Finnish man ordered by court to pay alimony for a child resulting from his wife cheating: this week in the strange death of Europe

[Jokodo]

Yes. I reject that the actions taken in the OP amount to consent to fatherhood.



I reject that the actions taken in the OP amount to consent to fatherhood.

And I tend to agree, to the extent that what we've seen represents a full picture, though the court may have seen additional evidence we don't know of that changes that picture.

But you also explicitly said that there should be no time limit at all, that a father who has been a father to a child he knows is not biologically his for 10 years should be able to cancel his obligation on a whim absent a documented adoption or some other kind of evidence of explicit consent.

Your language begs the question. He is not cancelling an obligation. He was never obligated in the first place.

When he found out the child is not his, he had the opportunity to file for the nullification of his status as a legal parent, which would void his obligations. So at that point he was not obligated. When he chose not to do this and instead chose to continue being the child's father, he made a choice - a choice that comes with consequences. One of the consequences being that now he is obligated. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Once again, for clarification: I do not know if this does or should apply to the OP case - arguably he was not in a mental state to make legally binding decisions due to the shock of the revelation etc, which appears to be what he's claiming. But in the case of a man who stayed together with the kid's mother for another five years after finding out the kid's not his, and continued to parent (not babysit) the child for another five years after they finally did seperate, the picture is clear enough.

You and others seem continually unable to acknowledge or grasp that no legal framework can force a man to continue to be a father in the ways that matter. In that sense, you believe that he can, in fact, 'cancel his obligation' and you agree that he should be able to. No legal framework is going to compel a man to visit his children. No legal framework is going to compel a man to help children with their homework. No legal framework is going to put love into the heart of a person who does not feel it.

And therefore what? Because we can't enforce some obligations a person willingly agreed to, we should give up on enforcing all obligations?

 

[Jokodo]

Metaphor has explicitly said that men like this should be able to opt out of fatherhood at any time simply by saying so. His explanation is that there is no paper trail to prove that they ever consented, ignoring the fact that there actions clearly demonstrate they did.

No, I haven't. I don't remember the details of your anecdote, but I said there is a fact of the matter about whether they consented, and findings of facts are what courts do all the time.

Apparently that's exactly what happened in the OP. The guy had the option of filing for nullification of his fatherhood when he found out, and he didn't. A court was tasked with finding the facts about whether he thereby consented, and ruled according to their findings that legally, he had consented.

Now that finding might be wrong in this particular case. However, there's nothing scandalous, nothing death-of-Europe-y, about this going to the court in the first place, which is what you've been consistently insinuating. Also, the court court may have had additional evidence we haven's seen that may change the balance - something you also seem to deny is possible, when you positively conclude that the decision was wrong from what little we know.

 

[Metaphor]

That's not true. You also don't get to kick out your child from your home when you find that, during a lockdown, you have better use for their room as a space for working from home. Money is not the only kind of obligation you have towards your children.

If your 16 year-old refuses to go to the high-school you picked for them because its focus areas don't fit their interests at all, which you know but refuse to take into account control freak that you are, do you get to say "I know longer want to be your parent, if you switch schools you go find your own place to live?

If they are under 18, a legal parent cannot abandon their children, no.

What if you don't like their boyfriend?

That's the kind of situations you buy yourself when you say consent to parenthood should be tentative.

Sorry, who is the 'they'? Your kids?

I did not say consent to parenthood 'should' be 'tentative'. I said consent can be temporary.

Acting as the father to a child that already is your legal child for years indicates a choice, the choice that you want to continue being that child's legal father.

We're just at a brute disagreement, Jokodo.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor has explicitly said that men like this should be able to opt out of fatherhood at any time simply by saying so. His explanation is that there is no paper trail to prove that they ever consented, ignoring the fact that there actions clearly demonstrate they did.

No, I haven't. I don't remember the details of your anecdote, but I said there is a fact of the matter about whether they consented, and findings of facts are what courts do all the time.

Apparently that's exactly what happened in the OP. The guy had the option of filing for nullification of his fatherhood when he found out, and he didn't. A court was tasked with finding the facts about whether he thereby consented, and ruled according to their findings that legally, he had consented.

Now that finding might be wrong in this particular case. However, there's nothing scandalous, nothing death-of-Europe-y, about this going to the court in the first place, which is what you've been consistently insinuating. Also, the court court may have had additional evidence we haven's seen that may change the balance - something you also seem to deny is possible, when you positively conclude that the decision was wrong from what little we know.

