IMO
-KB "broke up" with PF 1/2018, but allowed him to continued having a relationship with little K, only.
-PF ended his that "relationship" ( & KB's life) on 11/22/2018 and kept little K, thinking he would never have to do another exchange with KB again
So...
- PF says to his lawyer there were no problems with the "relationship" because there was no "relationship" (romantically speaking) for the past year, only times when they exchanged custody (caregiver of) little K with each other.
As far as robbery, I don't believe that she ever had any ring or engagement/plans to marry.
I think perhaps that was something that was said to appease other people.
There are 9 months to to go to a justice of the peace to be "married" before a child is born.
With or without a ring.
The baby would be "legitimate" and carry the dad's name.
KB probably had better medical insurance, wasn't married to PF and didn't live with him, knowing that little K was his.
So, there are two seperate household bills being paid.
Even if PF's mom is paying his.
So, KB is paying for her household, medical insurance and probably medical bills.
A break up in Jan 2018 makes sense!
If PF was the father couldn't KB force the issue and require a paternity test that would in turn force him to help provide for the child? (As well as force her to be allowed visitation with child.) *which she was already doing.
The gears are turning, so this may not be stated correctly, if it were the opposite.
Kb is pregnant, she knows who the father is and is living with him. They are both splitting the bills, but she still refuses to go to the JOP, making the child "legitimate", but continues live with JF?
Baby is born and given KB last name- how does that work? PF refuses to sign the affidavit to sign the birth certificate and isn't forced to have a paternity test proving his paternity?
How does that work?
Would KB just not be forcing the issue, by asking for financial assistance because she has enough $ and wants him to spend time with the child, but knows she can end it at amy time?
I'm not making sense.
Paternity doesn't have to be established by DNA as an affidavit can be signed.
The reason for not signing would be for the man to not be held financially responsible for the child until 18 right?
Why would KB ok with that?
Or more generally why would any woman be ok with that?
Moo