Hero Father Takes Case to Kentucky Supreme Court
September 25th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesThe Kentucky Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case involving hero father Ren Hinshaw, a "duped dad" fighting to retain custody of the 8-year-old boy he's raised since birth. Hinshaw didn't find out that he wasn't the boy's biological father until his divorce, when his ex-wife went to court to cut him out of the boy's life, claiming Hinshaw had no legal right to keep seeing what he thought was his kid. According to a Louisville Courier-Journal article earlier this year:
"'He is my son, and I am his dad,' Hinshaw said in an e-mail to the newspaper.
"The child's mother says Hinshaw should have no right to custody...
"Hinshaw was in the delivery room when the boy he thought was his son was born in 1999.
"He cut the umbilical cord and later changed the boy's diapers, taught him to talk and volunteered at his school, according to court records.
"Hinshaw, a technology consultant at the University of Louisville's Kornhauser Health Sciences Library, described the boy in court records as the most important thing in his life.
"But when the child's mother, Jacqueline, divorced Hinshaw in 2003, she disclosed he wasn't the biological father and asked Jefferson Family Court to deny him custody.
"Judge Virginia Whittinghill ordered a counselor to meet with the child. She concluded he had bonded with Hinshaw and that it would be 'very devastating to him if he was not in his life.' She described Hinshaw as the boy's 'psychological father.'
"Whittinghill not only granted Hinshaw's motion for joint custody, she also made his home the boy's primary residence and ordered his ex-wife to pay him $25,000 in attorney's fees.
"The Court of Appeals last September affirmed the decision, saying the case wasn't about paternity but 'the custody rights between a husband and wife as they relate to a child born and raised within the confines of the marriage.'
"Hinshaw's ex-wife, who has since remarried, is now asking the state Supreme Court to hear the case. She and her lawyer, Peter Ostermiller, declined comment, but in court papers they say that DNA should rule, even if the decision is not in the child's best interests.
"They also contend that Hinshaw had no standing to seek custody, just as the state Supreme Court held last year when it denied such rights to a lesbian partner who was not a child's legal parent.
"After two years as the boy's primary parent, Hinshaw said in court papers that his bond with the child has grown even stronger and that it would 'take a chunk' out of his heart if the child was taken away.
"'This is a bond that no person should put asunder,' he said."
The case is now being considered by the Kentucky Supreme Court, along with the James Rhoades case. To learn more, click here.
We rarely hear publicly about cases like Hinshaw's, but I see them often. In my co-authored column 'Duped Dad' Bill Could Foster Closer Ties (Denver Rocky Mountain News, 2/7/07) I wrote:
"In many cases, however, paternity fraud claims arise after the duped dad has been pushed to the margins of the children's lives during a divorce or separation. Sometimes the mother even attempts to use the fact that the man is not the biological father as a way to get the family court to limit or deny him visitation time, while still demanding that he pay child support. Perhaps a Gandhi or a Saint Joseph might be content to pay their exes a large portion of their income in such situations, but they may be the only ones.
"[Journalists who write] about paternity fraud, miss an important point—many duped dads still want to parent their nonbiological children, provided they are allowed a meaningful role in their lives. Some duped dads even wage long, expensive legal battles to remain in the lives of the children with whom they have bonded. Paternity fraud receives substantial media coverage, but these men rarely make the news stories."
"));
19 queries. 0.411 seconds.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I've always thought that biology means nothing in cases like these.
So the boy doesn't share his dad's genes, he's still his dad. If I found out my dad wasn't my biological father tomorrow, he'd still be my dad. The other would just be a stranger.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Joint custody! Split custody between Ren Hinshaw and the bio-Dad. Fraudster Mom gets a support bill and the blame.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
This man should also pursue an action against this woman for outright fraud.
She prevented him from having his own biological child by deceving him into thinging this boy was his.
Corporate fraudsters who steal something valuable from people, go to jail.
And if our country had punishments which actually fit crimes committed by women, this woman should do hard time. She committed a nasty, selfish crime against this man. She should be sitting inside a jail cell. End of story.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
This man should also pursue an action against this woman for outright fraud.
She prevented him from having his own biological child by deceving him into thinging this boy was his.
Corporate fraudsters who steal something valuable from people, go to jail.
And if our country had punishments which actually fit crimes committed by women, this woman should do hard time. She committed a nasty, selfish crime against this man.
She should be sitting inside a jail cell. End of story.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I think biology means everything regarding custody/visitation cases, but I hold a small bias because my son's mother and her husband are trying to cut me out of my young son's life. Unlike Hinshaw, I'm a biological father fighting for my constitutional and inherent rights as a natural father.
I believe it's absurd to say because a mother keeps her child from his/her natural father that all of sudden the natural father is no longer the child's father or a parent. Just like it's very strange to say a non-parent should hold rights over a biological parent.
