Anyone admitted to the New Mexico Bar around here?

[Frozen Sooner]

I've got a friend with a potential issue:

A girl he was seeing called him roughly six months ago saying she was pregnant and that it was his. She later called back and said she had an abortion.

He has now found out that she had the baby, but she says it isn't his.

1. Is there any way for him to find out if she listed his name on the birth certificate? The child would have been born in Albequerque.

2. What's the cutoff for him challenging paternity if he is listed?

[Jerk]

Wow, a lot of guys would STFU about it to avoid paying child support for the next 18 years.

(Not saying that's what I would do.)

[yermom]

yeah, well she changed her story once already

in a couple of years when she does again and he owes back child support, it's not happy fun times

[Frozen Sooner]

Wow, a lot of guys would STFU about it to avoid paying child support for the next 18 years.

(Not saying that's what I would do.)

That's kind of what he's trying to avoid doing. If he's on the birth certificate and misses the cutoff date for challenging paternity, he's on the hook-even if she didn't tell him about it or lied.

[jeremy885]

Did she con another guy into being the daddy?

[Frozen Sooner]

Don't know. Haven't seen the birth certificate.

My buddy's fine with paying child support if it is his-actually, he's planning on suing for custody if it is, but if he doesn't win (and believe it or not, he actually does have a great chance of winning) he's more than willing to pay his share. He just wants to make sure he doesn't end up paying for someone else's kid.

He also doesn't want to be hit with a 40k bill for back child support in six years or something with no chance of getting custody because he hasn't had a relationship with the kid for the first six years.

[Jerk]

It will be a cold day in Hell before I pay child support for a kid that ain't mine.

SRSLY, I'll go to prison first.

[olevetonahill]

seems pretty simple to me.
He Knows the chicks Name. He knows about when the Birth was .
Check with the Vital records Peeps

[Frozen Sooner]

That's what I told him to do, but he's all stressed that they won't give him the information. I'm under the impression that they will tell him whether he's on the certificate or not, and if he is they'll give him a copy (but won't if he's not.)

Jerk-sure, you'd go to jail. My buddy is concerned about his wages being garnished, a lien attached to his home, and his bank accounts emptied. He's got other people depending on him. He'll do whatever the court tells him to in order to protect them-but he'd rather just not have to pay.

Well, anything but keep his pecker in his shorts, apparently.

I ain't happy with him about this, for the record, but he's a friend in need.

[olevetonahill]

Its Public records Bro
I think Albuquerquesooner is a Lawyer .

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't believe that they'll give a birth certificate to just anyone, though. It's a primary source of identification-you get your hands on someone's birth certificate, and you can do a LOT of damage.

[Okla-homey]

I don't know NM law, but in every jurisdiction in the civilized world, if mama and the alleged daddy weren't married, absent a Court administered paternity test and a judicial determination of paternity, and if baby daddy DID NOT submit an affidavit confessing his paternity, his name cannot be added to the birth certificate.

Put another way, unless a playa sign something, absent a court proceeding, he's not legally the papa.

Think about it. Otherwise, any ho could claim any person with a y chromosome was baby daddy. Homey (and the states) don't play dat.

Oh, and the the limit is usually two years from birth for challenging paternity most places.

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't know NM law, but in every jurisdiction in the civilized world, if mama and the alleged daddy weren't married, absent a Court administered paternity test and a judicial determination of paternity, and if baby daddy DID NOT submit an affidavit confessing his paternity, his name cannot be added to the birth certificate.

Put another way, unless a playa sign something, absent a court proceeding, he's not legally the papa.

Think about it. Otherwise, any ho could claim any person with a y chromosome was baby daddy. Homey (and the states) don't play dat.

Fair enough. 'Course, she can also come back several years from now, claim he's the father, and hit him for back child support. Then he gets his day in court.

[Jerk]

That's what I told him to do, but he's all stressed that they won't give him the information. I'm under the impression that they will tell him whether he's on the certificate or not, and if he is they'll give him a copy (but won't if he's not.)

Jerk-sure, you'd go to jail. My buddy is concerned about his wages being garnished, a lien attached to his home, and his bank accounts emptied. He's got other people depending on him. He'll do whatever the court tells him to in order to protect them-but he'd rather just not have to pay.

Well, anything but keep his pecker in his shorts, apparently.

I ain't happy with him about this, for the record, but he's a friend in need.

Well, maybe I wouldn't go to jail. I think I'd move to the rocky mountains, and take a tent, a fishing pole, a buck-knife, and a bolt action rifle, and live out my days in the woods ;)

[Okla-homey]

Fair enough. 'Course, she can also come back several years from now, claim he's the father, and hit him for back child support. Then he gets his day in court.

I doubt she could even sue for "bacK" child support years later. You gotta press your rights from the git-go or the Court may kick it out. Think about it, if you were the judge, might'nt you ask her; "okay ho, why you waitin' til this kid is seven to claim playa owe you?"

