Tuesday, March 15, 2005

In Re Elijah V. (Cal. Ct. App. - March 15, 2005)

I was happy to see that Justice Huffman (belatedly) decided to published this opinion. It addresses important issues regarding the ability of biological fathers to gain custody children born as a result of an adulterous tryst with a married woman. Justice Huffman carefully analyzes the issue and comes to what I believe is the legally correct result: that the biological father here was not entitled to custody, even after the child was taken from his mother. It isn't a results-oriented decision. There are equities on both sides. But Judge Huffman resolves the resulting dispute in a neutral and dispassionate manner that's consistent with existing law. Good job.

One other reaction. The husband here married his wife in September 2001. A short two months later, on November 12, 2001, the husband has sex with his wife and -- that same day -- the Navy ships him out on deployment. One week later, the wife has sex with another person and (most likely) conceives a child with him. Remember: She's been married for a whole two months now, September 11 has just transpired, and the husband just shipped out to defend our country. And the wife can restrain herself from committing adultery and conceiving a child with another person in such settings for only a week.

Now, I'm no prude. But that ain't right.