There is no doubt biological fathers are parents. Biological parents should always hold superior rights when they are not found unfit! It has been scientifically proven there is a bond between a father and his child that can only be found in biology. I think it's comical to discount the genetic connection but people do. It seems like many want to pick and chose when to administer the reality of science. A child is the direct result of two people, i.e. the biological father and biological mother.
Take away my arm and take away my leg but don't take away my child. When will we stand up to the courts and tell them they can't strip natural parents of the God given status as parents? I will fight to be in my son's life as long as there is breath in my body. My son is a direct reflection of me, and he can only be a reflection of me because I created him.
I always thought one purpose of this forum is to declare that mothers do not hold superior rights over the fathers of their children. It's hard enough fighting the natural mothers on this issue let's not let others also compete for our children. Furthermore, I just can't understand why anyone would think a biological father should unwillingly share his parental responsibilities with another man.
Read the Kentucky Supreme Court briefs from the Hinshaw case to hear the biological argument: http://chaselaw.nku.edu/library/electronic_resources/oral_arguments.php
September 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
It's funny how DNA has suddenly become all-important when deciding custody here when it would be deemed irrelevant in matters of child support.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I'm on J Rhoades's side on this one. I was separated from my father for many years, and from a younger half-brother (13 years younger) as well. It is amazing how quickly I felt comfortable with each of them, after meeting them again, something not justified by the time spent together. Admittedly it is anecdotal evidence, and perhaps others do not feel the same in similar circumstances. But if I discovered a son or daughter hidden from me, regardless of the years, I expect there would be a bond, and it would be foolish to prevent it from developing.
I feel for this guy, and his ex-wife is nothing short of despicable for the fraud. She should compensate for her long-term fraud and hurtful deception in some way, and the wronged party, in this case, might be happier with time with the child than with other compensation. However, in the long run, he'll have a lot to work out in his own head. But having the law call him the dad when he isn't doesn't make sense to me.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
It is my guess she wants to terminate parental rights of this man, so she can pursue child support from the biological father. Hell....she can probably get a court to mandate support from both; wouldn't surprise me, or any one else here.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
"'He is my son, and I am his dad,' Hinshaw said in an e-mail to the newspaper.
He is correct.
If they were married at the time of conception, the father should have rights and responsibilities. Since he is the victim of paternity fraud, he should also be allowed to irrevocably cede his rights and responsibilities at any time in the future.
In either case, he should be eligible for a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
If he was not married at the time of conception, then the biological father should have rights and responsibilities and the biological father should be eligible for a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Woo hooo! A Judge who saw that this man was a victim and neither he nor the child should be punished for it.
"Whittinghill not only granted Hinshaw's motion for joint custody, she also made his home the boy's primary residence and ordered his ex-wife to pay him $25,000 in attorney's fees."
So how do you go about nominating someone to the Supreme Court, I think we have a candidate.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Michael H...did you know there was a California Case with your post name? The case made it to the US Supreme Court that declared the same thing you said? Ironic?
I always think it's strange and suspcious when a non-parent thinks marriage should trump biology? It's even stranger how one would say that a non-parent should be able to cede his rights later after shutting out the biological parent. Sounds like utter madness! What you present seems like the ultimate revenge for a cuckcolded man. This is exactly why custody rights should fall exclusively with biological parents...biological parents have superior rights because they will never cede their responsibilities.
Isn't it ironic that a marriage can be voided whereas biology can never be altered. Husbands who find themselves in these difficult situations often forget the presumption of paternity is actually that - a "presumption". And the presumption is very rebuttable in Kentucky .
One does not need to be married to be a parent. Michael H your comments again shift all rights to the mother. When will people wake up and realize that a mother's rights are no more superior to a child than the real father's rights.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
"It is my guess she wants to terminate parental rights of this man, so she can pursue child support from the biological father."
I disagree. I'm betting she wants to cut off visitation but continue to collect support. Ain't consistency beautiful?
Anyway, the court would not terminate parental responsibility without a dad in place ready to assume support obligations. They don't want to create any welfare cases.
It is, unfortunately, a different world from what it was when laws were created making the husband the undisputed legal father of all his wife's children. I say mandatory universal DNA testing at birth is the simplest solution to problems like this.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Everything that has been written here about the biology/nurture debate is hypothetical because we have no way of knowing whether the biological father would be interested in being a part of the child's life (many, sadly, are not) or whether anyone might know where, or even who, he is. Assuming that he can be identified and traced and wishes to be a part of the child's life, he should allow him that opportunity, however the fact that Hinshaw has raised the child as his son for the past 8 years and has been the primary caregiver for the past 2 cannot be undone. The child may well feel some sort of bond for his biological father, but I cannot see that it will replace the bond he has developed with Hinshaw.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I feel blessed that I have two fathers. My adopted father is great and so is my real dad. I think it has to do with how parents portray this to children. I was adopted as an infant. Not because my father was a bad person. I was adopted because of the corupt court system. They fealt back in the 70's that if a mom did not treat her kids right, it was better to adopt children out to a family unit. Fathers had no right or say. As I got older I realized how many children and fathers were affected by this court action. But non the less it was how my parents portrayed that made the difference. Another man should never replace a birth father in a childs life.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
My view is that this man earned the right to be this child's legal father, AND, this woman should be severely punished for what she stole from this man, the right to have his own biological child.
