something CourtClerk?

[CourtClerk]

Yes, you're missing the fact that CA no longer allows you to name some random man as the father of your child. Since about 1996.

[mrshiggins]

Yes, you're missing the fact that CA no longer allows you to name some random man as the father of your child. Since about 1996.

Okay, must be confusing with another state or something.
So couldn't a woman who doesn't want a man to be in the childs life, lie about not knowing who the father is?
I mean, either way, if a mother named a random guy or didn't name anyone, the guy could always get a paternity test to prove yes or no... isn't it the same?

[CourtClerk]

Let's try this again. Once more, with feeling.

A woman can no longer name random people as the father of their children. The only person's name who automatically is entered onto a child's birth record is the HUSBAND of the woman. Otherwise, the only way a man's name is entered onto a child's birth record is by (1) a man signing a Declaration of Paternity or (2) the court establishing paternity.

A DNA test is NOT required for the establishment of paternity, not even judically - and there are VERY FEW STATES (in fact, I can't think of one) who allows you to just name a man as the father of your child anymore.

[Dogmatique]

and there are VERY FEW STATES (in fact, I can't think of one) who allows you to just name a man as the father of your child anymore.

...and there are many, many wealthy blokes who are quite relieved about that factoid.

Gates Buffet anyone?