If a woman sleeps with a married man (separated or still married) and gets pregnant but the man goes back to his wife then does she have the right to claim he can't see his kid unless it is at her house because she doesn't want the child to have any contact with his wife?

The wife in this case is not a danger to the child at all, has accepted the past and moved beyond it (bears no hatred toward the other woman) and encouraging her DH to have visitation with the child. A friend of mine and her DH are in this situation, they have a lawyer and there is a DNA test being done now because she refused to let him sign the birth certificate and he is pursuing visitation. The baby is 4 months old and she refuses to let him see his DD unless it is at her house without his wife present.

No

When it is the fathers visitation, she canot stipulate that the baby cannot be around the fathers WIFE

That's just insane and she is being super childish

No. If he's truly the father, and he's a reasonable human being (not a criminal, etc) and can provide a stable environment, then she cannot dictate that.

She's in for a rude awakening, unless she has a REALLY good reason (like the wife is a child molester or something).

I always believe that if a man is willing to provide not only support for his child, but love as well, he should be able to see his child. She's lucky that her baby's father is wanting to be in his child's life and that his wife is so supportive as well. Bless her.

If the wife presents no danger to the child and the baby is proven to be his then i don't see how it's in her rights to only have visitation at her house.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Kelly&Coralie:</b>" No When it is the fathers visitation, she canot stipulate that the baby cannot be around the fathers WIFE That's just insane and she is being super childish"</blockquote>




 

No, she has no right unless she felt this person was a danger to a child and she is obviously not. Your friend is one strong woman, btw.

Personally, it sounds like she's upset that he went back to his wife and now she's trying to use their LO against him. If he wants to see her and he's no threat to the child, then yes, he should be allowed to see his child.

<blockquote><b>Quoting tinana +2:</b>" No. If he's truly the father, and he's a reasonable human being (not a criminal, etc) and can provide ... [snip!] ... that. She's in for a rude awakening, unless she has a REALLY good reason (like the wife is a child molester or something)."</blockquote>




This

Quoting shes.so.vain:" Personally, it sounds like she's upset that he went back to his wife and now she's trying to use their ... [snip!] ... their LO against him. If he wants to see her and he's no threat to the child, then yes, he should be allowed to see his child."

 


Yeah, I cannot see a court making those kind of restrictions just because the couple aren't together anymore. If he and his wife are not criminals, he will get unsupervised visitation.

Quoting breathingchaos:" I always believe that if a man is willing to provide not only support for his child, but love as well, ... [snip!] ... She's lucky that her baby's father is wanting to be in his child's life and that his wife is so supportive as well. Bless her."

  i couldnt stick by someone that cheated and fathered a child that wasnt mine. kudos to her.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Jas ♥:</b>" No, she has no right unless she felt this person was a danger to a child and she is obviously not. Your friend is one strong woman, btw."</blockquote>

I know, right.

No, she should have thought about that before sleeping with a married man. Using a child as leverage is just pathetic, IMO. She sounds bitter as there is no legitimate reason.

Quoting shes.so.vain:" Personally, it sounds like she's upset that he went back to his wife and now she's trying to use their ... [snip!] ... their LO against him. If he wants to see her and he's no threat to the child, then yes, he should be allowed to see his child."

This.

*wondering if the 2 votes are butthurt moms.... lol*