In a just society, which I plan to be living in some day, he will get the child, and she will get jail time for her crime against this man, AND, her likely crime against the biological father.
Why should her worst case scenario be losing custody?
Does anybody here recall what happened to the male OBGYN who committed frauds against multiple women by artificially inseminating them with his own sperm without their knowledge? By giving these women children which were biologically his, rather than the children of the donor they thought was being used.
That Dr. was not treated well by the courts.
Neither should this woman be.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
If I were an appellate judge, and this case came before me, I would deem the appropriate model to apply here would be one of a child adopted at birth.
By that, I mean that:
1. Ren Hinshaw should remain the legal father, and retain his bond with (and custody of) the boy, similar to that of an adoptive father.
2. The biological father should be located and identified and given the opportunity to play a role in this boy's life, perhaps similar to that of a genetic donor who later is contacted by his offspring.
The above is a compromise, i.e. my attempt to answer the difficult questions of what if the biological father had no idea of the child's existence until now and decides he wants to assert paternity rights and gain custody? In contrast, if the biological father decides wants to have no role in the child's life, should he go scot free?
A balancing of rights and responsibilities is called for, with the goal to always guide one's decisions in the child's best interests, as best the court can determine.
So on one hand, I am sympathetic to the view that the biological father should have both the right and the responsibility to be the child's father. On the other hand, the child already has bonded Ren Hinshaw as his father, and that bond should not be disrupted blithely or unnecessarily.
Given Glenn's summary of the facts in this particular case, the right answer is, in my view as a hypothetical appellate judge, for both men to play a significant role in this child's life. Hence my suggestion above that what happens in adoption may provide the best model for how to proceed here.
In any event, the mother has clearly committed paternity fraud and continues to act contrary to the child's best interests. She should retain visitation rights, but she her legal and physical custody of the child should cease. She should pay child support, if deemed appropriate under the laws of the state.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
There should be a federal law against lying like this. This poor guy. He raised his son the best way he saw fit, only to discover that a skank lied about it being his. This is another opportunity for mandatory DNA tests ANYTIME a child is born, just to get the drama over at the beginning instead of years later. And there should be mandatory sentencing for lying about paternity, automatic full custody to the father, and child support payed by the skank mother. Geez, it never gets easier does it guys...
Of course, we all know how this is going to turn out, given our horrendously unethical judicial system...Even if he did get custody, she could just murder him, claim abuse, and get her kid back that way...
September 25th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
i bet if she get custody back, she will ask for child support from him and the bio dad
September 25th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
There have been a lot of paternity fraud cases around the country where the duped dad has to pay child support because of the emotional bond to the child. In some states a mother can collect child support from the bio dad and the step dad for the same reason.
I can't see the Supreme Court of Kentucky ruling in her favor, there are too many cases ruling the exact opposite.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
"Michael H...did you know there was a California Case with your post name? The case made it to the US Supreme Court that declared the same thing you said? Ironic? "
Yes, that would be ironic. I'm pleased that the US Supreme Court was able to decide correctly.
"Michael H your comments again shift all rights to the mother. When will people wake up and realize that a mother's rights are no more superior to a child than the real father's rights."
Nonsense. Without a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting, no fathers have rights.
If marriage is to survive, it should mean something. The defrauded father chooses based on his relationship with the child and possibly with the real or unrealistic hope to live with his other children. Revenge? No. It's not about the biological father. When the mother decides to seek a third man, the defrauded father should be allowed to cede his rights and responsibilities for the non-biological child, if he chooses.
My advice is: do not have sex with women who are married to other men.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
"There have been a lot of paternity fraud cases around the country where the duped dad has to pay child support because of the emotional bond to the child."
When "visitation" is every other weekend, the emotional bond is greatly diminished.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Michael I was just watching Good Morning America today. On the show they were talking about single women chosing married men over single men. They said this is becoming a trend. So men beware if you are married, you are now a target of single women.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Michael H....you automatically show your bias by your statements. You totally discount the woman's responsibility in an affair. In addition, you take away all rights of the biological father because his child is born outside the confines of marriage. Plus, a bio-dad should not have to share his child with a man who has no connection with the bio-dad's child.
