I Swear to God That This Guy Got Scammed! (really long, but worth the read)

[StPaulieGirl]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1078053329102990.xml


DNA testing upsets parentage laws


Sunday, February 29, 2004

By Doug Guthrie
The Grand Rapids Press




Modern science is wreaking havoc on an age-old paternity rule.

 
  From Our Advertiser


   
     
Two key court decisions on Kent County cases have state lawmakers considering the growing conflict between the certainty of DNA testing and the practicality of a decision issued by an English judge more than 200 years ago.

While courts today routinely rely on DNA testing in all other paternity disputes, state law sometimes referred to as the Bastardy Statute or by its British common law origin, Lord Mansfield's Rule, defines a child born into a marriage to be a product of that marriage.

The husband of the mother is legally bound to support the child -- wanted or not -- as though it were his own.

Meanwhile, the biological father has no legal standing. He cannot be held responsible for the child's welfare as long as the marriage remains intact, and he has no legal claim even to visit his child.

At issue is whether the biological father should be held responsible for a child's support, or whether the centuries-old court rule meant to protect the sanctity of marriage should remain in effect.

"This is one of the most familiar rules of law. It is ancient," said Kristine Mullendore, a professor of legal studies at Grand Valley State University and a former assistant Kent County prosecutor.

It is considered essential to holding some families together, Mullendore said, but warned science and social changes may have moved beyond ancient logic.

"It is an area where something probably should be done," she said. "However, this must be done by the Legislature, not the courts."

Sen. Kenneth Sikkema, R-Grandville, who plans to talk with other legislators about the issue and the Kent County cases, said the problem points out "the demon of modern science" and the often unwelcome disruptions it can bring to society.

Mansfield's rule was affirmed last month by the state Supreme Court in a case involving a Rockford man who wanted to support and visit his biological daughter in Grand Rapids. The state's high court supported the mother and her husband's rejection of the biological father's interference in their family.

Now, the issue is alive again in Kent County Family Court, where a biological father claims he was wrongfully ordered to pay $77 per week to support his child born to a married woman.


'Things happened'

Brendon Keith is Anthony Reynolds' son. DNA comparisons have proven the 20-month-old Walker boy's paternity to within a 99.9 percent certainty. Reynolds met Amy Cook-Keith at a party in July 2002. Cook-Keith was and remains married to Donald Keith.

"I met a woman and things happened," Reynolds said. "They were married. I was a single guy. As far as I knew, everything was taken care of, but that's a moot point. Wrong or right, she got pregnant."

The boy was born on June 11, 2002, legally recognized as Amy Cook-Keith's only child. One month later, Cook-Keith asked the court to order Reynolds to pay child support.

"She told me and I didn't believe her," Reynolds said. " Well, people said the test proves I'm the father and they were making me pay. They said I had to pay."

Two days before Christmas 2002, Reynolds was ordered to pay Cook-Keith, plus an amount to cover the period dating back to the child's birth. The order was signed by retired Ionia/Montcalm County Circuit Judge James Nichols, who was filling in that day for Kent County Circuit Judge Paul Sullivan.

Cook-Keith and her husband, Donald Keith, have been married six years. She said they separated for nearly a year, when she met Reynolds. said they reunited when she was pregnant.

"My husband told me he'd take care of me, emotionally, but not financially," Cook-Keith said. "He loves the baby now. We've all been together for almost two years now, but he doesn't buy his diapers or his food. We're not trying to stick a knife into this man and bleed him. I need the support to raise his child."

Reynolds is an auto mechanic who lives on Grand Rapids' Northeast Side. He has two children from a previous marriage, including custody of a teenage daughter.

Reynolds was granted visitation by the court, but he said he felt uncomfortable when he went to Cook-Keith's home, especially when greeted at the door by her husband.

"It was a family. It wasn't like I was watching a man who was mad about this child," Reynolds said. "I was very leery, but he was very friendly, very much a father. I'm the one who felt out of place.

"When a woman has a baby and decides to let it out for adoption instead of having an abortion, that's considered a good thing. I'm not doing anything different. This is a family, and they appeared to me to be a good family. He has a mother and a father and their love."

