If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

A Putative father established standing to pursue habeas corpus action seeking custody of child because he offered proof that he was entitled to set in motion the judicial machinery to determine whether he was the biological father of the child.

In 1988, the petitioner father and mother were living together in New York City. In January or February of that year, Donna became pregnant. She was not dating anyone other than the petitioner. The petitioner was told he was the father of the unborn child. The parties stopped living together in 1988, but continued to correspond with one another. In October 14, 1988, the mother married another man, and gave birth to her son two weeks later. The petitioner was informed of the son’s birth, but not the mother’s marriage. The mother’s marriage was dissolved in 1990, where the decree of dissolution found the couple to have “one minor child.” Subsequently, the relationship between the petitioner and mother became more involved. Yet, this broke down several years later, and on July 14, 1992 the petitioner was denied visitation with his son.

The putative father challenged for paternity, and filed a habeus action to prove that he was, in fact, the father of the child. The mother argued that the father had no statutory basis to do so, in that no law authorizes a putative father to challenge the paternity of a child born in wedlock. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. State law does, in fact, allow a putative father to challenge the patnerity of a child. In this respect, the father had the legal right to test for paternity to support his motion for custody.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: Weidenbacher v. Duclos, 661 A.2d 988 ; 1995 Conn. Lexis 205 (1995)