Friday, August 18, 2006

Amy G. v. M.W. (Cal. Ct. App. - Aug. 17, 2006)

Wow. Talk about messed up.

Father is married to Amy. Father has an extramarital affair with Kim, who is married to (but separated from) Steven. Father impregnates Kim. Kim hides her pregnancy from her family and friends moves to Virginia, where she has her child with Father, Nathan. Kim takes care of Nathan for a month, but then Father flys to Virginia, where he meets with Kim in a hotel lobby. Father presents Kim with documents -- which Kim signs while sitting in Father's limousine (!) -- that state that Kim agrees to give sole custody of Nathan to Father, to waive visitation, and to consent to Nathan's adoption by Amy. Kim then hands Nathan -- and all of Nathan's clothes, formula, diapers, and toys -- to Father, and Father returns them all to California that evening. And, since 2003, Nathan, who is now three years old, has lived with Father and Amy.

I shan't even attempt to describe the various lawsuits that shortly arise therefrom. Let's just say that Amy, Father, Kim and Steven are each parties to multiple actions in which Father, Amy, and Kim (but not Steven) are trying to assert some degree of parentage over Nathan.

Which is a mess. Justice Klein's opinion discusses various tough issues, including standing, joinder, presumed parentage, and other doctrines. But, in the end, we're still left with a mess. How'd you like to be Nathan? Or even Kim, or Father, or Amy?

This is a no-win situation for everyone. Yuk.