It's a bad idea for many reasons. It doesn't show good judgment nor maturity. It doesn't set a good example for your child. It leads to confusion and misunderstanding of the norms of a civilized society and exposes them to someone the other parent doesn't know and therefore cannot approve of. You would need to teach your child to be secretive and dishonest in order not to have them tell their other parent about the encounters. The child would be placed in an uncomfortable and unwholesome position.
At the time of the eventual divorce remember that judges are human and they have a lot of wiggle room when rendering decisions. Having a "significant other" in the picture during your marriage and then exposing your child to that illicit affair would not result in sympathetic decisions on the part of the judge over contested matters. Your spouse could use that poor judgment against you in custodial matters.
It's a bad idea for many reasons. It doesn't show good judgment nor maturity. It doesn't set a good example for your child. It leads to confusion and misunderstanding of the norms of a civilized society and exposes them to someone the other parent doesn't know and therefore cannot approve of. You would need to teach your child to be secretive and dishonest in order not to have them tell their other parent about the encounters. The child would be placed in an uncomfortable and unwholesome position.
At the time of the eventual divorce remember that judges are human and they have a lot of wiggle room when rendering decisions. Having a "significant other" in the picture during your marriage and then exposing your child to that illicit affair would not result in sympathetic decisions on the part of the judge over contested matters. Your spouse could use that poor judgment against you in custodial matters.
It's a bad idea for many reasons. It doesn't show good judgment nor maturity. It doesn't set a good example for your child. It leads to confusion and misunderstanding of the norms of a civilized society and exposes them to someone the other parent doesn't know and therefore cannot approve of. You would need to teach your child to be secretive and dishonest in order not to have them tell their other parent about the encounters. The child would be placed in an uncomfortable and unwholesome position.
At the time of the eventual divorce remember that judges are human and they have a lot of wiggle room when rendering decisions. Having a "significant other" in the picture during your marriage and then exposing your child to that illicit affair would not result in sympathetic decisions on the part of the judge over contested matters. Your spouse could use that poor judgment against you in custodial matters.
It's a bad idea for many reasons. It doesn't show good judgment nor maturity. It doesn't set a good example for your child. It leads to confusion and misunderstanding of the norms of a civilized society and exposes them to someone the other parent doesn't know and therefore cannot approve of. You would need to teach your child to be secretive and dishonest in order not to have them tell their other parent about the encounters. The child would be placed in an uncomfortable and unwholesome position.
At the time of the eventual divorce remember that judges are human and they have a lot of wiggle room when rendering decisions. Having a "significant other" in the picture during your marriage and then exposing your child to that illicit affair would not result in sympathetic decisions on the part of the judge over contested matters. Your spouse could use that poor judgment against you in custodial matters.
It's a bad idea for many reasons. It doesn't show good judgment nor maturity. It doesn't set a good example for your child. It leads to confusion and misunderstanding of the norms of a civilized society and exposes them to someone the other parent doesn't know and therefore cannot approve of. You would need to teach your child to be secretive and dishonest in order not to have them tell their other parent about the encounters. The child would be placed in an uncomfortable and unwholesome position.
At the time of the eventual divorce remember that judges are human and they have a lot of wiggle room when rendering decisions. Having a "significant other" in the picture during your marriage and then exposing your child to that illicit affair would not result in sympathetic decisions on the part of the judge over contested matters. Your spouse could use that poor judgment against you in custodial matters.
No. The person adopting a child does not have to be legally married. If that were the case, only married couples would be able to adopt.
If you are married to the mother, no. Then you share everything naturally. But if you have a child and you are separated or not married to the mother, and you do not have custody of the children, you have to pay child support
If a child is illegitimate, it means their parents are not legally married.
No. When married he/she is emancipated.
Yes, if he has physical custody of your child.
yes
If they are legally married, the father gets rights until mother gets out of prison, after that it is up to the state. If not legally married, they go into state custody.
Emancipation means the child is considered legally an adult. Yes.
When a couple is not legally married they have no statutory rights in the other's estate. Their separate property would pass to the child. Any property held as joint tenants with the right of survivorship would pass to the survivor.
Yes , the biological father will be held legally responsible for the support of his child .
If you are legally married you are normally considered to be emancipated. There are exceptions, but marriage and joining the armed forces are considered emancipating events. Note that having a child does not affect the question.
No. The status of being legitimate refers to a child born to parents who are legally married. In the past, a child born out of wedlock was at a legal disadvantage regarding inheritance from her/his father and other rights. That status is no longer significant in the United States since Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s abolished the bars to inheritance.The term term has negative connotations and has fallen out of use.No. The status of being legitimate refers to a child born to parents who are legally married. In the past, a child born out of wedlock was at a legal disadvantage regarding inheritance from her/his father and other rights. That status is no longer significant in the United States since Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s abolished the bars to inheritance.The term term has negative connotations and has fallen out of use.No. The status of being legitimate refers to a child born to parents who are legally married. In the past, a child born out of wedlock was at a legal disadvantage regarding inheritance from her/his father and other rights. That status is no longer significant in the United States since Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s abolished the bars to inheritance.The term term has negative connotations and has fallen out of use.No. The status of being legitimate refers to a child born to parents who are legally married. In the past, a child born out of wedlock was at a legal disadvantage regarding inheritance from her/his father and other rights. That status is no longer significant in the United States since Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s abolished the bars to inheritance.The term term has negative connotations and has fallen out of use.