Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

presumption of paternity

Read a random definition: head of family

A quick definition of presumption of paternity:

Presumption of Paternity: This is a rule that says that the father of a child is usually the man who is married to the child's mother when the child was born or conceived. It can also apply to a man who marries the mother after the child is born and agrees to support the child or puts his name on the birth certificate. If a man welcomes a child into his home and treats the child as his own, he can also be considered the father. This rule is sometimes called the "presumption of legitimacy" or "acknowledged father."

A more thorough explanation:

The presumption of paternity is a legal concept in family law that assumes the father of a child is the man who meets certain criteria. These criteria include:

  • Being married to the child's mother when the child was conceived or born, even if the marriage was later found to be invalid
  • Marrying the mother after the child's birth and agreeing to have his name on the birth certificate or to support the child
  • Welcoming the child into his home and later holding out the child as his own

For example, if a married couple has a child, the husband is presumed to be the father of the child. Even if the couple later divorces and it is discovered that the child was not biologically related to the husband, he may still be considered the legal father due to the presumption of paternity.

This presumption can have important legal implications, such as determining child support and custody arrangements. However, it can be challenged in court if there is evidence to suggest that the presumed father is not the biological father of the child.

presumption of natural and probable consequences | presumption of survivorship

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.