Michael H your arguments border on being ridiculous! The only person you are thinking about is the cuckolded man. Don't misunderstand, for I know having an affair is wrong. Heck I'm paying the ultimate price, which is missed moments with my son. But don't tell me I must give up the right to participate in my child's life because my son was born to a woman while she was married.
Again, Michael H you have an agenda. The difference between our agendas is as follows: I believe children need to know and have their real parents in their life and you believe they should be the property of their mother's husband. It all sounds like a husband exacting revenge.
September 26th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Michael H...you seem to be an advocate for the husband and for marriage, which isn't a bad thing. It's ashamed you're not advocating for the children. Lying to children about who's there father or dad is and will forever be wrong.
You talk about Hinshaw and how he is the child's dad and father because he proclaims it, but is just saying you're something make you it? No matter how you frame it he is not the child's real father or dad. Hinshaw was led to believe it but upon learning the truth should have relinquished that belief. At best Hinshaw is a caregiver to the child but this does not make him the child's father. If we applied your logic male nurses would be considered the fathers of children in their care.
Once the truth is discovered one must face reality. I can only speak for my situation, in which the husband is acting out of hate, anger, and revenge because he refuses to accept his wife had any role in the 1 1/2 year affair.
Michael H...maybe we can agree that the great thing about America is that we can even have this discussion? So I'll continue to fight for my child's inherent and constitutional rights to know his real father and you can continue to fight for deceived husbands who desire to keep the children of other men. In the end, the truth and the children are what really matter.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Amy: "I feel blessed that I have two fathers."
God bless you.
AP: "My view is that this man earned the right to be this child's legal father, AND, this woman should be severely punished for what she stole from this man, the right to have his own biological child."
The scarlet A is not coming back. The family law feminists have created a situation by which mothers are able to choose multiple fathers for their children and be financially rewarded for doing so. A rebuttable presumption for shared parenting first for the married man and then for the biological father is essential. To diminish the rights of the married man diminishes both marriage and fatherhood and supports the radical feminist agenda.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Mothers have been aloud to make these choices for thier children for years. Back in the forty's and fifty's mothers did not even have to have legal documents. If they were divorced and remarried. Mothers would put new husbands name on school records and child would use his last name. Fathers were treated as if they did not exist after divorces. Then by the mid sixty's and seventy's the government used a new tactic. If couples divorced, they convinced moms it was better for the new husband to adopt the child. This way the child would have the same last name as other children in the family and household. By the 90's child support was in full swing. In the present mothers and the courts are aloud to hold this over a mans head. If you can't aford to pay, then we will take your child attitude. The only solution is for shared parenting to be enacted as law. Abolish child support. This way children will never lose a father because of unjust reasons.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
James Rhoades -
I can appreciate your position (and your hurt and pain) but can you not see this from the opposite side too?
Nowhere in the article does it suggest that the non-bio Dad is trying to exclude the natural Father.
A judge doesn't come down on the side of a man too often in these cases, which suggests (although by no means proves) that Mum isn't a great care-giver. In those circumstances, and given the bond that the non-bio Dad has established, wouldn't you agree that the judge might well have got it right in this case?
The problem with family Law, as it stands, is that the Mother gets to have her cake and eat it too. What's the betting that, had they not divorced, Mum would have quite happily continued to pretend that the child was her husbands? And if she had managed to get full custody she would no doubt have stung the poor sucker for maintenance.
Leaving the emotional bonds to one side, as there is a legal obligation on him to support the child he should have every opportunity to continue to see 'his' son or daughter, and if he is a better choice as primary caregiver than she is, then he should have be given the chance to fulfill that role.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
# Malcolm Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
It's funny how DNA has suddenly become all-important when deciding custody here when it would be deemed irrelevant in matters of child support.
I was thinking the same thing -- if my wife has a child that isn't mine and we get divorced -- I'm stuck with child support payments for a child that isn't mine. However, if we had stayed unmarried, the dude she fucked would be on the hook.
There's absolutely no reason for men to get married in America.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Isn't it funny?
DNA means NOTHING when it comes to custody. You have no DNA link with the child, get away!
But at the same time, they say:
Oh, just because you don't share a DNA link doesn't mean you aren't their father! You should MAN UP and support "your" children. Too many children are torn up by their fathers telling them "I'm not your daddy, bye bye".
Somehow, select people have their cake and eat it in this land of "equality"
September 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
"There's absolutely no reason for men to get married in America."
There IS! Who is going to finance the divorce industry?
