Blog

(United States Second Circuit) – Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded. The District Court erred in granting a petition to have a child returned to his habitual home of Italy under the Hague Convention. Although it was affirmed that Italy was the child’s habitual residence if repatriating him would expose the child to a grave risk of harm the district court isn’t necessarily bound to return him.

Sometimes, if a child’s parents are unmarried when the child is born and the child’s mother has sole custody of the child, she may wish to pursue child support from the child’s father. Similarly, the child’s father may want to pursue visitation rights. For either of these events to occur, however, paternity must be established.

In general, paternity can be established in Texas either voluntarily through the execution of an acknowledgement of paternity or through DNA testing and a court hearing. However, there are times when a man will be presumed to be a child’s father. The following are circumstances when this presumption may occur.

Under Texas law, paternity will be presumed in several circumstances. If the child’s parents were married when the child was born, the husband is presumed to be the child’s father. If the child is born before the 301st day following the date the marriage ends due to death, annulment, invalidity or divorce, the husband is presumed to be the child’s father.

If the man married the child’s mother before the child was born and voluntarily asserted paternity of the child, paternity may be presumed within 301 days of the end of the marriage (even if the marriage was invalid), and either:

 

• The assertation of paternity is part of a record filed with the vital statistics unit; or
• The man voluntarily signed the child’s birth certificate as the child’s father; or
• There is a recorded promise that the man agreed to support the child as his own.

Finally, paternity may be presumed if, during the first two years following the child’s birth, the man lived with the child and represented to the public that he was the child’s father.

There are ways to rebut these presumptions of paternity. However, it is important to understand what is required to determine whether a man is a child’s father. Knowing whether the man is presumed to be the father is important when legally establishing paternity, so both the child’s mother and father can pursue their rights.

Family law matters can be complex and confusing. One area that can be especially confusing is paternity. For men in Texas, they may not fully understand what it means to establish paternity or to be asked to submit to a paternity test.

A paternity action could arise is various matters. To begin, a man may file this action when he believes he is the father of a child and wants to establish rights. It could also occur when the mother of a child believes that a man is the father, and the man is seeking to prove that he is not the father and is, therefore, not obligated to pay any child support.

At Katie L. Lewis, P.C. Family Law, our attorneys understand that paternity actions can get complex and emotional. In some cases, they can be lengthy, because even when paternity is established, the parents must still sort through major decisions, such as custody and support. Our law firm is devoted to helping parents on both sides of a paternity action. Whether that means helping a client obtain his rights to a child or enforcing the financial obligations of the named father, our goal is to ensure that the rights of our clients are protected and upheld.

When establishing paternity, this often means addressing a wide range of family law issues. It can get overwhelming when working through custody, placement and support matters, making it imperative for fathers to fully understand their situation, what rights they have and what options are available to resolve any family law issues related to paternity actions.

(United States Seventh Circuit) – District court dismissal of lawsuit for lack of standing affirmed, where plaintiff could not show injury was traceable to Defendant. Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court claiming the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act invalid on constitutional grounds. Lawsuit named as Defendant the psychiatrist who testified, in a previous case, that Plaintiff was trying to turn children against the other parent and recommended sole custody be given to other parent.