That said, as you surmise, if some pro-baby mama judge allowed the case to proceed, baby mama still bears the burden of proving he's baby daddy. That's done with a DNA test.

[usmc-sooner]

Well, maybe I wouldn't go to jail. I think I'd move to the rocky mountains, and take a tent, a fishing pole, a buck-knife, and a bolt action rifle, and live out my days in the woods ;)

you will also need a women, several blankets and some beer :D

[OUDoc]

I've been to a bar in New Mexico. Course, that's probably what got the dude in trouble in the first place.

[soonerinabilene]

If legal matters cannot solve this, he needs to call maury. Srsly. Maury would love a show where the GUY thinks he is the dad and wants to prove it to the girl.

[usmc-sooner]

I went into a bar in Farmington and said have you guys heard the one about the black prostitute, the Arapaho, and the Navajo? Didn't go over very well.

[soonerhubs]

Well, maybe I wouldn't go to jail. I think I'd move to the rocky mountains, and take a tent, a fishing pole, a buck-knife, and a bolt action rifle, and live out my days in the woods ;)
We can be neighbors. I'm thinking either Montana or Wyoming. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

I doubt she could even sue for "bacK" child support years later. You gotta press your rights from the git-go or the Court may kick it out. Think about it, if you were the judge, might'nt you ask her; "okay ho, why you waitin' til this kid is seven to claim playa owe you?"

That said, as you surmise, if some pro-baby mama judge allowed the case to proceed, baby mama still bears the burden of proving he's baby daddy. That's done with a DNA test.

Homey, respectfully, the first part of your statement isn't correct. She absolutely could sue for back child support and if he is the father she would win. This is a circumstance that attorneys who specialize in family law deal with all the time (that a woman chooses to assert her right to child support years post-partum), and it's a loser for the father. You made the kid, you're responsible for child support whether you knew about the kid or not. Some jurisdictions limit the amount of back support you can collect. Some don't.

Again, the issue isn't whether he'll pay or not if the kid is his. He will. It's whether the kid is his.

[usmc-sooner]

Homey, respectfully, the first part of your statement isn't correct. She absolutely could sue for back child support and if he is the father she would win. This is a circumstance that attorneys who specialize in family law deal with all the time (that a woman chooses to assert her right to child support years post-partum), and it's a loser for the father. You made the kid, you're responsible for child support whether you knew about the kid or not.

not in Guam

Mike did you start this thread just to argue? :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Nope. Not at all. I was seriously concerned for my friend. I'm not so much concerned anymore-the main thing I was worried about was that he'd have his name on a birth certificate and miss a cutoff for challenging it and thus be hosed later on down the line.

Don't know nothin' 'bout no Guam. Just going off of what I was told by an attorney who practiced family law for about 25 years and has won a case in front of SCOTUS told me.

[olevetonahill]

I don't believe that they'll give a birth certificate to just anyone, though. It's a primary source of identification-you get your hands on someone's birth certificate, and you can do a LOT of damage.
I aint saying you get the BC But you can get the INFO;)

[usmc-sooner]

let this be a lesson to all of you.

Remember nobody gets pregnant if you practice anal sex

[ouflak]

I'm fairly certain that in Oklahoma, if a judge rules that a man is the father, that's the end of it. It doesn't matter that he might not be the father or that it is even later proven that he isn't, he's still liable for child support. This has naturally led to many travesties of the 'law'. California used to be the worst until DNA was finally allowed to exonerate a man who was not the father from that kind of nonsense. This may have changed recently for Oklahoma as well. I know more and more states are now in fact requiring a DNA test before any such claim can proceed.

The Freedom of Information Act insures that birth certificates are accessible to anyone. If he properly requests a birth certificate, they must give it to him. They might make him go through a bit of bureaucracy, but they can't refuse or he can sue under FIA (open-and-shut case for a birth certificate I would think).

Also, since no state allows a man's name to be put on a birth certificate without marriage, if he does later verify with certainty (DNA test) that he is the father, and he wants custody, I'd recommend he go through the process of having his name placed on that birth certificate.

[nmsoonergirl]

I can't help at all, but if he decides he wants to contact a NM lawyer, I can get you some names of some unslimey ones.

[AlbqSooner]

While I am an attorney, I am neither actively practicing nor licensed to practice in New Mex. There is a case here in New Mex that is currently on appeal involving a putative father who was told the pregnancy was not a result of his efforts. A few years later he found out it probably was, went to court to establish that and the court denied his request. He was said to be time barred. However, he pointed to the fraud which the baby's momma perpetrated to prevent his obtaining knowledge in a timely fashion. Should be a decision coming sometime this year. My suggestion is to PM NMSoonergirl and get the names of some unslimey lawyers here for the guy to contact. The only unslimey ones I know don't get anywhere near domestic cases. Might be a connect there.

