Out Comes The Skeleton

[Sybaris]

I had originally participated in the NG Genographic project a couple years ago. Since then I had run into a brick wall while researching my surname, just couldn't get past this one g(+)grandfather in the 1840's. Recently I found that you can have your DNA results from the Genographic project transferred over to a FTDNA surname project. I thought "woohoo", I'll find a cousin from a branch of the same surname and work backwards. So I had my data transferred, hit the "match" button and there it was, a match to someone of a different surname!

A year or so before I participated in the NG Genographic project I had been searching for my paternal grandparents marriage record, couldn't find it but I did find an "extra" (2nd) marriage record for my grandmother. I asked my mother about it, she knew but said my dad wouldn't talk about it. Since my dad was born BEFORE the 2nd marriage and since his birth certificate had the same surname as my grandmothers 1st husband I thought that maybe her 2nd husband had been a jerk and my dad just wanted to forget about it. The marriage had only lasted 3 years anyway and they were divorced before my dad turned 6 so I let it go.

As you might have guessed, the DNA match is to the same surname as the man from my grandmothers 2nd marriage. Obviously my father had been born BEFORE the affair was found out.

Oh well. I don't have that brick wall anymore and have been able to trace my surname back to a small villiage in Shropshire.

Anyone else exposed a skeleton?

[Stevo]

Well, in this case it sounds like the skeleton used its bony index finger to point you in the right direction.

Congratulations!

[Sybaris]

Update

After some additional digging I found the outcome of the divorce printed in what was my grammas local paper. It stated that her husband was awarded custody of the 4 older children and my gramma awarded custody of the yougest child (my dad). There was a 5 year difference between my dad and the next oldest sibling so it makes sense that they went with their working father due to their lack of need for a stay-at-home parent. It also stated that her husband was to pay $2 a week in child support. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it is a requirement to pay child support for non-biological offspring unless they were adopted. I know there was no adoption so now it looks like it has always been assumed that my grammas first husband was my dads father. Perhaps I'm the only one who really knows who really was his father.

[darroll]

It’s really spousal support. You could not divorce your wife and leave her penny-less.
DNA does work. d

[Sybaris]

In this state women only get spousal support if they are physicaly/mentally unable to work or going to school. I know my gramma was/did neither and the article says verbatum, "child support".

[darroll]

Then he paid his child support. d

[Sw33tdecent]

The reason it is called child support is because that was the intention for the use of the money. The reason her 1st husband had to pay even though te children were not his, is because in the eyes of the law. The person who you are married to is considered the legal parent of all children brought forth from/within the union.

[Worlddan]

The reason it is called child support is because that was the intention for the use of the money. The reason her 1st husband had to pay even though te children were not his, is because in the eyes of the law. The person who you are married to is considered the legal parent of all children brought forth from/within the union.

None of this is true. In the eyes of the law (and it has been this way for more than 200 years in America) the person who is parent is the person who publicly holds themselves out as the parent. It has zero to do with biology and zero to do with the legal relationship between the parties. With the advent of DNA testing, most states now have a 2 year rule that allows the "parent" to disclaim paternity if a DNA test shows it is not their child within two years after birth. Of course, in most situations the person who is the legal parent is also the person who holds themselves out to be the parent but the legal relationship is not the test. Courts use a variety of factors to determine who is the person holding themselves out to be the parents and the legal relationship pays a role but so do a lot of other factors.

It's not surprising to me at all that the courts would order him to pay child support for a child that it not his in biological terms. Most people don't realize it but it happens all the time, even today. If you have any doubts that the child is yours, don't claim the child as your own unless you are willing to pay for the child for the next 18 years.

[jan]

None of this is true. In the eyes of the law (and it has been this way for more than 200 years in America) the person who is parent is the person who publicly holds themselves out as the parent. It has zero to do with biology and zero to do with the legal relationship between the parties.

Speak for your own state. In Louisiana, what you said is not the law.

Far from it.

[Deirwha]

the law

differs today because based on a statutory network harmonized across the country through federal funding designed to bring uniformity to child support laws.

In the past, under the common law, any child born during the cohabitation of a married couple was presumed to be the offspring of the husband. That presumption could not be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. As the law evolved presumptions that could not be rebutted went out of style. With today's DNA evidence the law becomes moot, of course, but back at the time of the example. However, that did not mean that child support would be paid. Apparently the hub in this case paid. I don't have a reference point to see if the $2 was a significant bite or a nuisance settlement.

And hey, there are skeletons all over the place. One thing mankind does frequently is procreate.

[jan]

differs today because based on a statutory network harmonized across the country through federal funding designed to bring uniformity to child support laws.

In the past, under the common law, any child born during the cohabitation of a married couple was presumed to be the offspring of the husband. That presumption could not be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. As the law evolved presumptions that could not be rebutted went out of style.

True, that is closer to the law in Louisiana. Though, here, a child can still have two "legal" fathers if there is no disavowal of paternity. A civilian peculiarity I suppose...