Oy gevalt.

Whether the court has additional evidence or not does not change the facts as reported. As reported, I affirm that the legal father did not consent to fatherhood when his child was born, his seven months of continuing the role after he found out he was not the bio father ought not constitute permanent fatherhood consent, and I find a system that would let him off the hook if he'd stormed out immediately one that creates perverse incentives.

 

[Jokodo]

If they are under 18, a legal parent cannot abandon their children, no.

And the reason a legal parent cannot abandon their children is that consent to parenthood is, by definition, permanent.

Also, you just said that we are only forcing fathers to pay for their legal children, and not enforcing any other kind of obligation. You now admit you were mistaken?

Sorry, who is the 'they'? Your kids?

I did not say consent to parenthood 'should' be 'tentative'. I said consent can be temporary.

Acting as the father to a child that already is your legal child for years indicates a choice, the choice that you want to continue being that child's legal father.

We're just at a brute disagreement, Jokodo.

Yes we are. And you're wrong. Objectively, clearly. You even contradict yourself half of the time. Go out to talk to someone in real life, and have them slap some sense into you (after disinfecting their hands).

I'm done explaining things for the third time my ten year old would understand on the first trial.

 

[ruby sparks]

He is not cancelling an obligation. He was never obligated in the first place.

How about this:

Man meets a woman with a one year-old child. She's a single parent. They date, he moves in soon after, and he plays a father role in significant ways. If you were on the outside looking in and you didn't know the child wasn't biologically his, you might think he was the 'real' father. But he has never signed or explicitly promised anything to the woman or the child, about being the father. He just does the stuff.

In your suggested legal system, would he (if he felt he wanted to) get to completely walk away 5 years later, with no financial obligations to the child (until they are 18)?

 

[Jokodo]

He is not cancelling an obligation. He was never obligated in the first place.

How about this:

Scenario 1: man meets a woman with a one year-old child. She's a single parent. They date, he moves in, and he plays a father role in significant ways. If you were on the outside looking in and you didn't know the child wasn't biologically his, you might think he was the 'real' father. But he has never signed or explicitly promised anything to the woman, about being the father. He just does the stuff.

In your legal system, would he get to completely exit 5 years later, with no financial obligations to the child (until they are 18) when the child is 7 years old?

Scenario 2: same as 1 except he did say, early on in the relationship, that he wanted to help her raise the child.

Scenario 3: Sue is being in a friends-with-benefits relation with both Tom and Bob, and the two guys know of each other and don't mind. They may or may not have had threesomes too. When Sue finds she is pregnant, she does some hard thinking and realizes that she really wants the child to be Tom's, that when she thinks about it long and hard enough, she finds that she wants to spend her live with Tom, and not with Bob. So while she is already pregnant and after talking with both guys at length, Tom and Sue get together for real, maybe they even marry, and she stops seeing Bob all during the pregnancy. Even though the timing suggests that it's somewhat more likely that Bob is the father, Tom signs that he accepts fatherhood of what, for all the authorities know, he believes to be his child.

In Metaphor-world, Tom never entered an obligation to be a parent to someone else's child, so when he doesn't feel like supporting his child any more and a paternity test shows that Bob is the biological father, he gets to send it back like a wrong-color bike.

 

[Metaphor]

He is not cancelling an obligation. He was never obligated in the first place.

How about this:

Man meets a woman with a one year-old child. She's a single parent. They date, he moves in soon after, and he plays a father role in significant ways. If you were on the outside looking in and you didn't know the child wasn't biologically his, you might think he was the 'real' father. But he has never signed or explicitly promised anything to the woman or the child, about being the father. He just does the stuff.

In your suggested legal system, would he (if he felt he wanted to) get to completely walk away 5 years later, with no financial obligations to the child (until they are 18)?

Yes. I've already made this clear.

 

[Metaphor]

And the reason a legal parent cannot abandon their children is that consent to parenthood is, by definition, permanent.

Of course it isn't. It ends when a child turns 18, even when consent is unambiguous.

Also, you just said that we are only forcing fathers to pay for their legal children, and not enforcing any other kind of obligation. You now admit you were mistaken?

Of course I was not mistaken. Absent fathers are compelled to provide resources, but their presence is not compelled.

Yes we are. And you're wrong. Objectively, clearly. You even contradict yourself half of the time. Go out to talk to someone in real life, and have them slap some sense into you (after disinfecting their hands).