September 26th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
For the childs sake, it is better if at all possible for the two legal dad and bio dad to come to an agreement on what is best for the child. What is best for the child is to have a relationship with both. Mother should not be aloud to put her two cents in. She has done enough damage already. But sometimes men to work out what is best for that child. Legal dad does not want to end up telling the child at whatever age, he is not the birth father. This could be painful to the child no matter what age. Bio father does not want child coming to him at 18 asking why he did not love me? Why were you not around? Children the same as adults want honesty. It is easier to have two father figures that are able to do what is in the childs best interest. Then the child growing up feeling betrayed by either father figure.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I don't think biological differences matter. That man has a right to raise this boy. It's like an adopted son, but no matter who is the boys real father, that man will always be his real dad,
September 26th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I'm with James Rhoades and Andy on this.
Seems everyone wants to punish the real father and his child because the mother is a liar. Every child has a Right to know their real Father is and let the child make up their own mind.
You have only one person to blame for these types of uncalled for situations....The lieing mother, until they stop her
again, nothing changes.
I say again.....All Men......Don't sign the Birth Cert. until you get the DNA results. We have trusted mothers to tell us the truth, they have lied and will continue to lie at the childs and your expense.
I'm telling you men you had better start defending yourselves, don't take the word of any female. It is truly a sad statement, but I didn't make it that way.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I am with GR, James, and Andy. Birth fathers have had to take the backseat on having thier children for years. Why should another man have the right to take another mans child because the mom lied. Fathers have had thier children taken from thier arms because of an unfair court system for years. When are we going to stand up and allow these fathers to be fathers. They have done no wrong. What you are saying is moms should be able to divorce and remarry and have thier current husbands father thier children. Bull! No one should be allowed to take the place of a father. Is it okey to separate a child from thier birth father just because mom wants a new man.? No! What makes this situation any different.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
"I am with GR, James, and Andy."
I'm not. They side with the family law feminists.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:40 am
I feel the mother should be punished legally, the Father should be able to keep the child and receive child support.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:27 am
What a f...... bitc h!
She should go to prison for fraud.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Amy asked "What makes this situation any different"
I would say that it's that there's no evidence that the natural Father knows of the child (at least not in what I've read).
I fully understand your position on this - if my wife divorced me, denied access to my daughter and tried to impose another Father (ie Husband No. 2) in her life then I'd be livid. But then I've invested 3 1/2 years of my life (to date) on raising and bonding with her.
The difference here is that the Birth Father has had no involvement with the child so far, and is probably unaware that he's even the Father anyway (unless this woman has now dragged him in to it to try and muddy the waters over custody). He may have no wish to get involved with the child, but if he does so wish, surely it would be better that he establishes a relationship first, rather than automatically having the kid handed over to him? Surely that couldn't be in the child's interests?
I'd be all for insisting on visitation (leading to shared parenting and then becoming primary caregiver over time if he and the child wants it) for the natural Father but if Mum is not fit to be the primary caregiver then 'adoptive' Dad looks like the best choice under these circumstances.
An earlier commentator suggested (to paraphrase) that the cuckolded Husband in this case should just "get over it and walk away."
Much, much easier said than done. I couldn't walk away from my Daughter, and I'd think that the bond that the ex-Husband has with this child is just as strong as mine with my natural child.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:33 am
"I feel the mother should be punished legally, the Father should be able to keep the child and receive child support."
I disagree. There should be a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. I also believe that mothers, who have children with more than one man, should not be rewarded financially for doing so, as is often the case.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Adultery used to be a crime. In western cultures today it is shrugged at, even by the groups that claim to care about families. To me it's just as serious as rape. A biological father who made a baby with another man's wife should have no rights at all. Being separated from that child is not paying the ultimate price. If he is still breathing then he has not paid the ultimate price for his actions. And if the mother is still breathing then she has not paid the ultimate price.
James R, consider yourself lucky the husband betrayed by an adulterous wife and by you is willing to settle with you being out of his life. If you cared about the woman you made a child with then be glad her husband still loves her. I wouldn't be so forgiving.
I feel very sorry for the husband in this court case. I feel very sorry for the child. I think the mother should at least serve prison time. And the man she had the affair with should also serve prison time.
Let the "adoptive" father and the child decide what their relationship will be now that the truth has finally been told. And after the biological parents get out of jail then let the child decide what those relationships will be. The adulterers should have no rights to make claims on the poor cheated spouse or on the poor child.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Mark H...I'll be the first to admit that it was a huge lapse in moral judgement getting involved with a married woman, but my sins shouldn't keep me from my son! Trust me, I feel sorry for all husbands who have wives that cheat on them, but that shouldn't keep biological fathers away from their children! It's so neat how the husband can forgive his wife but not her son's father.
I can't speak for all husbands, but there were many reasons why my son's mother had an affair -- and every reason revolved around her husband's inability to be a good husband (at least that's what she said). Of course that doesn't excuse what we did, for she should have gotten divorced. But there's nothing we can do about yesterday.
