Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Poly Relationships Corner

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-19-2013, 08:10 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
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.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-19-2013, 08:42 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

* 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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-19-2013, 08:46 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-19-2013, 09:10 AM
Emm's Avatar
Emm Emm is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
They mean the biological parent of the child.
Could you point out where it says anything about biological parentage? Here's a link to the text of the Convention.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-19-2013, 09:59 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-19-2013, 10:24 AM
Emm's Avatar
Emm Emm is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 770
Default

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 by Emm; 12-19-2013 at 10:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-19-2013, 11:15 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-19-2013, 03:43 PM
Emm's Avatar
Emm Emm is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
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 foróin the absence of substance abuse or other such problems on the mothers partówas 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).
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-19-2013, 03:53 PM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-19-2013, 03:58 PM
Emm's Avatar
Emm Emm is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 770
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
family, husband, pregnant, relationship, secondary

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:43 AM.