The Bean Blog

When it comes to custody we are still living in the dark ages

Sep 5, 2007 In my humble opinion

Earlier I found myself on the website of a man seeking custody of his son. But this isn’t your typical custody battle. In this case James, a single guy, engaged in an extramarital affair with Julia, a married woman with two kids.

After a few months of dating, Julia became pregnant. A year after they began dating Julia gave birth to their son, Julian, in June 2006. Because of Julian’s blood type, they knew right away that James was the father. James and Julia continued to see each other and James got to spend time with his son for the first three months of his life. But then, at James’ urging, Julia finally told her husband about the affair and the fact that Julian was not his child. And all communication with James ended along with his chances of having any more visits with his son.

James is now suing for full custody as was the advice given to him by his lawyer. He has had multiple DNA tests which prove he is the father with a probability of 99.98%. Julia’s husband also took a DNA test which proved there was a 0% chance he is the father. However, Julia’s husband’s name is on the birth certificate because when you are married your husband is presumed to be the father.

On April 30, 2007 a judge declared James the father of Julian. But before the paternity order could be filed, Julia and her attorney husband along with their attorney [her husband's father] filed an emergency motion to stay the decision. Julia claims “irreversible and incalculable damage would be inflicted” upon Julian and Julia and her husband if James was granted paternity, visitation and/or custody. She also claims it would bastardize the child. In court papers, Julia and her husband claim James didn’t have the right to file for custody because under the law the child is presumed to be their child since they are married and were married at the time of the child’s birth. According to this article, Julia and her husband argue it’s a “long and cherished history” that biology is not supreme in cases where the mother is married.

The marital presumption, as it’s called, is designed to foster stability within families.

Although Kentucky has not ruled on the marriage presumption, other states have ruled the married couple’s rights are supreme.

And the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1989 that a biological father outside of a marriage has no constutional right to try to prove paternity of a child born to married parents.

I don’t know about you, but I’m a little disgusted to know I live in a country where a man who is without a doubt the father can be denied paternity because the woman is married to another man. A marriage presumption “law” had a place back in the olden days when there was no such thing as DNA tests. But not today.

And I’m not buying the whole “foster stability within families” excuse. If she wanted to foster stability in her family then she never should have hiked up her skirt and let another man play with her va jay jay. You don’t get rewarded for cheating on your husband. You don’t get to kidnap another man’s child in the name of “family stability.” You don’t get to lie to a child for his entire life just to save yourself the embarrassment of having your kids find out you can’t keep other men’s johnsons out of your drawers.

I think cheating on your spouse is the coward way to deal with your marital problems. But I realize sometimes it happens. Sometimes a man or a woman find themselves in a situation where they think they’re in love with another woman or man and they don’t have the willpower to remain faithful. But when that happens you have to be willing to take the consequences. Julia went outside of her marriage and got pregnant by another man. The consequences of that should be she has to share her child with another man. She will have to endure the pain of separation from her child when he’s visiting his father. Hundreds of thousands of parents endure that pain daily because of divorce and they learn to deal with it because those are the consequences of their actions.

Is it fair that Julia’s husband has to deal with a new man in their lives? No, he didn’t do anything wrong. Is it fair to her other children that they have to share their brother with another family? No it’s not. And it’s sad to think about how this situation will effect them. But I guess Julia should have thought about that before she removed her panties.

Is it fair to a child that he has to split time between two homes? No. But is it fair to a child that he grows up never getting to bond with his father? Hell no. I personally believe a child can adapt easier to two loving homes then he can to never getting to be a part of his father’s life. Especially when that father is a loving father and very much wants to be a big part of that child’s life.

I grew up as a child of divorce with two loving homes. And I turned out normal [well relatively]. Granted, in my perfect world growing up, I would have preferred my parents were together and we were one big happy family. But we made it work and I had a pretty happy childhood. Lee grew up without either of his parents in his life and, although he’s also [relatively] normal, he carries a lot of baggage and trust issues because of the decisions his parents made more than 37 years ago.

There was a case in Iowa several years ago where a woman gave up her child for adoption. The baby went to family in Ann Arbor, MI. But it turns out the biological mother had lied about the paternity of the baby. And when the father found out he wanted his baby back. He never agreed to give up his paternal rights. After an extremely long court battle, the father won custody. And news crews were in Ann Arbor to film social workers literally ripping the then three year old child, kicking and screaming, out of the arms of the only mother and father the child had ever known. From what I understand the child had adjusted well to the new custody arrangement with the father. But it really was devastating watching a toddler’s life getting turned upside down. However, the child was an infant when the custody battle began.

Julian is just one year old. If they can agree to a parenting plan now Julian won’t remember anything other than splitting parenting time between his mother and father. He’ll get used to it and learn to thrive in the situation. But Julia and her husband are so selfish they would rather steal this child from his father and deny this child access to his father because there would be “no remedy for the pain that would be caused to her due to a separation from the minor child.” Let me cry Julia a river over the pain SHE will feel.

I can guarantee you in 17 years when Julian is 18 and finds out his father fought for him and his mother selfishly denied him, Julian will hate her. I know she doesn’t want that. And James doesn’t want that. Hopefully the decision won’t be left to Julia since she doesn’t have the ability to make the best decision for her son at this time. Hopefully the courts will find in James’ favor and at least grant him parenting time.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.