I'm done explaining things for the third time my ten year old would understand on the first trial.

Bye.

 

[Metaphor]

Scenario 3: Sue is being in a friends-with-benefits relation with both Tom and Bob, and the two guys know of each other and don't mind. They may or may not have had threesomes too. When Sue finds she is pregnant, she does some hard thinking and realizes that she really wants the child to be Tom's, that when she thinks about it long and hard enough, she finds that she wants to spend her live with Tom, and not with Bob. So while she is already pregnant and after talking with both guys at length, Tom and Sue get together for real, maybe they even marry, and she stops seeing Bob all during the pregnancy. Even though the timing suggests that it's somewhat more likely that Bob is the father, Tom signs that he accepts fatherhood of what, for all the authorities know, he believes to be his child.

In Metaphor-world, Tom never entered an obligation to be a parent to someone else's child, so when he doesn't feel like supporting his child any more and a paternity test shows that Bob is the biological father, he gets to send it back like a wrong-color bike.

What? Of course Tom entered the obligation given the way you've explained it. Your only problem seems to be that nobody can prove he entered it. Well, that's for the courts to decide: did he accept fatherhood, knowing he might not be the bio father? Sue could get this in writing from him. If she doesn't, and knows he is not the bio father, then she is harming herself.

And if she can't get Tom to sign a statutory declaration saying "I am aware I may not be the bio father, but I nevertheless consent to being the legal father", then Tom didn't consent. If somebody claims they are offering something but don't want it to be able to be proven in any way, they are not offering it.

And, of course, in your gynocentric world, Bob's rights don't get any kind of mention. You are obsessed only with making sure Tom doesn't get off the hook. Meanwhile, Bob has a bio child and he hasn't figured anywhere in your scenario about who is the father. He might not even know.

 

[Jokodo]

Scenario 3: Sue is being in a friends-with-benefits relation with both Tom and Bob, and the two guys know of each other and don't mind. They may or may not have had threesomes too. When Sue finds she is pregnant, she does some hard thinking and realizes that she really wants the child to be Tom's, that when she thinks about it long and hard enough, she finds that she wants to spend her live with Tom, and not with Bob. So while she is already pregnant and after talking with both guys at length, Tom and Sue get together for real, maybe they even marry, and she stops seeing Bob all during the pregnancy. Even though the timing suggests that it's somewhat more likely that Bob is the father, Tom signs that he accepts fatherhood of what, for all the authorities know, he believes to be his child.

In Metaphor-world, Tom never entered an obligation to be a parent to someone else's child, so when he doesn't feel like supporting his child any more and a paternity test shows that Bob is the biological father, he gets to send it back like a wrong-color bike.

What? Of course Tom entered the obligation given the way you've explained it. Your only problem seems to be that nobody can prove he entered it. Well, that's for the courts to decide: did he accept fatherhood, knowing he might not be the bio father?

You mean like in the OP case? Just because you don't like the outcome and believe the guy's version of events doesn't mean it wasnt legit to have a court look at the case that the world would be a better place if he were automatically assumed not to want to be a father and this would never end up in a court except if he explicitly seeks to adopt the child - or that the court didn't have access to additional facts about this case that make their ruling more plausible.

Sue could get this in writing from him. If she doesn't, and knows he is not the bio father, then she is harming herself.

People tend to overestimate how much they can trust the word of a person they're infatuated with. You want to punish Sue for her humanity, for her frailty, for her emotions, while if she acted like a robot she'd be good? I thought that was a devilish thing when the guy in the OP was at the receiving end. What's good for the gander is good for the goose...

I also think I read something about perverse incentives that may apply here too.

Also this "she brought it upon herself" posturing, why wouldn't that apply to the guy in the OP? He had an option to have his fatherhood annulled, he didn't take it. What's good for the goose...

And if she can't get Tom to sign a statutory declaration saying "I am aware I may not be the bio father, but I nevertheless consent to being the legal father", then Tom didn't consent. If somebody claims they are offering something but don't want it to be able to be proven in any way, they are not offering it.

And, of course, in your gynocentric world, Bob's rights don't get any kind of mention. You are obsessed only with making sure Tom doesn't get off the hook. Meanwhile, Bob has a bio child and he hasn't figured anywhere in your scenario about who is the father. He might not even know.

You're lying and you know it, or would if you were capable of reading. My scenario includes the line "after talking with both guys at length". Its in the part you quoted.

