Does legitimacy still matter?

[SMOGZINN]

And to some extent, it's easier to prove children born within a marriage are those of the father (it's generally presumed), so legitimacy does matter in some situations.

This is something I have some knowledge about. Parentage is not presumed, it must be on the birth certificate. A new mother can name anyone she wants as the father of her child on the birth certificate, regardless of marriage. It is then up to the presumed father to prove otherwise.

 

[Mursilis]

This is something I have some knowledge about. Parentage is not presumed, it must be on the birth certificate. A new mother can name anyone she wants as the father of her child on the birth certificate, regardless of marriage. It is then up to the presumed father to prove otherwise.

A woman is not legally bound to name the father, at least not in all states. Note that I stated the presumption of legitimacy is a presumption, subject to rebuttal. Here's more on it:

http://www.gregoryforman.com/blog/2...-weakens-presumption-of-in-wedlock-paternity/

 

[SMOGZINN]

A woman is not legally bound to name the father, at least not in all states. Note that I stated the presumption of legitimacy is a presumption, subject to rebuttal. Here's more on it:

http://www.gregoryforman.com/blog/2...-weakens-presumption-of-in-wedlock-paternity/

No, I'm not saying she does. Sorry if I left that impression. What I meant is that even if she is married she can name a different person as the biological father on the birth certificate. When she does, that is the person the law sees that the father of that child, not her husband.

 

[piasabird]

Some people can choose to think it does not matter. They are just kidding themselves to cover up their wrong doings.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Some people can choose to think it does not matter. They are just kidding themselves to cover up their wrong doings.

Some people can choose to think it does matter. They are just kidding themselves to cover up their judgmental moralizing.

 

[Craig234]

It matters a tiny bit, as much as some people decide to care about it.

There is a part of society that cares. If you care that they care, that matters to you.

Sometimes children like to hear their parents were married when they were born. If you care about that, it matters to you.

But the negative impact of it has nearly entirely disappeared for most in the US.

I was watching an older 1950's type movie, and IIRC the plot had a wealthy family saying their only option was to kill someone or it would come out the children were bastards, which would 'destroy the family', so it was not an option they could do. Pregnant girls used to be shipped out of state routinely to protect the family from shame (which should sound familiar to stories from rural fundamentalist societies in other countries today who treat 'family shame' by the female family members very seriously, sometimes killing them).

It used to matter in older times quite a bit in terms of family succession, property rights and so on. If the father knew...

Today in the US, even those who have moral condemnation of it mostly take at least a 'don't blame the child for the sins of the parent' approach, and don't seem to really have any actual punishments they want to do to anyone about it. And of course most aren't aware of the 'bastard' status if someone has it - and the percent of children outside the 'born into married parents' families' has now become quite large, which can be a big help in reducing discrimination.

Note no divorced person was ever elected President, it was considered a negative on them, until the rule was broken... by Ronald Reagan, and now isn't too much an issue.

 

[justoh]

Some people can choose to think it does not matter. They are just kidding themselves to cover up their wrong doings.

Some people choose not to think, and this is lot more harmful to children than the absence of an obsolete ritual (which as we've established isn't really harmful at all).

 

[Sea Ray]

No, I'm not saying she does. Sorry if I left that impression. What I meant is that even if she is married she can name a different person as the biological father on the birth certificate. When she does, that is the person the law sees that the father of that child, not her husband.

I've heard that what you describe is not really true and personally I think it's nuts:

If any child is born into a legal marriage, the husband is considered to be the legal father regardless of biological paternity.

A DNA test can help override this, however. But in the time it takes for the paperwork to go through and the results to come back (it could take months), he would have been considered the legal father of the baby and be held responsible for child support and maintenance if he had not divorced the mother before the baby was born.

And even if a DNA test confirms that he is not the father, it may not be enough to remove his name from the birth certificate and absolve him of parental responsibility if the child is born into a legal marriage. Depending on how much time has passed between the baby's birth and the divorce finalization, a family court could claim it's still in the best interests of the child for your friend to pay support and that he has already established the foundation of a parental relationship.

So if your wife screws around on you, you're still legally considered the kid's father.

 

[Smoblikat]

My wife and I do foster care. We currently have two infants, and one five year old girl. When I was discussing foster care with someone with my oldest biological son nearby, someone referred to my five year old foster daughter as a "bastard child". I was forced later to explain to my son what the word "bastard" means (For those who do not know, it means your parents were not married when you were born/conceived).

My question is this: In 2014, does it make any difference at all if your parents were married when you were born? It seems to me like getting married first and then having children has become the exception, not the norm. I don't think we are at a reversal, where people may be ridiculed for being "legitimate" but I think it is common enough that no one notices anymore.


Can anyone think of a reason that child legitimacy still matters today?

At this point, I think its more important to get the parents to stay together at all, not so much if they are married or not.

 

[nehalem256]

At this point, I think its more important to get the parents to stay together at all, not so much if they are married or not.

On an individual level you would be correct. If a couple acts exactly like a married couple except for not actually being married I would expect there to be little or no difference in the end result between them and an actual married couple.

The problem is that on a societal level it is a lot easier to get people to act like that if you set the expectation of a societally structured relationship(ie marriage) for parenthood.

 

[alkemyst]

It's funny how so many are saying it's never mattered. In the past and even now in some backwards highly religious areas a 'single' mother usually will be scorned and challenged to leave. A divorced woman in the past was frequently equally shunned.

A bastard can also be a child whose father has disowned them.

For the most part, in today's society in modern/normal parts of our country. Children out of wedlock and/or single parents are very common.