Reasons to break up?

Abuse is subjective. If it "feels like abuse" to the receiver, then it's abuse. Third party opinions on the matter are suggestive but not definitive. At any rate, it's manipulative and inconsiderate. That alone is enough to walk, nay run, far far away.

You could send him an e-mail announcing that you're officially broken up and that the matter is not open for discussion. You could refuse to answer any further correspondence. If he refuses to leave you alone, you could get a restraining order.

You could tell him you're planning to get a paternity test for your husband when the baby is born, and that you'll send him a copy either way. Could say that until then, stressing you out is bad for the baby, and that if he actually cares about the baby, he'll leave you alone.

BTW, this stress IS really bad for the baby. There's evidence that shows hormonal conditions in utero affect our long-term development. Babies who are under constant exposure to cortisol (the stress hormone) are more likely to be stressed out as children and adults. So it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask your husband to handle all further contact with him, and for the police to take over where necessary.

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx said:
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Nadya's correct that in some jurisdictions, the husband of the mother is the legal father of the child. This does not violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, because in these jurisdictions, that man is the "parent." If it were otherwise, anonymous sperm donation and closed adoptions would be outlawed.

So, OP, it might be worth the legwork to find out if you're in one of these jurisdictions. If so, you can cut all ties and tell him to go fuck his paternity test.
 
* possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents*

They mean the biological parent of the child. The Jurisdictions that have changed have done so because a child has a right to know and bond with it's biological family, unless it would be harmful to them.

And yes, re the stress to the unborn child. If I was the OP, I would explain that I plan to have a paternity test after birth. If I require an amnio for other reasons, maybe we can do it then. I would explain to boyfriend that he isn't my boyfriend and partly because of that and the tiny chance he is the dad, he won't be attending any prenatal appointments or the birth. I would reiterate that if there was a higher chance and/or we were on better terms, I would encourage him to have a more active role, but it isn't like that. I would promise to keep him updated on any significant health complications in regards to myself and the baby, and I would tell him when I give birth so we can prepare for the test. That's it, cut ties until we know who the Daddy is for sure.
 
Abuse is subjective. If it "feels like abuse" to the receiver, then it's abuse

Not necessarily. It might feel abusive that my partner won't stop our kids seeing his mother who puts me in my place when I'm obnoxious, but that's because I'm a self centred bitch.
 
Anywhere where it says that a child has a right to an identity, a nationality, to know their family etc. It is rate law that started talking about who the law recognises as one's parents. Presumably to protect married couples from being bothered by men who want access to a child they believe is theirs.

If I could have a dual nationality, but because it was more convenient to my mother, she registered me as her husband's child, she has denied me the right to have the nationality i am entitled to.
 
By that logic a closed adoption would also be against the Convention. There is nothing I can see which says the identity, nationality, or family must be determined biologically.

Edit: Also, what is "rate law"? Google tells me it's to do with the speed of chemical reactions, but I suspect that's not what you meant.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, that was state law.

If you look at every legal definition of parent, including that of the US, it uses words like "natural" and "biological" to talk about who the parent of a child is. Human Rights Act also details the right to know your biological identity. This is why children born from sperm doners can trace their parentage now. A child's right to know where it comes from supersedes anyone's right to privacy. Remember, the assumption is that women are not sexual beings and will not cheat. It was assumed that a married woman's husband would be the biological father of her baby.
 
If you look at every legal definition of parent, including that of the US, it uses words like "natural" and "biological" to talk about who the parent of a child is.
I think every parent of an adopted child would disagree. Can you link to examples?

There's a difference between knowing your biological origins and having the same people as both your legal and biological parents. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I ever wish to be one), so I Googled "marital paternity presumption" to see what was out there. It looks like it's still applicable under US common law, but most of the advice seems to be for husbands who want to challenge paternity rather than the "other man" wanting to be recognised. The one exception I stumbled across said that the best he could hope for—in the absence of substance abuse or other such problems on the mothers part—was visitation rights and the obligation to make child support payments (the assumption was that the husband would of course file for divorce, making the wife a single mother).
From: West's Encyclopedia of American Law
According to the new UPA, the alleged biological father of a child born to a married mother now has standing to bring an action to determine the existence or non-existence of the parent-child relationship. The new UPA also adopts a time limit to rebut the marital presumption to two years following the birth of the child if the presumed father lived in the same household as the child or treated the child as his own.

In addition to the changing provisions of the new UPA, genetic testing has also allowed most states to expand the categories of persons who can challenge the martial presumption and increase the chances that such challenges will be successful. With that, the marital presumption of paternity has become eroded. Twenty-two states now set a scientific standard for a conclusive presumption of non-paternity, while eight states establish a scientific standard for a conclusive presumption of paternity.
Which I read as 22 states where you can use genetic testing to prove you're not the father and 8 where you can use it to prove you are.

From: West's Encyclopedia of American Law
But despite the new emphasis on genetic testing, both the newly revised UPA and most state laws and courts put some emphasis on the best interests of the child. In states such as Arizona, Wisconsin, Kansas, Maryland, Montana and Minnesota, courts have said that the best interest of the child must be taken into account when determining paternity. In some cases, courts have upheld the right to refuse genetic tests if it is determined they are not in the best interest of the child; others have stated the best interests of the child must be taken into account after the genetic testing determines paternity
... so if the OP lives in one of the listed states and is able to successfully argue that not knowing is in the best interests of the child then the court may not order tests at all.

