Jaycee's Bio dad

[songline]

That's an interesting thought. Maybe he's in a place to be able to help Jaycee financially.

If he is able to help he can even do it anonymously if his heart is in the right place.
doing the right thing does not include whatever he is doing.

He wants something...but I am not sure what it is.:waitasec:
I am assuming he want a clear conscience and is trying to let us all know
that he tried to do the right thing.
Seems he still has no clue what "doing the right thing" is
To me, as I see it now - it is all about himself....me, me, me.....
I hope that she will give him the boot. I hope she will embrace her step dad.

 

[kbl8201]

Did he pay child support during the early years of Jaycee's life, prior to her mom's remarriage? Did his family (Jaycee's grandparents) provide any care, love or support?
Sorry if I missed this is an earlier post/discussion. Basically, did he leave his pregnant girlfriend high and dry from that point on? Did she tell him to get lost?

This is all upsetting but Jaycee is 30 and with her mom and the two of them will be able to handle any untimely intrusion of a possibly run-away-father. He is the least of her worries. This is a family matter than can be settled cleanly and swiftly it seems to me.
(I hope so.)

ok i lied about not posting again. want to set the record striaght here.
he did not pay a cent in child support. he never sent a birthday card, called her, or made a personal viist. we can make all the excuses for this we want but these are the facts.

 

[songline]

An e-mail I sent to his Lawyer:

He is your client, and if the man wants to do the right thing he can do so anonymously.
How dare he want to pressure her at this stage of her life. Well he said no pressure.
BUT IT IS...
Good deeds to not need to go in this direction. I pray she wants nothing to do with him only because of this despicable strategy
and timing.
As soon as I heard he lawyer up, I knew this stinks.

If he has a conscience he wants to clear this is the wrong way.

AND YOU TOOK THIS CASE?

 

[kbl8201]

An e-mail I sent to his Lawyer:

He is your client, and if the man wants to do the right thing he can do so anonymously.
How dare he want to pressure her at this stage of her life. Well he said no pressure.
BUT IT IS...
Good deeds to not need to go in this direction. I pray she wants nothing to do with him only because of this despicable strategy
and timing.
As soon as I heard he lawyer up, I knew this stinks.

If he has a conscience he wants to clear this is the wrong way.

AND YOU TOOK THIS CASE?

r
i dont think he has a conscious. i dont think he cares about jaycee or the girls at all. and this whole crock about 'being a positive role model" for them? huh? what a dad who abandons his kid until he sees dollar signs is a positive role model? a man who's daughters' already been thru hell and he wants to put her thru more? why do people defend this guy? he's no better then molino

 

[Imbackon]

In MN you have 3 years to get your name OFF of a birth certificate. If you don't you are the assumed father and even if dna later proves you are not the bio father, child support or other legal obligations are still yours.

This came about when a married father found out his children where not his children while in the middle of a divorce. It was deemed the child's right to parentage and in their best interest to not allow men, who raised a child as his child, to decide to later take it all back. So in Minnesota at least, all men are on notice, married or not that if they have any suspicions that a child is not theirs, then get a dna test as early as possible.

The reverse, should if it is not already the case be true. If a father does not do anything to PUT his name on a birth certificate the first 3 years of a child's life, then I feel he should lose any parental rights, which includes things like right of inheritance, visitation etc...

I can see, and maybe there is something in the law here regarding this where if a man is completely unaware that he may be a father, that he could get some sort of rights reinstated, but Mr. Slayton was not completely unaware and he could have taken action to get his name on JC's birth certificate.

Gotta draw a line somewhere, and 3 years is the line in MN.

 

[kbl8201]

In MN you have 3 years to get your name OFF of a birth certificate. If you don't you are the assumed father and even if dna later proves you are not the bio father, child support or other legal obligations are still yours.

This came about when a married father found out his children where not his children while in the middle of a divorce. It was deemed the child's right to parentage and in their best interest to not allow men, who raised a child as his child, to decide to later take it all back. So in Minnesota at least, all men are on notice, married or not that if they have any suspicions that a child is not theirs, then get a dna test as early as possible.

The reverse, should if it is not already the case be true. If a father does not do anything to PUT his name on a birth certificate the first 3 years of a child's life, then I feel he should lose any parental rights, which includes things like right of inheritance, visitation etc...


I can see, and maybe there is something in the law here regarding this where if a man is completely unaware that he may be a father, that he could get some sort of rights reinstated, but Mr. Slayton was not completely unaware and he could have taken action to get his name on JC's birth certificate.

