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.

I wonder why God would give a command to 'Not commit adultery?'

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. They’re 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 mommy’s house and that of some guy who ain’t 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; I’d 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.

I am indeed the author of the quote from "reaping the whirlwind".

To non-believer, you can believe it.

The first problem in this case was the dishonesty that ensued when the non-biological father was listed on this child's birth certificate.

The birth certificate should be treated as the legal document it is and contain the factual information of a child's geneological identity and not a prettied-up version.

After the birth, the husband who wanted to assume the role of father of this boy should have had to file to adopt this boy and seek the biological father's consent to rescind his rights.

The biological father would have had plenty of time during that legal process to decide if he wanted to give those rights away--or not.

If these people had not created a lie by falsifying the child's birth certificate in the first place, this would be no case.

For a man to be willing to sleep with someone who is married, his morality is already in question towards the vows and legal contract of the other marriage. He carelessly brings a child into this world without taking responsibility. He visits twice? There is NO responsibility. He could have at least claimed to try but there was no attempt.

The man gets the woman to cheat, then doesn't want to see baby. The woman can't commit to one marriage and can not claim she will be a steady family figure for the child for the next marriage or the next or the next. Who knows where 'a cheater' will go next.

You don't give a million dollars to a thief and trust them to give it back the next day. Hey may give it, but it is illogical and the only proof you have is that he is already a thief before.

Same principle. We know she has cheated. Bio-dad hasn't cared for Z.P. and Pat-dad has cared and wants to continue caring.

Everything is in favor of the Paternal father giving more love and already growing bonds.

Break them apart and hurt the babies future. This matters most.

The problem would have been avoided if the lie had not occurred, but it did. So how then should it be decided?

I can't say whether the court is right or wrong on this one. I have not seen the evidence and I did not read the briefs or hear the arguments.

Relying on precedent is a safe course. From what I can tell, the biological father showed no interest in the mom or the baby until 13 months after the child was born. Meanwhile, the other man treated the child as his own, even while the child was in the womb.

I am not sure Durham cares much about precedent or future legal implications of decisions. She seems to try to get cases "right" according to her own perceptions and ideals.

Anyone can be a father - it takes a MAN to be a dad. Way to go, legal dad.

My oldest son didn't have a father listed on his birth certificate. He had 2 stepdads by the time he was 5 and when his real father showed up - it was like they had never been apart. His father's name is on the birth certificate and he still has a strong relationship with him even as an adult. How a child handles the parental relationship with real, step or even adoption is how they speak of each other. I always talked positive about his father. Don't bash the parent that isn't there. Tell the child of good times. I was on my second marriage at the time. What broke up the marriage was that my husband didn't want me to allow his father to visit - IMO my son's father had every right to see him. My second son's father couldn't be bothered for almost 8 years. When he did finally show up he try to be a "Disneyland Dad". On his own my son did not like his father - in his opinion - just too weird and phony. I talked of good times too it didn't fix the problem. They no longer have contact. Son's choice.

Sure, that could be the reason. Or, the reason could be that he's an alien who crash landed on our planet 30 years ago just so he could toy with our parental rights laws. If we're going to theorize based on absolutely nothing, all things become possible.

I may have been a little too harsh on biodad, but at least I've based it off of the FACT that he didn't express the first interest in the child until after he was a year old. Legal dad may not love the child, but you and I don't know that, and nothing in the article even remotely suggests it. In fact, all actions suggest otherwise.

People need to practice good morals so that these horrible events never happen. The children always pay the price for the sins of their parents.

To a Voice of Experience:

Men don't think like that then stay married to the woman. He accepted that child as his own and maintained his marriage even with that knowledge till the eventual divorce. Nothing was said int he article about the cause (nor should be). He cares about that child and has shown a parental commitment to it.

I agree Amen. If a man knows that a child is not his, yet takes the women with the child and is at the Birth of The Child and it is his name on the Childs Birth Certificate then that is his child. If he was overseas when the conception happened "oh well" (However the Statute of Limitations to deal with the sperm donor should never run out, I don't care if he finds him 50 years later total care in a Rest Home. If this was not the case the sperm donor could use visitation to stay in the life of and harass the mother. The child could be used as a control issue. Most women know whom they had Sex with weather she wanted to or not. However the child is still the child of the person on the Birth Certificate. As a friend of mine said about his father. He is my Dad because he did the work, (raised him, paid for school, mission etc).Such events change lives and fates and the results sometimes last a life time. God will sort out who belongs to whom in the here after.

And this will hold, until homosexuals who have raised the kids all their lives try to get any kind of benefit.

The ultimate betrayal. The adultry is bad enough but when you add the deceptive act of letting a husband think that he is the father of a child when he really isnt, that is the cruelest crime.

It is very nice that the womens original husband wants to have parental rights to him but given that the child was only 16 months old I am surprised it was granted. I dont really feel the doctrine of expectations should be the way parental rights are decided.

If another father did not want to be the parent of a child that resulted from such deceit would people attack him as the bad person in this situation? What if the judge, by saying it was in the best interest of the child, said that the husband had to pay child support for the child but gave custody to the adulterous couple? That scenario has happended and it just infuriates me. Do women have any responsibility anymore?
see continued

have any responsibility anymore? They, and only they, can kill their baby before it is born, they can force a husband to move out of a house and pay alimony based solely on her decision to leave a marriage, and apparently can have a child with another man and force her original husband to pay for it. I dont agree with it.

I commend this husband for wanting to take care of this baby but I hope it isnt just because he is jealous or wants to cause problems for his exwife. Best of luck to him.

A person who has sex with a married woman, has not right to visitation, his should stay away from the family he has already done enough.

This is the right decision by the court. Any person who has sex with a woman married to another man, has already done enough damage, he should now stay away from the family, enough is enough.

If you plant your seeds on a plot of land that isn't yours, you will not own the plants that result, and why should you?

Be careful where you plant your seeds.

just found out my 12.5 daughter i've been raising 50% of the time is not biologically mine. I will continue to keep everything the same. I'am disgusted with the mom who has 4 kids from 4 different dads and has never been married. ANd now it looks like I'll be paying more support cause she has my kid on welfare. I will try to get the bio. dad to pay that crap. Keep the faith. Time heals even the worst of situations. Imagine my mom and dad, they are hurting.