I also think you're incorrect about the basis for legally assuming parentage in a married union. West's Encyclopedia of American Law (which seems to be the source for all quotes in this post although I originally found them on multiple sites) explains it thus:
From:West's Encyclopedia of American Law
The common law also established the "marital paternity presumption," which holds that a child born during a marriage is the offspring of the husband. Therefore, a child born as a result of the wife's adulterous affair is recognized as a legitimate child of the marriage. This rule recognized that illegitimacy brought social stigma as well as severe economic penalties to a child, including the inability to inherit from the husband of the child's mother. By establishing a presumption of paternity and therefore legitimacy, the rule promoted family stability and integrity.
 
The OP has already said this guy is affluent. Any half decent lawyer would secure a paternity test if it was more probable that he was the father. It will be harder given that the odds are so low.
 
Not if another half-decent lawyer is able to argue that it's not in the best interest of the child. You keep making statements of fact without anything to back them up. I've made the effort to find sources, perhaps you could do the same.
 
Abuse is subjective. If it "feels like abuse" to the receiver, then it's abuse. Third party opinions on the matter are suggestive but not definitive. At any rate, it's manipulative and inconsiderate. That alone is enough to walk, nay run, far far away.

You could send him an e-mail announcing that you're officially broken up and that the matter is not open for discussion. You could refuse to answer any further correspondence. If he refuses to leave you alone, you could get a restraining order.

You could tell him you're planning to get a paternity test for your husband when the baby is born, and that you'll send him a copy either way. Could say that until then, stressing you out is bad for the baby, and that if he actually cares about the baby, he'll leave you alone.

BTW, this stress IS really bad for the baby. There's evidence that shows hormonal conditions in utero affect our long-term development. Babies who are under constant exposure to cortisol (the stress hormone) are more likely to be stressed out as children and adults. So it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask your husband to handle all further contact with him, and for the police to take over where necessary.



Nadya's correct that in some jurisdictions, the husband of the mother is the legal father of the child. This does not violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, because in these jurisdictions, that man is the "parent." If it were otherwise, anonymous sperm donation and closed adoptions would be outlawed.

So, OP, it might be worth the legwork to find out if you're in one of these jurisdictions. If so, you can cut all ties and tell him to go fuck his paternity test.

Yes, please, do listen to Schrodinger.
 
Thank you, Emm, for the legwork.

From:West's Encyclopedia of American Law
The common law also established the "marital paternity presumption," which holds that a child born during a marriage is the offspring of the husband. Therefore, a child born as a result of the wife's adulterous affair is recognized as a legitimate child of the marriage. This rule recognized that illegitimacy brought social stigma as well as severe economic penalties to a child, including the inability to inherit from the husband of the child's mother. By establishing a presumption of paternity and therefore legitimacy, the rule promoted family stability and integrity.

This is was in my mind after reading some of london's comments, but I would not have bothered to do all the googling. This is the argument pro marital paternity presumption that I have heard before, too.

My understanding is (sorry, no sources to support my statement) that in some countries the possibility to recognize someone else than the husband of the mother as legally the father of a child is a rather recent development. That is, if the marriage is still valid and the married couple has no intentions of divorcing. Thus those legislations accept that the social stigma of being an illegit child has lessened in the recent years and sometimes it is best for the child to have their biological father acknowledged legally, even if the mother is married to someone else. This requires consent and agreement of all adults involved, as I described in my previous post.

However, after all this discussion and the quotes provided by Emm, I'd say that most likely the OP stands pretty strong if she wants her husband to be recognized as the legal parent of her child. The BF has less to say than the husband, in most cases. I'd still strongly recommend the OP to check the local laws and get the knowledge of what to expect.
 
Last edited:
This whole thing really says to me that the biological father doesn't matter until he does. So what happens after a divorce? Can the bio-mom then come after the bio-dad for child support even though all his rights were stripped away from him previously?
 
This was informative:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5390400_legal-paternity-rights.html

It appears that in order to get a court-ordered DNA test, your boyfriend would have to be able to prove that he has some reason to believe he is the father. Can he prove this, did you leave any kind of paper trail (emails, texts) that would establish that you two had a sexual relationship? If not, then you might be in the clear.

And for heaven's sake, dump his controlling manipulative ass pronto, and if he continues to threaten you in any way, look into a restraining order.
 
So lie, pretend you didn't have sex and make out he is completely deluded?

Or, tell the truth about the chances being tiny and get a paternity test before the kid can even hold their head up alone?
 
It seems like the greater odds favor the husband being the bio dad. She could get a paternity test with her husband quietly on her own when ready without sharing her health business or her husband's health business with the BF at this time. Since she currently experiences BF as controlling and maybe abusive at this time.

If it is husband's? Paternity problem solved without involving BF at this time.

If it is NOT husband's... consider how to deal with sharing or not sharing that info with BF at THAT point in time.

Could take it one thing at a time here. It isn't like they have to go in for paternity tests as a happy trio.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Pregnancy often escalates abusive behavior. Let him know that you'll get a DNA test after the child is born (and he can avoid the litigation costs of taking you to court to require one), and that you will be sure to work out issues of custody and support if the child turns out to be his. But until then, tell him to take a hike, and take measures to protect yourself, physically and emotionally.

And if you want to explore your options for protecting your rights if he does turn out to be the biological father, talk to a local attorney. Don't get your legal advice from the internet. :)
 
Just checking my facts: I think it's dangerous to DNA-test the child before he/she is born -- is that right? (Cuz otherwise, I'd totally recommend getting it done right away.)

I totally agree that now's the time to start getting professional legal advice. Oh and I would definitely break up with the boyfriend.
 
It's risky enough that if you have no other reason to go poking needles in there, it's preferable to wait. However, if there's other testing to be done (e.g. other genetic testing for potential prenatal treatments) then you can take the opportunity to test paternity.
 
Back
Top