Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:NP here.
Best of luck to you and your family OP.
I would just advise that your husband stop trying to play hardball. The paternity test is inevitable. He needs to simply give it to her instead of waiting on a court order. The attorney simply wants to milk this case for all he can. He's not concerned about the best interest of your family.
It's clear the AP and husband want to have their cake and eat it too. They get to stay together, raise the child, but get financial support from your husband. And I think they'll have it their way. If they decide to stay together, that's on them. But your husband will still have to support his child. Usually the only time a court will refuse to sever paternity ties is if there's no one to step into the role of father. The courts will not legally bastardize a child. They will, however, make changes to acknowledge the true biological father.But you never know. As you said, it depends on the judge and what kind of morning s/he has.
As far as the child support the AP did not get for the past two years, it is very possible he will be forced to pay it. My sister insisted on back child support for the 1st 3 years of her child's life after things were finally addressed in court when he was 3. And she got it. The father could not afford the lump some but was ordered to pay on top of the original amount until the past debt was settled.
Finally, I do vaguely recall a post about you slashing Christmas decorations in front of the AP's dingy $19,000 home. But that's neither here nor there.
Usually child support is retroactive to the date of filing, not birth. But, it really depends on the judge. In this case he knew about the child and refuses to acknowledge paternity. Its going to get very messy.
Yeah, to the date of filing for an unsuspecting guy who had no idea a child existed. In OP's case--as well as my sister's--the father was well aware there was a child that could likely be his.
Was your sister married with her husband raising the child as his own? Providing medical care, food and shelter. This child has a legal father that loves him. If your sister was single, I can understand this but OP's husband's OW has had her own husband supporting the child the entire time.
She was engaged by the time the case made it to court--to a man who had stepped up and been a father figure from the time my nephew was a little over a year old. But the case was between her and the man DNA determined to be the biological father as far as the court was concerned. I advised her to take the support that was ordered and keep it moving, but she insisted the bastid was going to pay for being an ass. And he did. (Although she had a soon-to-be and now husband in the picture, it was important to her that her child knew his real father/heritage. She didn't want family secrets scarring him later. Everyone in the family knew the truth and she didn't want to live under the fear of the truth coming out someday--innocently or maliciously.)
Was the man married that she had the child with?
No, he wasn't. But I don't think that matters when determining whether or not the father owes back support.
Not OP but it actually does. This child has a legal father. Your sister was reimbursed for all expenses via back child support that she incurred because she was a single parent. A fiancé has no legal rights to support a child of a woman he is going to marry.
Let's just put it this way. I believe if AP (and her hubby) request child support and make the argument that it was denied for the first two years of the child's life because bio dad was dragging his feet, being an ass or whatever, she/they will get it. Once the court determines he is the father of the child he's known about for two years, he will be responsible for supporting said child and responsible for retro. Once the bio dad is determined, as far as the court is concerned, AP's hubby was never the legal father and under no obligation to support the kid for the first two years.
The bottom line...getting back to the topic at hand...is that this is a terrible, terrible sour pickle for all involved.
But OP, when the dust settles one day, I think it would be wise to bring the children together so they know their siblings. That is a whole 'nuther issue in my sister's story. Let's just say, my nephew (and her) benefitted greatly from him having a relationship with his (half) siblings. They became very, VERY, VERY successful. Even better, they were raised by their father to consider one another siblings; there was no half stuff going on. So when the two (half) siblings became EXTREMELY prosperous, they took care of ALL of their siblings. Their family values were just that way.
There's also just the added benefit of my nephew having a larger family than he would have. I believe the more people a child has in his life to love him, the better. And thanks to his extremely fertile father, my nephew has TONS of love in his life.