Grow the fuck up and learn to read instead of making unfounded and in some cases demonstrably false inferences about my beliefs, based on your fantasy of what feminists (all of them, because they're monolithic somehow) think rather than my actual words and their implications

 

[Jokodo]

Of course it isn't. It ends when a child turns 18, even when consent is unambiguous.

Maybe that's true in Australia, but in the rest of the world you continue to be a parent when your child turns 18, and you continue to have obligations towards them. I'm no longer unconditionally obliged to provide their livelihood, but on certain conditions may still be, eg if their at uni and can't thus be expected to earn their own money. And when I die, they automatically get a small statutory share of my inheritance no matter what my testament says, even if I cling on to live so much that the child is 81 by the time i do.

 

[ruby sparks]

He is not cancelling an obligation. He was never obligated in the first place.

How about this:

Scenario 1: man meets a woman with a one year-old child. She's a single parent. They date, he moves in, and he plays a father role in significant ways. If you were on the outside looking in and you didn't know the child wasn't biologically his, you might think he was the 'real' father. But he has never signed or explicitly promised anything to the woman, about being the father. He just does the stuff.

In your legal system, would he get to completely exit 5 years later, with no financial obligations to the child (until they are 18) when the child is 7 years old?

Scenario 2: same as 1 except he did say, early on in the relationship, that he wanted to help her raise the child.

Scenario 3: Sue is being in a friends-with-benefits relation with both Tom and Bob, and the two guys know of each other and don't mind. They may or may not have had threesomes too. When Sue finds she is pregnant, she does some hard thinking and realizes that she really wants the child to be Tom's, that when she thinks about it long and hard enough, she finds that she wants to spend her live with Tom, and not with Bob. So while she is already pregnant and after talking with both guys at length, Tom and Sue get together for real, maybe they even marry, and she stops seeing Bob all during the pregnancy. Even though the timing suggests that it's somewhat more likely that Bob is the father, Tom signs that he accepts fatherhood of what, for all the authorities know, he believes to be his child.

In Metaphor-world, Tom never entered an obligation to be a parent to someone else's child, so when he doesn't feel like supporting his child any more and a paternity test shows that Bob is the biological father, he gets to send it back like a wrong-color bike.

Imo Metaphor's ideas (about general cases) are not in the end reasonable in that they go too far, imo. But that said, I think there are obviously grey areas, more or less so depending on the particular circumstances.

Even I would not say he is definitely morally wrong in his response to my scenario.

His approach certainly seems to be at odds with what appear to be increasingly common underlying policies about prioritising child-centred outcomes. Metaphor's views are pretty much man-centred. I do not think that makes him a bad person obviously, but, depending on circumstances (eg a case where from the young child's perspective, the man has apparently willingly been acting as a father for an extended period) it seems a bit one-dimensional and simplistic. Saying that the state can step in to pick up the tab, while it may be the case, or an option, is imo somewhat secondary and separate, because imo, depending on circumstances, a man in such situations can in principle and by his actions create a personal obligation to a child.

All in all, laws that have a time limit of some sort (after finding out about false paternity) don't seem unfair, so long as the time limit is reasonable and there is scope to extend it in certain circumstances. And perhaps the clock should stop when the cuckolded man, in light of discovering the truth, explicitly confirms within the time limit that he does not want the father role and the obligations that go along with that. He could still see the child from time to time thereafter, as a friend for example, but this would be optional, as would any financial assistance.

Not ideal I'm sure, but I doubt any law can be ideal in all circumstances.

 

[TomC]

Scenario 3: Sue is being in a friends-with-benefits relation with both Tom and Bob, and the two guys know of each other and don't mind. They may or may not have had threesomes too. When Sue finds she is pregnant, she does some hard thinking and realizes that she really wants the child to be Tom's, that when she thinks about it long and hard enough, she finds that she wants to spend her live with Tom, and not with Bob. So while she is already pregnant and after talking with both guys at length, Tom and Sue get together for real, maybe they even marry, and she stops seeing Bob all during the pregnancy. Even though the timing suggests that it's somewhat more likely that Bob is the father, Tom signs that he accepts fatherhood of what, for all the authorities know, he believes to be his child.

In Metaphor-world, Tom never entered an obligation to be a parent to someone else's child, so when he doesn't feel like supporting his child any more and a paternity test shows that Bob is the biological father, he gets to send it back like a wrong-color bike.