In the Rockford case, Lord Mansfield's Rule shielded the family. Cook-Keith said in her case, it could split her marriage if it is applied.

"If it's a law to protect the marriage, it can go the opposite way, too," Cook-Keith said. "This could break our marriage. My husband isn't happy. He shouldn't have to support his (Reynolds's) child.

"The state is saying my son is not allowed to have a biological father. What if he needed a blood transfusion or a transplant?"

Kenneth Sanders, the lawyer who represented the Rockford man and lost, later was hired by Reynolds to argue the opposite side of Lord Mansfield's Rule.

"It can't be both ways," Sanders said. "The Supreme Court has said the law won't allow a child to have two fathers."

Reynolds's case now is under consideration by Kent County Family Court Judge Steven Pestka, who is expected to issue an opinion soon.
____________________________________________________________

I wonder if Mr. Reynolds'attorney has thought about ordering Mr. Keith to take a fertility test, sperm count measurement, whatever.  I'm betting that the Keiths decided to inseminate Mrs. Keith without the hassle and expense of a fertility clinic.  

This whole story stinks to high heaven.

You can read more heartawarming stories by checking out the link.

[Peanutsdad]

Until we as a nation decide to clean up the mess family courts have made of the family, we will continue to see ludicrous cases such as these.

[kiddosmom]

-----"My husband told me he'd take care of me, emotionally, but not financially," Cook-Keith said. "He loves the baby now. We've all been together for almost two years now, but he doesn't buy his diapers or his food. We're not trying to stick a knife into this man and bleed him. I need the support to raise his child."
----

you know,  i do not think the father would even know about the baby if the idiots husband forked over financial responsibility.

[NoNicky]

...and wondering why she is even with a man that will not whole-heartedly accept her child.  He knew the score when he got back together with her.  It seems to me that her husband wants his cake and to eat it too.  He's getting to enjoy the baby and a family without the responsibility that goes with it.  

In my own life I would not have married my 2nd husband had he not totally and completely accepted my children.  It had nothing to do with money but it was understood that if their own dad did not ever meet his obligation then the obligation to support them came with me.  My kids and I are a package deal.  I think it should be that way with any non-bio parent.  Doesn't matter the gender or the reasons behind the different paternity.  You take the parent, you take the children too!


NoNicky
For God has not given a spirit of fear; but of power and of love and of a sound mind.  1 Peter 1:6

[Indigo Mom]

And lil ol me could get this biological father outta that child support mess in about 10 seconds flat.....regardless of whether the "husband" buys diapers or not.  

[StPaulieGirl]

It's a scam!!!

Just read it and decide for yourselves.

[Indigo Mom]

Scam as in like one of those email scams where they try to get you to send moolah...or scam as in the woman and her husband scammed this guy?  Scam...how is this a scam?????

If it's a "mommy/husband scamming of the biofather"....well, here goes. I didn't spend a whole bunch of time researching this crap for nothing, SPG...LOL  

Biology in this country, means...diddly squat!  I believe it was Janet Reno who stood up during the whole Elian Gonzalez mess and said "Biology is the bedrock of America".  (or something like that, which I tried to use in court and FAILED miserably)  Well, it is NOT.  Biology means nothing in court.  Trust me when I say...I know this for a fact.  

Not only did "I" have a case where biology meant diddly...but I have a case here in Colorado (not mine)that flew right up the ranks and still proved biology didn't mean diddly.  There are a few, but this particular case set the "standards".....

Because the biological father said this:

-----"It was a family. It wasn't like I was watching a man who was mad about this child," Reynolds said. "I was very leery, but he was very friendly, very much a father. I'm the one who felt out of place. -----

This biological father isn't looking to "get out" of his responsibility, but he's trying to prove that his biological child "has" a father....and that this man is "very much a father".  So, because biodad isn't an idiot, and is OBVIOUSLY looking at what's best for the child....I think he deserves the help...and the mother and husband should get reamed for being "scammers".

Presumption of paternity means alotta things.  And I'm basing all this on the husband KNOWING this child wasn't his from BEFORE birth.