And I don't care who the husband loves. I care as much about him as he cares about me. Honestly, the only thing I care about is MY SON!!!! And the love between a "real father", i.e. biological father, and his child is stronger than any love a man can have for a woman. Blood is a lot thicker than a pack of lies, and in this case blood is stronger than any mascarade a husband can put on. I love my son!!
Do you have a clue about being a father!!!! I suppose you think I should be in jail for having an affair and should be stoned for loving and fighting to participate in my son's life. It seems you're all about the husband getting even with the wife's lover and could care less about the innocent child.
I love my son because I'm his father. It's not the type of fatherly love when your lawyer father helps you cover up the truth, lie to the courts, and deceive your wife's children.
The facts are the facts, I'm my son's father and I'll never stop fighting to be in his life. I'm not about to give away my son, for that wouldn't be fair to my son. I have no respect for a guy who totally disregards the the well being of my son and the truth. But you are right about one thing, I do feel incredibly lucky, LUCKY to be the father of such a precious son!!!
September 28th, 2007 at 12:53 am
One last thing Mark...
The family court judge has already declared me the legal father, so as soon as the KY Supreme Court sends it back to the lower court I'll be seeing my son.
And for the record, neither love or forgiveness is conditional. And I believe the husband has attached many strings to his so-called love and forgiveness.
Based on your analysis, a cuckolded husband's love should be more like an eye for an eye. For instance, you had an affair with my wife and created a child with her so as her husband I'll make you wait years and years to see your child. This is the same love and forgiveness the husband of my son's mother displays.
He believes as the woman's husband he'll lie to her son and tell him he is his father and if this screws up the child who cares. And the husband thinks after lying to my son for 17 more years my son won't want anything to do with me. They're hoping my son will hate me for fighting to be in his life, which is absurd! They'll try their hardest to make my son hate me. But the TRUTH is a hard thing to combat, and the TRUTH is that I'll always love MY son!!! And my son will always know that is the TRUTH!!!
September 28th, 2007 at 10:47 am
James R, I don't believe in unconditional love or unconditional forgiveness. I've heard lots of people rave about both of those but I've never seen either. I do believe that truth is more important than either of those, but most people don't.
You say you love your biological child because he is your bioligical child. That is a condition of your love. If you have the ability to love unconditionally then love every other member of your son's family just as much as you love your son, and let them rebuild their family in peace out of the wreckage left after an affair. I don't think them lying about you is a good thing, but if you love unconditionally then bow out gracefully.
You are a part of the destruction of somebody else's marriage. Yes, the cheating wife broke her vows, not you, but her husband loves her and not you. Forgive their hatred of you even if you never get to see your son, even if your son never knows you. That would be unconditional forgiveness.
As I said, I don't believe anybody is capable of unconditional love or unconditional forgiveness. But if you believe in them then carry them out.
No, I'm not a father. I can't have children because I was once engaged to a woman who really didn't want children, so she wanted us both to take permanent precautions. I did. She didn't. Instead she confessed that she hadn't been honest about some things that were very important to me, then she walked out, eventually married somebody else, and had children with him. She, her family, and a bunch of Jesus worshipers lectured me for years on forgiveness and unconditional love. My response to them was the same as it is to you: prove it through your own actions and sacrifices before you ask it of anybody else.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:09 am
So very sad.....sad that a father is being kept from his SON. His own FLESH and BLOOD. The Ricketts should be ashamed of themselves. If they succeed in their attempts to keep poor little Julian away from his loving father, they will be the ones suffering in the end. He will resent them in way possible and it will be fully deserved.
James is a great guy. I know him personally. From the moment he wakes up until the minute he rests his head on his pillow at night he is thinking of his little boy and how much he misses him. If anyone deserves to be with his son, it's him. He is a caring, loving man with nothing but love for the boy he created with a woman he loved and who loved him back. (That's all evident in the footage from the "Daddy loves me" website i.e. caressing his head during visitation, numerous letters and emails) Julia-STOP being influenced by your husband and his heartless attorney father.
Everyday for the next 17 years is borrowed time. Borrowed time because when he turns 18, he will know the truth and you will not be forgiven. So end it now....let James be the Dad he so badly wants to be. I am a mother of two girls and I wouldn't dream is keeping them away from their daddy.
To the "Dad" (by default ONLY).......Everytime you look into that boys eyes (if you even give him the time of day (i.e. only feeding him once in Julia's words) you will see James and not you. He is not your son. You did not create him.
Do the right thing!!!!!!!!
October 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
The Biological father will most likely be given non-custodial rights. Everyone needs to quit being so damn selfish and realize that the child now has 3 parents. The court determine that he should live with one. work out a visitation schedule, pay your child support. Enjoy the time you do have. I fought for 6 year and spent $12,000 to find out one of my children may not be my own. She doesn't even know who the biological father might be. At this time he is too young and fragile to understand. It doesn't matter who made the child, it matters who raises the child. If you care so much then you will fight to be in your child's life under any terms. Give it time and put kids first.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
"The Biological father will most likely be given non-custodial rights. "
When husband's cheat, they refer to the "other woman" as a homewrecker. What about the "other man?"