[Flagstaffsooner]

I can't help at all, but if he decides he wants to contact a NM lawyer, I can get you some names of some unslimey ones.I bet that's a short list.;)

[Okla-homey]

Homey, respectfully, the first part of your statement isn't correct. She absolutely could sue for back child support and if he is the father she would win. This is a circumstance that attorneys who specialize in family law deal with all the time (that a woman chooses to assert her right to child support years post-partum), and it's a loser for the father. You made the kid, you're responsible for child support whether you knew about the kid or not. Some jurisdictions limit the amount of back support you can collect. Some don't.

Again, the issue isn't whether he'll pay or not if the kid is his. He will. It's whether the kid is his.

Look, all I'm saying is, the guy's name won't be on the birth certificate unless he signed something. If she decides to press it later, she can, but she'll have to sue to have paternity established. If the guy isn't in NM, that could get expensive.

While there is no bar to prevent an action to establish paternity before the kid hits 18, at least in Oklahoma, the baby daddy has this going for him:


Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 10. Children
Chapter 3 - Paternity Proceedings
Section 83 - Father's Liability to Support and Educate Child

C. An individual who has been legally determined to be the father of a child pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act shall be ordered to pay all or a portion of the costs of the birth and the reasonable expenses of providing for the child, provided that liability for support provided before the determination of paternity shall be imposed for five (5) years preceding the filing of the action

[Frozen Sooner]

Look, all I'm saying is, the guy's name won't be on the birth certificate unless he signed something. If she decides to press it later, she can, but she'll have to sue to have paternity established. If the guy isn't in NM, that could get expensive.

And thanks for that reassurance. That totally makes sense and makes him feel a lot better about things


While there is no bar to prevent an action to establish paternity before the kid hits 18, at least in Oklahoma, the baby daddy has this going for him:

Yep. Like I said, some states put a cap on the amount of back child support that can be collected. Others don't. But so far as I know, and according to what I've read and heard, there's no time period (other than date of child's majority) where the mother has to press a claim for support or lose her rights.

[soonerinabilene]

let this be a lesson to all of you.

Remember nobody gets pregnant if you practice anal sex

"Stick it in the fanny, save money on a nanny."

[Okla-homey]

And thanks for that reassurance. That totally makes sense and makes him feel a lot better about things



Yep. Like I said, some states put a cap on the amount of back child support that can be collected. Others don't. But so far as I know, and according to what I've read and heard, there's no time period (other than date of child's majority) where the mother has to press a claim for support or lose her rights.

One more thing. I'm sure you're aware, there are millions of guys running around who don't pay a dime in child support despite a court order. Just about every month I talk to guys who are in bigtime arrears on child support as well as gals who get stiffed by dads, all in the context of working with poor folks in downtown Tulsa. Personally, I think that succs, but there it is.
Are the dead beat dad's breaking the law? Sure! But, even then, mom don't get the bucks unless that guy has a job, a bank account, or other property she can attach. Lotsa guys stay on the down low, work for cash and keep it stuffed in the mattress to avoid paying child support. Moreover, these people's rights and obligations usually resulted from divorce decrees.

I'm thinking, if all an unmarried gal's got is a putative baby daddy, she's still got to track him down, notice him and get a hearing. If he can't be found and made to submit to DNA testing, I would think its very unlikely she'd win a default judgment on paternity absent any evidence to prove it.

[Frozen Sooner]

One more thing. I'm sure you're aware, there are millions of guys running around who don't pay a dime in child support despite a court order. Just about every month I talk to guys who are in bigtime arrears on child support as well as gals who get stiffed by dads, all in the context of working with poor folks in downtown Tulsa. Personally, I think that succs, but there it is.
Are the dead beat dad's breaking the law? Sure! But, even then, mom don't get the bucks unless that guy has a job, a bank account, or other property she can attach. Lotsa guys stay on the down low, work for cash and keep it stuffed in the mattress to avoid paying child support. Moreover, these people's rights and obligations usually resulted from divorce decrees.

I'm thinking, if all an unmarried gal's got is a putative baby daddy, she's still got to track him down, notice him and get a hearing. If he can't be found and made to submit to DNA testing, I would think its very unlikely she'd win a default judgment on paternity absent any evidence to prove it.

That works for me, and that puts my mind at ease for my friend. I was just worried he wouldn't get his day in court if the woman later tries to assert a claim for child support. The friend is pretty easy to find and isn't going to get paid under the table-he's a vice-president of a fairly large company, so default judgement wasn't really what I was worried about. More that he would have no defense to paternity if his name was on the certificate.

My confusion stemmed from the fact that a married man only has a certain amount of time to challenge a birth certificate and an unawareness that an unmarried man can't be put on a birth certificate without either an acknowledgement of paternity or a court order.