#1 his name is more than likely on the birth certificate...and he allowed it to go on KNOWING this child wasn't his. (they got back together when pregnant and because the child wasn't his, he wouldn't "support" her financially)

#1.5...forgot something, he was legally married to the mother at the time of conception and birth.  (but then...everyone knows this one...LOL)

#2 the child shares his last name...(again, I'm assuming this, but it's highly likely that this is the case)  

#3 he openly held out this child as his own KNOWING it is not his.  He opened his home to the child, he opened his heart to the child.  All the while...again...knowing this baby was not his biological child.

#4  I can just about guarantee you this child calls the husband "daddy".  I think that's a given since the child is just under 2 years old....and since he's the "man" in the house, I would bet my last dollar he's called "dad" and neither mom or husband "corrected" the child.

#5 The husband has established a father/child relationship. There is a father/child bond.

#6 The biological father hasn't established a father/child relationship.  (a few visits here and there do not qualify as "relationship" as father. Not slamming biodad, by the way)

#7 The husband has been legally determined the childs father....because of #'s 1 - 5.

#8 When one man is "legally" determined to be the childs father....another man can't be made to "legally" support this child regardless of whether DNA testing has shown him to be the biological father of said child.  If the courts did this, then YES, they would be claiming that 2 men can be the "legal" father to the child.  

#9 Any child support order against the biological father should, BY LAW, (or should I say Colorado law) be deemed "null and void" as he can't be "determined" to be the legal father...the husband already has.  If one man has been determined to be the "legal" father, he has ZERO rights to go after anyone for support....even the biofather.  It would be similar to me suing my neighbor for child support of my daughter...when another man (her father) has been "determined"  This also means, that if the couple gets a divorce, the mother can "legally" nab the presumed father for child support...but NEVER the biofather.

#10 and my final "thought"....when a man is legally determined to be the father (because of all my #'s) he is given both rights and responsibilities...meaning...he is, by law, obligated to support this child.  

Granted, I live in a different state than these people, but everything I've said can be found in the Colorado Revised Statutes, and I'll bet each state has something similar.   In MY state, the courts look at the "weightier" facts.  

If you look at this case....the "weight" falls to the husband, not the biological father.  Only problem is?  If the biodad had an attorney who "fought" this argument...well, the biodad would have ZERO rights, including parenting time.  (husband has been given "rights and responsibilities)

The key to this case is that the husband KNEW this child wasn't his....but he became the "father" by his OWN choice..he wasn't led to believe this child was his....he took this child as his.  The weight is on him.

I wonder...if the attorney had fought this fight...and it was determined the biological father doesn't owe child support (based on my states revised statutes), would the "husband" stop being/acting as the father to this child...JUST so they can continue receiving $77 a week in "free" money?  They're losers...and I bet they would do JUST this.  However, the determination is already there....

Badda boom...badda bing...one point Indy!

[nosonew]

First, if the old English law is still used and followed, then the bio dad has no rights, nor does he have any responsibility to financially support the child

Secondly, the bio dad feels he should have the same rights as any preganant female, who can decide ON HER OWN, if she wants to terminate her pregnancy or give the child up for adoption (although the adoption thing is sort of in a gray area now).  

I happen to agree with the bio dad.  These 2 married people can provide a loving, stable home to this child, love the child, and he should be able to "abort" his rights to a child he could not physically abort if he chose to.  Period.  

You can't have it both ways.  

And St. Paulie girl, what do you mean by a scam?

[StPaulieGirl]

Maybe my tinfoil hat is screwed on a little tight, lol.  

Let's see:

Husband and wife separate.  Wife has at least one one night stand.

This results in pregnancy.  Husband and wife then get back together.

Husband and wife sue sperm donor for child support.

I just find this situation odd, to say the least.  

[nosonew]

That is exactly what I think too.  And it happens all the time.  And what about those one night stands, or those women who are "trying to get pg" because their clock is running out?  A bunch of b.s. making these dads be responsible, but fighting their rights for visitation.  But, that is a different storyline...ha ha