If the biological father of the young child was allowed to get what he wanted, he and the mother would live together and enjoy an enhanced standard of living as a result of child support from the biological father of the older children.
The mother is capable and willing and therefore, the older children should live at least half of the time with her.
If the biological father of the young child was allowed to get what he wanted, then the older children would be denied spending at least half of the time with their biological father.
What about the rights of the older children?
October 1st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Michael H-
You're a bit off when you say "They side with the family law feminists," at least with me. I certainly don't, as a general rule. After all, I did say that the lying mother should compensate, somehow, for the fraud she has committed. If you read my post, I also would give him the choice.
For Mr. Hinshaw, it is a tough situation. "Get over it" is certainly a tough pill to swallow, and I agree with you: much easier said than done. But he has a lot to get over, no matter the outcome. Walking away might work, and it might not. But like parenting by biological parents, non-biological parenting will bring up challenges that are totally unexpected today. It is reasonable to believe that non-biological parenting has more challenges than biological parenting. I do believe that there is a qualitative difference between an adopted father or father figure even from birth, and a biological father. The bond being different does not mean it is not worthwhile, nor does it mean it is worse.
In some ways, we are talking about different ways to fix a broken glass, when we know it will never be as it should have been. We all know who is primarily responsible, with a poor decision at conception, which 8 years later on, produced a crash.
It would be ideal for all kids to get a "straight shot," and have both biological parents, fit and loving, from birth onwards. When this gets messed up by years of separation, by false assumptions, it isn't obvious how to fix it. The wrong cannot be righted, it can only be addressed, patched up. It would be nice if the child had a father in his life; it would be great if Mr. Hinshaw could be a dad to him. If there is no biological dad in the picture, it seems that marriage law will provide for him to have custody, which is as it should be. I'm interested in how this will turn out. I suppose that it is proven that he's not the biological father, although Glenn's article didn't say so explicitly. Wouldn't it be interesting if he was the biological father, and the ex lied about that?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
"It would be great if Mr. Hinshaw could be a dad to him."
Mr. Hinshaw has been painted as a man "seeking revenge." I doubt that is true. I believe that great things can happen.
"If there is no biological dad in the picture, it seems that marriage law will provide for him to have custody, which is as it should be."
In the past, there was no proof of the biological father, and the husband would be financially responsible for the child. Today, like all other fathers, the husband has no rights to a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.
I'll repeat my viewpoint. Since the biological father is in the picture, preference for financial rights and responsibilities should be given first to the spouse of the mother, and then to the biological father. The spouse of the mother should be allowed to irrevocably waive his rights at any time in the future. Along with a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting, this strengthens families.
"Wouldn't it be interesting if he was the biological father, and the ex lied about that?" Reminds me of the pretense for a Law and Order episode in which a therapist played by John Ritter murders his new born child....
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Okay, I know that the "best intrests of the child " argument isn't popular here, BUT. In this case the child's intrests should be considered. I can tell you with 100% certainty that being told that my Dad wasn't really my Dad, that my Mom was a criminal for commiting paternity fraud, and having full custody transferred to someone I'd never met would have absolutely destroyed me. How do I know this? Well, I grew up as a Daddy's girl. I went everywhere with my Dad. My Dad was the most important thing in the world to me. I loved my Mom too, but I never had the connection with her that I had with my Dad. When I was 8 my parents went through a rough time(precursor to the divorce 4 years later) and my Mom moved my sister and I out for a few weeks while they went to counceling and tried to work things out. I begged and cried and was finally allowed to visit my Dad. We had a great 4 hours, then it was time for me to back to mom. My Dad started crying and told me that my Mom only allowed him to visit me so he could tell me that he wasn't really my father. My mom figured that would keep him from having any more contact with me if they did split up. Now my case is a little different than the above one in that my Dad did legally adopt me when he married my Mom. Now, you might be thinking that it's alright for my Dad to remain my Dad since my Biological father signed over his rights to me befor the adoption, although according to James that means I don't really have a Dad at all because I don't have that "special" biological connection with my Dad. But, of course, there's another twist. The man who lost the court case and was named my official Biological Father isn't according to DNA tests we had done a few years ago. My Mom still insists that she has no clue who my true biological father could be. If i was somehow able to locate this man I'm sure I could learn to develop a relationship with him just as I did with the man who was falsely charged with being my biological father(my bonus Dad as I refer to him), but he still wouldn't take the place of my Dad. Telling a child that the person who raised them isn't really their parent and no longer has any right to see them is WRONG.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
dccdmom...
