Paternity Law in Utah–Part Deux

So those of you who read the comments to these posts know that the client I referred to in my previous post about a paternity law case changed his mind about settling.  (Through some settlement negotiations Mom agreed to, and FINALLY posted a picture of the baby on her family blog.  This child looks so much like his Dad that if he is NOT my client’s, I will run naked through the street.)

Our hearing on whether or not my client has standing to proceed (the right to be in court in the first place) and on our motion for genetic testing was this morning.  It was. . .interesting.  Dad testified regarding the nature of his and Mom’s relationship, the evidence he had that Mom and Husband’s marriage is/was NOT stable in any way, and how he knew the baby to be his.  I had 10 pages of questions that we went through–detailed questions regarding all the emails sent, contacts made, sex had.  Mom and Husband both testified as well.  NO ONE–not Mom, not Husband, not even Husband’s Dad (who also testified) denied that Mom had been having sex with Dad.  Mom admitted on cross-examination (that’s the part where I got to ask her questions after her attorney had asked her questions) that she had not been having sex with Husband at the time that the child would have had to been conceived (this is important–it’s an element to getting an order for genetic testing).  She admitted, also on cross-examination (do I know how to ask a question or what? ;)) that she had been emailing Dad for 3 years, and that she’d told him that her marriage was not stable.  Kind of took the wind out of the previously attested-to Stable Marriage Sails.

The most interesting part of this hearing, however, came at the end when opposing counsel and I had a chance to argue our positions based on the law.  Let me say this:  preparation is ALWAYS better than having to rely on pointing at your sad and pathetic clients and hoping that their hopeful faces will trump law.  I was very glad that I’d briefed the hell out of the constitutionality issue (because the judge asked specific questions that I’d already researched and addressed, and had the answers on paper to).

It still matters. EVEN in family law. EVEN in Utah.

I was extremely glad that I’d spent so much time going through the statute, and was able to respond to questions regarding the ‘infallibility’ of the presumptive father’s rights to the child in cases like this.  The judge had plenty to think about.  Too much to give us a ruling today, in fact.  He took it under advisement, meaning he’s going to do his own research, read the Supreme Court cases I pointed to, review the statutes, and get back to us in the (hopefully not too distant) future as to what the order will be from this hearing.

I find that I’m quite deeply invested in this case now.  I cannot stand the thought that Pearson continues to be law in the State of Utah.  It’s an unconstitutional non-interpretation of the statutes of the state.  Should the court find in favor of Mom and Husband as a result of today’s hearing, there WILL be an appeal.  I’ve decided that the professional exposure I could get from working this case will be worth it in the long run, so I’ve already committed to handling any appeal we may need to bring pro bono (that means for free).  I believe it will be worth it for others reasons as well.  Why, you ask?

Because I am simply not jaded enough, nor am I disillusioned enough with the family court system, to think that this is how it should be and we can’t fix it.  Because I can’t believe that the State of Utah would be so interested in preserving the marital relationship, in whatever tatters that relationship may be, at the expense of a father’s relationship with his own flesh and blood.  Because I’m Right, and I’m just stubborn enough to push the issue.  And because if they can take my client’s child away from him, they can take mine away–and that is absolutely not acceptable.