Buy atripla without prescription, Given the unusual facts of this case, and recognizing the inherent, equitable rights of biological parents who are deprived of parenting through no fault of their own, the grant of joint custody to Trevor cannot prevent Cahill from going forward with his paternity action.
That's the Supreme Court of Kentucky writing in this case (Leagle, 6/17/10). Let me repeat the key words: "recognizing the inherent, equitable rights of biological parents who are deprived of parenting through no fault of their own..." Let me be clear; those words have the power to blaze trails into the law governing paternity fraud and adoption where none have gone before. They were written by the highest court in the state.
For twelve years I have studied the many ways in which fathers can be deprived of their rights by family courts and family law. One of the easiest ways is for mothers to keep the truth about paternity secret from dads. Over the years, I have read scores of cases in which a father was deprived of his parental rights through that simple expedient. Not once in all that time has there been a case that recognized the "inherent, equitable rights" of fathers." Not once in all that time have I read a case that recognized the simple principle that rights cannot be lost without some action on the part of the individual whose rights they are. I've said it before: the most heinous mass murder has, literally, greater due process rights than the most upstanding single father. Buy discount atripla online, The simple "Due Process 101" rule is that no one can be deprived by the state of their rights absent notice that the state is trying to do that, and a hearing at which the person can attempt to defend himself. But in the case of fathers' rights, certified atripla, Cheap atripla online, that most humble of notions is often nowhere to be found. In paternity fraud and adoption cases, fathers are routinely stripped of their parental rights with neither notice nor a hearing, overnight atripla. Find cheap atripla online, But in Kentucky, at least, atripla approved, Buy no rx atripla, that may have come to an end.
The facts of the case are weird, no rx atripla, Cheap atripla on internet, the holding unremarkable. Follow the bouncing facts. Trevor and Bethany Smith got married in October, 2002 and divorced in December, atripla online stores, Buy atripla on line, 2003. Their petition for divorce recited that Bethany was then pregnant by another man. Their divorce was finalized in February, 2004, buy atripla no prescription required, Find discount atripla, but they remarried on July 15, 2004. The child was born the next day. They divorced again in September, atripla from india, Canadian atripla, 2007. Shortly after that, Bethany informed Andrew Cahill that he was the father of the child who had been conceived during her first marriage to Trevor and born during the second, buy atripla online. Cheap price atripla, Strange as those facts are, they give a pretty good indication of how ridiculous presuming paternity on the part of the husband can be in an era of readily available DNA testing. Technically, buy atripla without prescription, Atripla internet, because the child was born during the term of their second marriage, Trevor was the presumptive father. That would be true despite the fact that (a) both parties had admitted the opposite in their first divorce proceeding and (b) accurate information about paternity was only a couple of mouth swabs away, find atripla no prescription required.
And that is what Andrew Cahill wanted - accurate information about paternity. He filed a suit to establish paternity and get custody if the child proved to be his. Trevor and Bethany resisted his claim of paternity and requested the trial court to block his request for testing. All three courts - trial, appeals and Supreme Court - ruled for Cahill, buy atripla without prescription. Atripla canada, As I said, apart from the odd facts, order no rx atripla, Atripla sale, this is just an off-the-shelf paternity case, but the Supreme Court took it further than that. Cahill is just the type of dad I've been researching for years. He had a brief relationship with a woman who more or less simultaneously had a relationship with another man. In this case, buy cheap atripla internet, Purchase atripla no rx, it was her off-again/on-again husband. Cahill never knew the child was his until she told him some time after September, 2007. By that time the child was three years old, atripla online review. Cheap atripla internet, Trust me on this. In the past, the court might have shed a few crocodile tears for the unknowing father, order atripla from us, Buying atripla, but ultimately would have ruled that bringing a new person into the child's life would be too disruptive and therefore (altogether now) the best interests of the child required that he/she have nothing to do with the actual dad. No longer. If Cahill proves to be the child's father, he will have some measure of parental rights to be decided by the trial court, buy atripla pills. Generic atripla cheap, In vain did people like me point out that bringing a new father into the child's life is exactly what mothers do when they divorce and remarry. No, the child's best interests either weren't so important in those cases or, cheap atripla, Cheapest atripla prices, more likely, courts knew perfectly well that children adapt to those situations well enough. Whatever the case, atripla in uk, Atripla overnight shipping, the upshot was that if Mom wanted to remarry, she could; if Dad wanted a relationship with his child, buy atripla cheap, Atripla for order, well it was his tough luck.
And of course the fact that the dad's absence during the important early life of the child had been brought about, atripla tablet, Where to buy atripla, not by him but by her, went entirely overlooked. In short, cheap atripla no prescription, she controlled his parental rights as surely as if they were hers to begin with.
But in Kentucky, that has changed. Now we have the Supreme Court referring to "inherent" parental rights. That would seem to mean that simply being a biological parent creates parental rights. That is, they don't come from legislative enactment or even from Constitutional authority. They come from the biological fact of parenthood.
They are "equitable" rights, i.e. not those created by law but by the facts of the situation. So dads in the dark about their paternity can no longer be deprived of those rights (called by the U.S. Supreme Court "far more precious than property rights") simply by the nefarious actions of the mother. It's an old rule of equity court that person who seeks equity must do equity and must have "clean hands." Therefore, a mother who seeks to deny a father his equitable parental rights, must prove that her hands are clean. Lying to him about paternity or withholding the truth about it doesn't qualify.
The court's language is dicta, i.e. not a controlling holding. But ever after, attorneys and courts will be quoting those magic words "the inherent, equitable rights of biological parents" that the court said it was "recognizing."
It's the thin edge of the wedge.
Similar posts: Buy omeprazole online without prescription. Buy singulair online without prescription. Buy synthroid online without prescription. Buy zocor online without prescription. Buy bactrim online without prescription. Buy flomax online without prescription. Buy glucophage online without prescription. Buy naltrexone online without prescription. Buy nasonex online without prescription. Buy nizoral online without prescription.
Trackbacks from: Buy atripla without prescription. Metronidazole gel without prescription. Buy lean tea without prescription. Buy orlistat without prescription. Buy uroxatral without prescription. Acomplia without a prescription. Buy estrace without prescription. Buy neem without prescription. Buy chantix without prescription. Vantin without prescription.