Imo Metaphor's ideas (about general cases) are not in the end reasonable in that they go too far, imo. But that said, I think there are obviously grey areas, more or less so depending on the particular circumstances.

Even I would not say he is definitely morally wrong in his response to my scenario.

His approach certainly seems to be at odds with what appear to be increasingly common underlying policies about prioritising child-centred outcomes. Metaphor's views are pretty much man-centred. I do not think that makes him a bad person obviously, but, depending on circumstances (eg a case where from the young child's perspective, the man has apparently willingly been a father for an extended period) it seems a bit one-dimensional and simplistic. Saying that the state can step in to help, while it may be the case, or an option, is imo somewhat secondary and separate, because imo, depending on circumstances, a man in such situations can in principle and by his actions create a personal obligation to a child.

Here's the huge difference between your scenario and the OP(as described).
"more likely that Bob is the father, Tom signs that he accepts fatherhood of what, for all the authorities know, he believes to be his child."
That's completely different, because he chose to sign something taking responsibility.

Personally, I find the OP implausible. And I'm aware that the only source is an angry ex. Such people are notoriously poor sources of information. Add to that the tendency of the internet to blow things completely out of proportion and you've got a viral story.

To me, the most plausible explanation is that hubby knew the child wasn't his from the get go. The fertility clinic explained that they couldn't conceive because he was sterile. But they wanted a child, so they saved a few thousand euros by enlisting someone they knew to be a "donor". When the relationship went south, for whatever reason, he tried to dodge his responsibility to the child.

Of course, this is speculation on my part. But I'm uninclined to accept the murky story told by an angry ex as totally truthful. Especially since I have more confidence in the Finnish judge than to believe s/he's quite that insensitive. So, as told, I see a travesty of justice. But I don't really believe that the story is true.
Tom

 

[ruby sparks]

Here's the huge difference between your scenario and the OP(as described).
"more likely that Bob is the father, Tom signs that he accepts fatherhood of what, for all the authorities know, he believes to be his child."
That's completely different, because he chose to sign something taking responsibility.

That was Jokodo's scenario. But yes, neither his and my scenarios are the OP one.

Personally, I find the OP implausible. And I'm aware that the only source is an angry ex. Such people are notoriously poor sources of information. Add to that the tendency of the internet to blow things completely out of proportion and you've got a viral story.

To me, the most plausible explanation is that hubby knew the child wasn't his from the get go. The fertility clinic explained that they couldn't conceive because he was sterile. But they wanted a child, so they saved a few thousand euros by enlisting someone they knew to be a "donor". When the relationship went south, for whatever reason, he tried to dodge his responsibility to the child.

Of course, this is speculation on my part. But I'm uninclined to accept the murky story told by an angry ex as totally truthful. Especially since I have more confidence in the Finnish judge than to believe s/he's quite that insensitive. So, as told, I see a travesty of justice. But I don't really believe that the story is true.
Tom

From what I've read so far, there's no particular reason to go with that. But it is possible.

That he reportedly left shortly after apparently finding out suggests that he didn't know before that. Him not knowing fits the reported facts we do have better.

 

[Jarhyn]

Scenario 3: Sue is being in a friends-with-benefits relation with both Tom and Bob, and the two guys know of each other and don't mind. They may or may not have had threesomes too. When Sue finds she is pregnant, she does some hard thinking and realizes that she really wants the child to be Tom's, that when she thinks about it long and hard enough, she finds that she wants to spend her live with Tom, and not with Bob. So while she is already pregnant and after talking with both guys at length, Tom and Sue get together for real, maybe they even marry, and she stops seeing Bob all during the pregnancy. Even though the timing suggests that it's somewhat more likely that Bob is the father, Tom signs that he accepts fatherhood of what, for all the authorities know, he believes to be his child.

In Metaphor-world, Tom never entered an obligation to be a parent to someone else's child, so when he doesn't feel like supporting his child any more and a paternity test shows that Bob is the biological father, he gets to send it back like a wrong-color bike.

Imo Metaphor's ideas (about general cases) are not in the end reasonable in that they go too far, imo. But that said, I think there are obviously grey areas, more or less so depending on the particular circumstances.

Even I would not say he is definitely morally wrong in his response to my scenario.

