TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-01 > 1010773899


From: "Cliff Soderback" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Parentage
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:31:55 -0700
References: <000001c192e0$903979e0$19a028d8@s0024615887> <004101c197b5$7734ac60$8ad1e00c@attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020111124819.00a44da0@mail.widomaker.com>



> Parent Child as with any other live birth.
> Actually this is not a new issue. There is a doctrine in law relating to
> so-called "after-born children" that imputes descent from a predeceased
> father of any child born after the death of the father. At some early
stage
> of the development of the rule, the courts seemed somewhat hazy about the
> term of a pregnancy and so a rough guide was created such that any child
> born within one year of the death of the father was considered to be his
> child. The decision of the court regarding a child born as the result of
> artificial insemination is entirely consistent with this view of the
matter.
> Somewhat similar laws were created for intestate succession such that a
> child born after the execution of a will was called a pretermitted heir
and
> given a child's share as though not omitted, on the assumption that is
what
> the deceased parent (this rule applies to both parents) would have done.
> The really interesting legal issue is whether the pretermitted heir rules
> should apply to a child conceived by artificial means since the intent of
a
> father could hardly be assumed to be to make provision for such a child in
> the absence of other evidence
> For a long time it was held impermissible for a parent even to attack the
> legitimacy of a child born during a marriage. This so-called _Lord
> Campbell's Rule_ was sometimes applied to after born children in a time
> when illegitimacy meant the poor house which was maintained from public or
> parish funds. Better to have the child maintained by his mother (that at
> least could generally not be disputed), than at the expense of the parish.
> With artificial insemination there is at least the reasonable certainty
the
> child is the child of the donor.
> Nelson
>

These rules apply today as the court will not grant a divorce
to a pregnant wife. This is to confirm the rule that all children
born to a married couple are deemed to be the children of that
couple regardless of the biological parentage, thus any form of
conception is already covered by previous law.

Cliff S

This thread: