Does my husband need to adopt our unborn child?

Guest1234

Hi All

Myself and husband 'John' had a trial seperation and in that time, I met another man 'Mark', I am now pregnant with Mark's child. My husband and I have decidede to continue our relationship - we have three children already so this will be number 4. My husband knows I'm pregnant and I told him as soon as I found out.

I will wait until I'm 12 weeks pregnant to tell 'Mark' just in case anything happens in the mean time, as I don't want to cause him unnecessary concern.

Myself and husband will accomodate 'Mark' as much as we can with visitation and having an influcence over this childs life (if he wants it) however we have a concern over legal rights.

My husband will go on the birth cert as the childs father.
The child will know that s/he has 'two' dads.
However, if I was to die - could Mark take the child from my husband and what will essentially be his/her family unit? Or does my husband need to adopt the child also?

Any comments or people in a similar situation, would be most welcome.

Regards
Guest

Sid_Justice

surely it's an offense to intentionally put incorrect information on a birth cert?

if you put your husband's name on the birth cert, why even tell 'mark' the baby is his?

an unmarried father of a baby with a different person's name on the birth cert has no legal rights to your child.

Guest1234

Hi Sid

"an unmarried father of a baby with a different person's name on the birth cert has no legal rights to your child"

As a fit married mother, I know I will have full custody but that is not the issue - I want him to be involved if he wants to. If he doesn't that is also fine.

BUT....if I died the child would automatically be under the care of my husband....could 'Mark' then demand a paternity test and apply for full guardianship/custody, etc?? Or would it be better if my husband applys for adoption when the child is born to leave no uncertainty of the child being plucked completely from his/her family unit?

Sid_Justice

One would presume you can't put John's name on the birth cert and then seek adoption. Common sense would indicate you would have to put Mark's name on the birth cert and then seek adoption on behalf of John. I actually shouldn't have replied to this thread, I didn't appreciate it was in the legal discussion forum, I have no knowledge of Irish Family law. I just couldn't idly watch you commit this gross deception.

MagicSean

Guest1234 wrote: »

Hi Sid

"an unmarried father of a baby with a different person's name on the birth cert has no legal rights to your child"

As a fit married mother, I know I will have full custody but that is not the issue - I want him to be involved if he wants to. If he doesn't that is also fine.

BUT....if I died the child would automatically be under the care of my husband....could 'Mark' then demand a paternity test and apply for full guardianship/custody, etc?? Or would it be better if my husband applys for adoption when the child is born to leave no uncertainty of the child being plucked completely from his/her family unit?

You seem to be missing the point. If you put Johns name on the birth cert he will be considered the childs biological father and will be unable to adopt him and will not need to. However by putting his name on the birth cert you are committing an offence. In addition if Mark decides to assert his paternity by way of DNA test your husband will have absolutley no rights.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Stench Blossoms

Can a child be adopted without the father's consent?

harr

Guest1234 wrote: »

Hi Sid

"an unmarried father of a baby with a different person's name on the birth cert has no legal rights to your child"

As a fit married mother, I know I will have full custody but that is not the issue - I want him to be involved if he wants to. If he doesn't that is also fine.

BUT....if I died the child would automatically be under the care of my husband....could 'Mark' then demand a paternity test and apply for full guardianship/custody, etc?? Or would it be better if my husband applys for adoption when the child is born to leave no uncertainty of the child being plucked completely from his/her family unit?

I think you would have to wait till the child is born to start a adoption and also i would reckon mark would have to agree to the process and sign various legal papers.If mark does not agree to the adoption and you you die i would say he could fight for the child as the legal father,and i would say he could have a good chance in getting the child as your husband in no way would be related to the baby.A confusing situation and not one i would like to be in,but good luck.

Guest1234

OH SID...

"if you put your husband's name on the birth cert, why even tell 'mark' the baby is his?"

because I don't want to comit 'GROSS DECEPTION'


Thank-you Seanbeag for your comments - the way to go may be to put Mark's name on the cert but have John adopt the child as adoption is the only way John will have assurances that Mark can never seek full custody - I think...!

Thanks also Harr - I think Mark will be agreeable, he'll get all the visitation and facilitation he wants or not as the case may be - I think he will want involvement in the childs life and my husband and I will facilitate him. I haven't told Mark yet, but will when I'm over the three month period.

MagicSean

You should really consult a family law specialist. Afaik Irelands laws in regard to adoption and giving up parental rights are not exactly simple. For a small fee you can get a consultation and decide the appropriate course of action.

Stench Blossoms

Guest1234 wrote: »

OH SID...

"if you put your husband's name on the birth cert, why even tell 'mark' the baby is his?"

because I don't want to comit 'GROSS DECEPTION'


Thank-you Seanbeag for your comments - the way to go may be to put Mark's name on the cert but have John adopt the child as adoption is the only way John will have assurances that Mark can never seek full custody - I think...!

But Deception on it's own is fine?

Putting your husbands name on the birthcert is deception.

seamus

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

In addition if Mark decides to assert his paternity by way of DNA test your husband will have absolutley no rights.

Actually I'm not sure what the story is there. I always thought that in this country the birth cert was unchangeable. Maybe I'm wrong.

There was a famous case a year or two back where a woman had a child with a local man, but put her husband's name on the birth cert.
Fast forward 30 years, the son met a girl and fell in love, planned marriage, but turned out to be his half-sister (i.e. his biological father's daughter).

His mother, her father and some other groups attempted to put a stop to the marriage through the courts, but in the end it was found that all the DNA evidence in the world was irrelevant - he was not legally his fiancé's brother as the man named on his birth cert was his legal father and therefore he was legally unrelated to her.

I'll see if I can dig up links.

OP, you need a solicitor to sort out this mess.

beeftotheheels

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

You should really consult a family law specialist. Afaik Irelands laws in regard to adoption and giving up parental rights are not exactly simple. For a small fee you can get a consultation and decide the appropriate course of action.

And before you do this you need to talk to Mark because if he decides that he wants to exercise his rights as a parent that is an entirely different kettle of fish to the two scenarios you have envisaged which involve him either having no involvement, or having involvement only on your terms i.e. allowing your spouse adopt his child.

Going to a lawyer before you know the facts is not a great idea. Figure out the facts, then get a solicitor.

Guest1234

Stench bottom - not telling someone there the father is GROSS deception. You are decieving the father.

Putting my husband's name on the childs brith cert is deception - but it's not GROSS deception - you are decieving 'the administration system of the government' - birth certs are normally used for school registration, etc - I don't want them knowing my business as I live in a small town.

MagicSean

seamus wrote: »

Actually I'm not sure what the story is there. I always thought that in this country the birth cert was unchangeable. Maybe I'm wrong.

There was a famous case a year or two back where a woman had a child with a local man, but put her husband's name on the birth cert.
Fast forward 30 years, the son met a girl and fell in love, planned marriage, but turned out to be his half-sister (i.e. his biological father's daughter).

His mother, her father and some other groups attempted to put a stop to the marriage through the courts, but in the end it was found that all the DNA evidence in the world was irrelevant - he was not legally his fiancé's brother as the man named on his birth cert was his legal father and therefore he was legally unrelated to her.

I'll see if I can dig up links.

OP, you need a solicitor to sort out this mess.

Very interesting. Not particularly surprising in this backward country. That decision would indicate the state values the legal family unit over the natural family unit which I would se as a flawed interpretation of the constitution.

Guest1234

Beeoftheheels - thanks for your comment - I will be talking to Mark shortly. However, it won't be my terms - it will be the terms that are fairest to the child. Mark can have every involvement he wants - apart from legal guardianship and I think that is only fair to the child. Fast forward ten years down the road, I die and Mark comes along and wave's his rights as legal father - child moves down to him - he's happy, but what affect would that have on a child who has lived with their brother and sisters for ten years and John?

Sid_Justice

beeftotheheels wrote: »

And before you do this you need to talk to Mark because if he decides that he wants to exercise his rights as a parent that is an entirely different kettle of fish

Mark as an unmarried father of this child has little or no rights as a parent. The original poster, let's call her Mary , has all the rights. If her husband is named on the birth cert he has lots of parent rights. Whether Mark goes on the birth cert or not really makes no difference to his parental rights, as he has none either way unless shes gives him some.

I would wish 'Mary' the best of luck with the pregnancy. If I was in her position, I would approach Mark in a few weeks, after the first trimester and indicate that she is expecting. I would advice her to say she's not sure who the biological father is and try and gauge his reaction.

The other flip side is if John gets legal parenting rights and Mary and John split up again or get a divorce, this doesn't leave Mark in a strong position at all.

SugarHigh

Your husband is insane if he puts his name on the birth cert. If you break up again then this guy could be left paying 23 years worth of child support for someone elses kid.

harr

Guest1234 wrote: »

Beeoftheheels - thanks for your comment - I will be talking to Mark shortly. However, it won't be my terms - it will be the terms that are fairest to the child. Mark can have every involvement he wants - apart from legal guardianship and I think that is only fair to the child. Fast forward ten years down the road, I die and Mark comes along and wave's his rights as legal father - child moves down to him - he's happy, but what affect would that have on a child who has lived with their brother and sisters for ten years and John?

Not been smart but if he wants to part of the child's life why should he give up his legal rights to the child,if he did this you could at any stage stop him from seeing his child,you say that you will allow him all the access he wants now, but how will your hubby deal with this in the coming years.
I think mark would be mad to sign the child away,if he wants to be apart of its life.

SugarHigh

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Can a child be adopted without the father's consent?

Well if the father isn't even on the birth cert he could.
In fact I think even if he was on the cert but wasn't married then the mother doesn't even have to tell him.

beeftotheheels

Guest1234 wrote: »

Beeoftheheels - thanks for your comment - I will be talking to Mark shortly. However, it won't be my terms - it will be the terms that are fairest to the child. Mark can have every involvement he wants - apart from legal guardianship and I think that is only fair to the child. Fast forward ten years down the road, I die and Mark comes along and wave's his rights as legal father - child moves down to him - he's happy, but what affect would that have on a child who has lived with their brother and sisters for ten years and John?

But you're still looking at this only from your point of view. Say, heaven forbid, you died in childbirth and Mark wanted custody. One would assume that it would be in the best interests of the child to know his/ her half siblings, but not necessarily to be raised with them by someone he was not related to if his own father was prepared and able to raise him.

Say in five years time you get murdered (again heaven forbid) and your husband can't handle it and turns to the booze and neglects the kids. Again it is not clear that the best interests of the child would give your husband custody over Mark on this.

The best answer, in what is a dreadful pickle of a situation, would be to be completely open and honest and try to figure out a compromise with Mark.

But I don't think you can start off assuming he will sign away rights to his child, because that might not be in the best interests of his child in all cases.

Guest1234

Thank-you Sid, yes you've raised another interesting dynamic - if me and John were to split up - that's the thing you see there is so many combinations and permutations, I just want to do the right thing by everyone.

Somehow, I think Mark will be delighted, he really wants children and even though the situation is not ideal - I do think he'll be very happy in general and as he will have influence, etc he will be able to make the best of this unusual situation.

Sugarhigh - I'm the main earner so my husband wouldn't be left paying child support - I've enough to support my family if both men were not in my life - I would never look for maintenance of either.

Stench Blossoms

Guest1234 wrote: »

Somehow, I think Mark will be delighted, he really wants children and even though the situation is not ideal - I do think he'll be very happy in general and as he will have influence, etc he will be able to make the best of this unusual situation.

If Mark really wants children then I can't see how he would possibly agree to giving up his rights (well technically he doesn't have any - but a paternity test and a day in court will give him guardianship) to the child and allow him/her to be adopted by another man.

blueythebear

Lots of things to consider in this scenario. The important thing is to work everything out in advance of the child being born and make sure everyone is happy with the arrangements in advance. Mark could apply for access and guardianship. If he is not happy with the guardianship worked out, he can apply to the court for more. This type of scenario could get very nasty if any party feels aggrieved.

Your husband would have to change his will if he wants the new child to benefit unless he adopts. Adoption is a long and complicated process and Mark would have to consent to this. In doing so, he may have to waive all rights to the child (I'm not sure on this as I know SFA about adoption law in Ireland) which he may not be willing to do. However, seeing as this child appears to be borne out of an extra -marital affair, it would be conceivable that this might hamper any adoption on grounds that the relationship is not strong enough!

You would need to see a family law solicitor or seek advice from some group like FLAC or AIM on this as it's a complicated issue.

Meteoric

You really do need to seek real legal advice on this. It was 20+ years ago but my uncles partner had to go to court to ensure her husbands name did not go on my cousins birth cert as at the time there was no divorce in Ireland and at the time that meant he (the husband) was the father. They had been separated for years and the husband had another partner and no-one was in doubt as to who was the actual father. I'm sure, and hope, that this has changed since then but I remember the complications at the time

The Big Red Button

Guest1234 wrote: »

Putting my husband's name on the childs brith cert is deception - but it's not GROSS deception - you are decieving 'the administration system of the government' - birth certs are normally used for school registration, etc - I don't want them knowing my business as I live in a small town.

But is "Mark" going to be happy with having another man's name on the birth certificate? This means that he has no legal right to any access to the child - it'll all be up to you. If, as you seem to expect, he will want to be involved in the child's life, surely he'll want to be legally recognised as the father. Otherwise you could take away all access to the child with no notice at all!

Why would he take on the responsibilities of a father with none of the rights? And why would you be prepared for him to play a part in your child's life, with the knowledge that he could walk away at any time without notice, and there's nothing you could do about it? As he has no legal relationship with the child.

Also (not from a "legal" point of view) you have mentioned that the most important thing is the welfare of the unborn child in this scenario. However you also need to consider your three older children. It's likely that it's going to be extremely confusing for them that that the new baby has "two fathers" whereas they only have one. Also, if they're old enough, is it possible that they may, on some level, resent the new baby, as they will associate him/her with their parents separation?

To be honest, I think that the whole situation is an awful lot messier than you're hoping it will turn out to be. I think that, for a start, you need to stop thinking in terms of the small town "knowing your business", and just think about the real people and relationships involved.

metrovelvet

Because you are married the paternity is assumed to be your husbands. "Mark" can sue and petitition for paternity, or contest the paternity, get a blood test and Marks paternity will be established if that is what he wants.

But Mark may not be too bothered, and be happy to leave your husbands name on it and have the child raised by him.

Option 3 is that Marks name does go on the birthcert, your husband adopts the child, and gets another birthcert, so the child has a record of biology and also of parentage.

Try to go down the most honest route you can. These things have a way of backfiring if you dont.

legaleagle10

well here's my two cents!....On the birthcert "Mark" would have to be put down as the father as he is the biological father not "John".

The Child for "Mark" is a child born out of marriage (as its not Johns) which unfotunately for him IMO leaves him in a weak position in respect to his rights and therefore isnt his "family unit".[ See State (Nicolaou)v An Bord Uchtala....non-married fathers have "rights of interest". In this case non married father asserted his rights to object to adoption of his child, he applied for guardianship and the Supreme Court held " no constiutional right to guardianship of father exist i.e had no say in the adoption process but the Judge went onto say it depended on "each individual case" and actually went on to deferenciate between a child conceived by casual intercouse than a child conceived through a loving, committed relationship]..........this is really starting to sound like an exam question im doing!

Ireland is notoriously harsh IMO on unmarried fathers, in this scenario only you will have automatic rights to the child. So you would be the sole guardian of the child and not sure what happens when you die i presume you could "nominate" someone obviously "John" in this position to maintain the child until the age of 18. I dont think M could take the child off you if you were deceased as, previously stated, Irish courts harsh on non-married fathers plus the fact would be taken into account that the child lived with you and J for X amount of years and not M.

"If a child in Ireland is born outside of marriage, the mother is the sole guardian. The position of the unmarried father of the child is not so certain. If the mother agrees, the father can become a joint-guardian if both parents sign a "statutory declaration". The statutory declaration (SI 5 of 1998) must be signed in the presence of a Peace Commissioner or a Commissioner for Oaths."

Guest1234 wrote: »

Hi All

Myself and husband 'John' had a trial seperation and in that time, I met another man 'Mark', I am now pregnant with Mark's child. My husband and I have decidede to continue our relationship - we have three children already so this will be number 4. My husband knows I'm pregnant and I told him as soon as I found out.

I will wait until I'm 12 weeks pregnant to tell 'Mark' just in case anything happens in the mean time, as I don't want to cause him unnecessary concern.

Myself and husband will accomodate 'Mark' as much as we can with visitation and having an influcence over this childs life (if he wants it) however we have a concern over legal rights.

My husband will go on the birth cert as the childs father.
The child will know that s/he has 'two' dads.
However, if I was to die - could Mark take the child from my husband and what will essentially be his/her family unit? Or does my husband need to adopt the child also?

Any comments or people in a similar situation, would be most welcome.

Regards
Guest

rolly1

legaleagle10 wrote: »

well here's my two cents!....On the birthcert "Mark" would have to be put down as the father as he is the biological father not "John".

The Child for "Mark" is a child born out of marriage (as its not Johns) which unfotunately for him IMO leaves him in a weak position in respect to his rights and therefore isnt his "family unit".[ See State (Nicolaou)v An Bord Uchtala....non-married fathers have "rights of interest". In this case non married father asserted his rights to object to adoption of his child, he applied for guardianship and the Supreme Court held " no constiutional right to guardianship of father exist i.e had no say in the adoption process but the Judge went onto say it depended on "each individual case" and actually went on to deferenciate between a child conceived by casual intercouse than a child conceived through a loving, committed relationship]..........this is really starting to sound like an exam question im doing!

Ireland is notoriously harsh IMO on unmarried fathers, in this scenario only you will have automatic rights to the child. So you would be the sole guardian of the child and not sure what happens when you die i presume you could "nominate" someone obviously "John" in this position to maintain the child until the age of 18. I dont think M could take the child off you if you were deceased as, previously stated, Irish courts harsh on non-married fathers plus the fact would be taken into account that the child lived with you and J for X amount of years and not M.

"If a child in Ireland is born outside of marriage, the mother is the sole guardian. The position of the unmarried father of the child is not so certain. If the mother agrees, the father can become a joint-guardian if both parents sign a "statutory declaration". The statutory declaration (SI 5 of 1998) must be signed in the presence of a Peace Commissioner or a Commissioner for Oaths."

Thanks be to God but we have moved on a bit since Nicolau and the 1960's.
The adoption authority is legally obliged to notify the father if the mother intends to adopt the baby with her husband.

"Mark" will not be a legal guardian upon the birth of the child. If he is notified of the adoption and opposes he will then have to initiate guardianship and/or access proceedings in the courts to give a legal basis to his opposition. When the adoption authority recieves evidence that these proceedings are under way it will then adjourn the adoption application pending the outcome of the legal process.

Under the Adoption Act 2010, the right of the father to be notified is reinforced: if the mother is unwilling or unable to name the father, a statutory declaration will be sought from the High Court to allow the application to proceed.

legaleagle10

"a bit" is about right

layviae

op i strongly suggest that you seek legal advice on this as some of the advice youve been given here is wrong
the 2010 adoption act gives the natural father rights to object to the adoption
if your husband trys to adopt the child and the other fathers name isnt on the birth cert and you wont tell the social worker who the natural father is it will have to go to the high court for the child to be released for adoption (that takes a long time at the moment a year to two years)
it wont just be your husband who had to adopt the child you will have to adopt your child together as husband and wife the result of this is that the child will be legally considered your child as if it was born to you in marriage.
the legal relationship between the childs natural father and the child will be permently terminated and he will never have to pay matinance.
also the child can only be adopted once if you and your husband seprate or divorce the child will always be his even if you remarry and want your future husband to adopt the child therefore your present husband will always be liable for matinace in respect of your child
pergnancy can be a difficult and confusing time and i wish all of you the best in it but do some serious reserch before the child is born contact you lawyer contact the hse adoption services and find out if the childs father will agree to terminating all legal rights between himself and the child.
its very fair of you on the child and the father that your willing to keep contact with its natural father after the adoption
good luck