His approach certainly seems to be at odds with what appear to be increasingly common underlying policies about prioritising child-centred outcomes. Metaphor's views are pretty much man-centred. I do not think that makes him a bad person obviously, but, depending on circumstances (eg a case where from the young child's perspective, the man has apparently willingly been a father for an extended period) it seems a bit one-dimensional and simplistic. Saying that the state can step in to help, while it may be the case, or an option, is imo somewhat secondary and separate, because imo, depending on circumstances, a man in such situations can in principle and by his actions create a personal obligation to a child.

Here's the huge difference between your scenario and the OP(as described).
"more likely that Bob is the father, Tom signs that he accepts fatherhood of what, for all the authorities know, he believes to be his child."
That's completely different, because he chose to sign something taking responsibility.

Personally, I find the OP implausible. And I'm aware that the only source is an angry ex. Such people are notoriously poor sources of information. Add to that the tendency of the internet to blow things completely out of proportion and you've got a viral story.

To me, the most plausible explanation is that hubby knew the child wasn't his from the get go. The fertility clinic explained that they couldn't conceive because he was sterile. But they wanted a child, so they saved a few thousand euros by enlisting someone they knew to be a "donor". When the relationship went south, for whatever reason, he tried to dodge his responsibility to the child.

Of course, this is speculation on my part. But I'm uninclined to accept the murky story told by an angry ex as totally truthful. Especially since I have more confidence in the Finnish judge than to believe s/he's quite that insensitive. So, as told, I see a travesty of justice. But I don't really believe that the story is true.
Tom

Yeah, the whole fertility clinic aspect puts this solidly in the "He wanted a child. He got a child. Now he is being a choosing beggar and looking for the returns counter for human lives."

 

[ruby sparks]

Yeah, the whole fertility clinic aspect puts this solidly in the "He wanted a child. He got a child. Now he is being a choosing beggar and looking for the returns counter for human lives."

Not in my opinion.

Imo, a man is totally entitled, including legally, not to necessarily take on a child that is not in fact his.

Imo it's fine for you to say what you would do, but it's not really your place to say what others should do. We get that you consider yourself so evolved that you'd act differently before, during and after.

She sued for divorce pretty quickly, and later sole custody. She was also still seeing the other guy, and it seems he was her preferred partner, not the husband.

Imo, a man is entitled to walk away from such an apparently overall shitty situation. And it is reported that he still saw the child from time to time.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, the whole fertility clinic aspect puts this solidly in the "He wanted a child. He got a child. Now he is being a choosing beggar and looking for the returns counter for human lives."

Not in my opinion.

Imo, a man is totally entitled, including legally, not to necessarily take on a child that is not in fact his.

Imo it's fine for you to say what you would do, but it's not really your place to say what others should do. We get that you consider yourself so evolved that you'd act differently before, during and after.

She sued for divorce pretty quickly, and later sole custody. She was also still seeing the other guy, and it seems he was her preferred partner, not the husband.

Imo, a man is entitled to walk away from such an apparently overall shitty situation. And it is reported that he still saw the child from time to time.

A child that he sought to have. It is pretty clear that this is a situation wherein he sought a child by any means necessary and then got buyer's remorse two years in.

They went to a fertility clinic. They knew his swimmers were broken. He wanted a kid and he got one the only way he ever could possibly get one (with a "donor") given the fact of his inability to get the job done on his own. Maybe that's why she divorced him. Maybe she decided that the dick was better on the other side. If she did, shame on her. But shame on him for backing out of being a father. And shame on her for both suing for him to not be able to be the father he is while also expecting him to pay to be the father. But shame on him for backing out of being a father. It's not a fucking bike. You get a bike with bent rims or a the wrong brand, yeah, return it immediately. But human lives don't come with return receipts.

 

[TomC]

Imo, a man is totally entitled, including legally, not to necessarily take on a child that is not in fact his.

In 99.999% of cases I completely agree. Bio-parents are totally responsible, unless another competent adult formally agrees to do so. Generally, that's called adopting. It requires signatures and such.

This happens to be one of those freakishly rare cases where the reality is so murky that the usual rules may not apply.

I can't help but believe that the court recognized this fundamental ethic, but had more information than we do, and so had a reason to do something else in this one case. This is not a "he said-she said" thing. She isn't making an Internet spectacle out of an ugly divorce. It's a "he said-court said" thing, and the court is respecting people's privacy as they well should.
Tom

 

[ruby sparks]

It is pretty clear that this is a situation wherein he sought a child by any means necessary and then got buyer's remorse two years in.

I think you must be reading about a different case.