Comments about ‘Court chooses paternity over biology’

An example of how judges are very powerful. And it seems that they are no longer just trying to deal out justice on the laws that have been created but sometimes seem to just create law themselves from their own opinions of how they think it should be. Is there a way to check this power?

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to conceive..."

(with apologies to Sir Walter Scott)


Have we figured out yet, there are consequences?
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Google it.

Commitment, fidelity, integrity, and other old-fashioned ideas have wonderful consequences.

the law should have as it's first and overwhelming objective the best interest of the child. too often children are treated as the property of the disfunctional adults in their life. parenthood is a responsibility, not a right.

What's funny about the chief justices argument is that she'd most likely also be the first person to argue that the legal father would owe child support even after she had awarded custody to non-supportive bio-dad.

There is a clear cut methodology to establishing parental rights: take responsibility the moment you know you've fathered a child. 13 months after the child was born is the first time he wants to assert parental rights?!? Sorry, that doesn't fly.

While I think the justices made the right decision, they based it on the wrong reasons. It's way to easy for psychologists to argue that very little damage would be done to a 13 month old ceasing a relationship with the only father he's ever known. No, the argument is that one man took responsibility and one man didn't. One man supported the woman before, during, and after the pregnancy, one man didn't. One man has cared for and loved the child since birth. One man hasn't. One man willingly assumed the role of a father, while the other was still growing up.

You don't get two years after you've fathered a child to decide you want to be a father.

Sorry, "Reaping the Whirlwind" that quote is from Shakespeare. I think it is HAMLET.

Any man can be a biological father; it takes effort to be a daddy.

Apparently legal has nothing to do with morality or wisdom in this case. Keeping paternal rights with Z.P.'s marital father, rather than his biological father flys in the face of reason.

There is obviously no policy preserving stability of marriage as foolishly cited by the Justices. His marital father decided to find greener fields immediately after his birth, broke up the family and went on his merry way. The Justices took no action to preserve marital stability.

Z.P. now lives with his prurient mother and his biological father; now married to each other for the time being. Theyre his current family unit. Adding back in the errant legal abandoning parent is unnecessary complication for the little boy.

Which most disrupts his life? Bouncing between mommys house and that of some guy who aint his real dad? or Living in one house where both his biological parents reside?

But, since no one gives anything but lip service to preserving marriage and family unity; Id bet this argument is largely wasted. When his current family breaks up in a probable future divorce, Z.P. will again have another opportunity to try to figure out who his real daddy is.

Shakespeare must have been reading the Old Testament, Hosea 8:7.

interesting, complicated issue. I'm sure there's more to the story than what has been reported; glad I didn'y have to make the decision.

It's also interesting to note that Judge Durham cited as a basis for her disagreement that the majority's decision was based on a common-law standard that is almost 20 years old. I'm sure if she had agreed with the decision, she would have cited a nearly 20 year old precedent.

Can you imagine how disruptive it would be on a marriage to have the biological father playing daddy every other weekend or using the baby to maintain a relationship with the mother? It would be harder on the marriage than the original infidelity.

In cases like this one, where the couple separate, the marital father can relenquish paternity in favor of the biological father's adoption thereby releasing the marital father of any duty to provide child support

Committing adultary in Utah is crime. That is all I have to say.

I love how the only argument Judge Durham can come up with against the 20 year old precedent is that it's twenty years old. With wisdom like that, it's a wonder she didn't take Sandra Day's place on the US Supreme Court.

On that note, isn't it high time we throw out Dred Scott v. Standford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, Miranda v. Arizona, and Roe v. Wade? After all, they're all well over 20 years old. Why should we still pay them any heed?

. . .when I was paying child support on kids who had been given a new "dad"?

So, if someone kidnaps an infant and keeps him long enough, the biological parents are no longer the parents?

9:43, I think you get my point, judges seem to pick and choose which precendents they want to sustain and which they want to overthrow or ignore.

I have not often agreed with Judge Durham. Not having seen all the evidence I could not make a decision on this case, so I can neither condemn or applaud her on this one.

While I find it ironic that this child will grow up with his 2 biological parents and yet the father is not his legal guardian I have to applaud the legal father. From the beginning he accepted this child as his own and cared for him. No one knows why the marriage broke up but we can just as easily assume that it was the woman's fault (she was the adulteress after all) as others here have assumed the man caused the break-up. Why should this man forfeit the child he raised and accepted from birth and give anything to the biological dad who was never a father to the child. To whoever suggested that the legal father could just sign over his rights by adoption- would you sign over your rights as a parent? I'm sure this legal father loves his child and I think it's great that he is fighting anyone who tries to deny him. Nice decision by the court on this one!

Legislating from the bench is wrong

To Sagacious Inquisitor:

I'm familiar with this case and the best interests of the child were served. The Supreme Court got this right for the child and at the end of the day that is the most important concern.

I have to say though it is ignorant of you to make judgements and assumptions on the situation and reason for the ultimate divorce of the birth mother and legal father without any context or knowledge of the situation.

A court precedent is nothing more than an established opinion. Some precedents are followed for years, until a higher court overrules them. Precedants set by higher courts should be followed by lower courts. However, precedants set by courts equal in stature should be looked at for guidance and nothing more. A judge should take into account prior rulings, strictly for guidance, when making his/her ruling, but their ruling should be independant and stand on it's own merits.

"Legislating from the bench is wrong"

Agreed. How does that apply to this case? The laws are already set in how a biological father goes about asserting his rights, and that is he must show a supportive interest in the child; preferably before birth, but at a bare minimum within six months after it. The kid was over a year old before biodad showed an interest. In the meantime he had willingly allowed another man to provide full support of not just the child, but also of the mother. If his efforts had been rebuffed, that'd be one thing. But by failing to provide even a modicum of support, his actions spoke for themselves.

The moment a person dons that black robe and has the power to do whatever they want in the spirit of the word "judge" -
you will have a failed system.

Could the reason the marital father fought for his rights to the child is to get even with his ex-wife and the man who had the affair with her? Could it be possible his best interest is really for himself - revenge. He was humiliated when his wife conceived a child with another man. Then to have that man "pushed" in his face whenever he came over to see the child. I know of a couple of cases where the marital father was demanding his parental rights just to get even with the mother. He didn't care about the child. The child was a tool for leverage to make her pay for the humiliation done to him. It's possible his fight is to help him save face. It's more about pride then what's best for the child. His pride was damaged so now he wants restitution and he doesn't really care how he gets it. With very little value held for marriage, this type of thing will be occuring more and more.