I never said Hinshaw should be restricted from having a relationship with his ex-wife's son. However, I do think the child should be living with one of his biological parents.
Regarding my case, I had a relationship with my son for the first 3 months of his life. Our relationship was torn apart when his mother told her husband about the affair. And I had to beg her to tell her husband. Once she told her lawyer husband they began lying and plotting to cut me out of the picture. For her husband made sure I found out he intended on bleeding me dry by out spending me. Pretty pathetic! But these are the type of people that are holding my son hostage!
And dccdmom, there's never been any question of me being my son's father - 3 DNA tests and blood typing all proclaim that reality! I find it strange how you think I shouldn't have any rights despite me being my son's father. And for your information, I'm doing this for my son! So it's all about the child.
I only wish more men would fight to be in their children's lives!
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
dccdmom.......
"If i was somehow able to locate this man I'm sure I could learn to develop a relationship with him just as I did with the man who was falsely charged with being my biological father(my bonus Dad as I refer to him), but he still wouldn't take the place of my Dad."
Like I said........EVERY child has the RIGHT to know there REAL father and let them make up their OWN minds.
dccdmom.....I can assure you your mother knows who your father is.....I just hope she tells you......Good Luck and thanks for posting your story
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
James R....
I do believe you have every right to be with your son. I believe your son has every right to be with you. I was commenting on the Hinshaw case which is actually very different from yours. In the Hinshaw case I haven't found any information about the biological father at all, but I do still believe he has a right to know about his child and has a right to a relationship with him. I do believe that Mr. Hinshaw and his (non?) son have a right to maintain a relationship with each other also. In fact I believe it is vital to the child that that relationship is protected. I don't believe that the child would be served best by being in the primary custody of his mother. Even if she is the biological parent, she has shown a complete disregard for the child's well being as well as a complete lack of moral standards. I also think it is pretty obvious that she will do nothing toward maintaining a good relationship toward the child and the person he sees as his father. I also don't see anything about her trying to find the child's biological father. In your case, Your son would be best served by having equal time with both you and his mother. He would still see his mother's husband when he is with her, so he wouldn't be in the position of having anyone taken away from him. I guess my point is that biology alone does not necessarily make a person a parent in the child's eyes. That is partly why I do believe it is imperitive to identify the biological father from the very beginning. That way he can be the child's main father figure.
GR....
Unfortunately I'm pretty sure my Mom doesn't know who my father is. Let's just say the long story includes a party, alchol, probably drugs, and waking up on her couch at home with ripped pants, a gash in her leg and very little recolection of the night before. The friend she was with that night claimed nothing happened at the time and then died of cancer just before I started looking for my father. BD(bonus dad) says she showed up at his work just as he was leaving and begged him to take her home because she was in trouble, then passed out in his car on the way there.
October 10th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
How about a father who`s son is being ransomed by the Massachusetts Bristol County Probate and Family Court?
My husband`s son, who`s paternity was adjudged by operation of law in Florida in accordance with Florida and Federal Statutes was conceived, born and then resided in Florida. On April 1, 2003 his mother took the child to MA to visit her family and friends. Unbeknownst to Father, she signed the support rights of herself and son to the Department of Transitional Assistance using what is called a good clause claim. This would be the beginning of a year of lies, deceit and fraud crafted by this woman`s vexatious contempt for their child´s father. When her time ran out and she couldn´t hide behind her good clause claim anylonger, she bastardized their son in her efforts to cover her illegal acts and with the assistance of private counsel filed a complaint to establish their son´s paternity!
This case is sitting in the hands of the appealate court, however on or about November 18, 2007 Father in his last efforts to dismiss mothers complaint to establish paternity is surrendering himself to the lower court where there is a capias for his arrest. The judge issued it because father refused to submit to the courts jurisdiction over any orders concerning custody over his son. The jurisdiction his son was vested and belongs to the State of Florida where paternity was established in accordance with the UIFSA; UCCJEA. And most importantly where mother has interfered with fathers custody and retained their son from his homestate she is now being investigated with Parental Kidnapping a clear violation of the PKPA and found guilty in the State of Florida a Felony of the third Degree.
I beg you to investigate this type situation involving children and mothers it is more common then you think when a state as incompetent as MA disregards Federal and State Statutes in effect to disable this mothers tortious acts.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
[...] read that story here [...]
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
My daughter is having a problem with whether to tell her daughter that the child's father is not her birth father. The child's birth father recently re-emerged and is interested in having a relationship with her but not if there will ensue a harmful consenquence for the 8yr old.
My daughter is having difficulty weighing what options she is aware of . Her primary interest is protecting the child from emotional harm along with the child's birth brother from the same. We are all at witt's end. Suggestions or sources of help available for those faced with this dilema would be welcomed.