Gotta draw a line somewhere, and 3 years is the line in MN.

he knew all along he was/could be the dad. he just chose to do nothing about it. you can give me all the 'well if the mom didnt want him involved......." but he's the dad. he could have asked for visitation rights 30 years ago.....he didnt

 

[JDB]

your absolutely right. its her choice. so why does bio dad feel the need to 'seek legal action" if she doesnt cowtow to his meeting/paternity test "request" (i use that term loosely)

You know why are u losing focus here. The true story is Jaycee being found? I really could care less about her Bio dad. But if Jaycee is his he should alsdo have rights.

 

[stilettos]

i had a post removed, and rightfully so, because i went on a long ranting raving diatribe against bio dad and his current action to force jaycee to submit to a paternity suit/meeting. this guy is just plain bad imo. i know he has been defended here, and by someone who claims to know him, but after everything jaycee went thru and is dealing with now, he has no right to demand anything of her. he doesnt get to play dad 30 years too late. 12 years he could have stepped up before she was taken. 12 years he did nothing. now she's an adult with kids of her own. what does this guy want? visitation of the grandkids? money from lawsuits the dugards are sure to win? i just dont like this guy

No one should be forced to submit to a test they do not want...she is an adult...she has a choice. i am not sure that he can compel her to do it..should she choose not to, i would support that...should she choose to...that also.

 

[songline]

WHY DO WE NEED THIS THREAD FOR.

We already have thread on JC's Bio Dad.
He is not a star.
Please merge this thread with where it belongs.
ENOUGH THREADS HERE. :banghead:
I am heading back to JAYCEES BIO DAD.
enough of the me, me, me threads.

 

[Tizzle]

I, personally, hope Jaycee is able to reconnect with both Carl and Ken. I hope that they can put all the grief and disdain behind them and live harmoniously, with forgiveness and love. I hope Jaycee never has to look back and think "What if?"

A father can pursue visitation rights, if he wants to. It would be kind of hard, though, if the mother of the child didn't want to found by said father, no? It IS still possible that Terry didn't want his involvement and made sure that there was no contact.

You don't think the man has even a hint of guilt over the fact that maybe his involvement in her life might have somehow prevented the 18 years of hell she endured? I do. Watch his press conference, if you haven't already. Those definitely don't look like crocodile tears to me. I saw a guilt-ridden, grief-stricken man that just wanted his message to get into the right hands to share with Jaycee when the time is right.
The people handling Jaycee's care aren't going to inform her of this press conference or the information obtained from it until they know it's the right time. So, whether or not he chose the best time to address this, it is still up to the people caring for her when she learns of it. It's not like he can just call her up and say "Hey!" so he chose this way to get the message to her. What would make you feel better about it? If he just said "Yeah, that's my kid, but I don't care about her or anything to do with her or her plight." would you feel better? Is the gesture of coming forward, like a man, and offering a loving, helping hand whenever needed really as horrible as many of you make it seem?. He even said he'll wait whatever amount of time it takes. Seems more noble to me than if he was just indifferent to the whole situation.

Also, kbl, care to elaborate on how you know what his involvement with Jaycee was during her childhood(no bday cards, phone calls, financial support)? How do you know? And how do you know he didn't attempt these things but was unable to locate Terry and Jaycee?

None of this really matters, though. In the end, this whole thread is pointless and useless because our opinion into the matter of Jaycee's biological father will have absolutely no weight in Jaycee's ultimate decision. Our opinons of him are certainly not going to decide what Jaycee feels is right for her. God bless her and her journey.

 

[songline]

In MN you have 3 years to get your name OFF of a birth certificate. If you don't you are the assumed father and even if dna later proves you are not the bio father, child support or other legal obligations are still yours.

This came about when a married father found out his children where not his children while in the middle of a divorce. It was deemed the child's right to parentage and in their best interest to not allow men, who raised a child as his child, to decide to later take it all back. So in Minnesota at least, all men are on notice, married or not that if they have any suspicions that a child is not theirs, then get a dna test as early as possible.

The reverse, should if it is not already the case be true. If a father does not do anything to PUT his name on a birth certificate the first 3 years of a child's life, then I feel he should lose any parental rights, which includes things like right of inheritance, visitation etc...

I can see, and maybe there is something in the law here regarding this where if a man is completely unaware that he may be a father, that he could get some sort of rights reinstated, but Mr. Slayton was not completely unaware and he could have taken action to get his name on JC's birth certificate.

Gotta draw a line somewhere, and 3 years is the line in MN.

But what is the Law in California - that is where they live.

 

[songline]

None of this really matters, though. In the end, this whole thread is pointless and useless because our opinion into the matter of Jaycee's biological father will have absolutely no weight in Jaycee's ultimate decision. Our opinons of him are certainly not going to decide what Jaycee feels is right for her. God bless her and her journey.

EXACTLY! It will be her choice.
The good part is that she is no longer 18 and she can tell him to go fly a kite.

First of all she has so much on her plate to deal with.
His timing and method sucks.
He could have made it known that when the time for JC is right he would like to help her in whatever way he can, until then he could do it all anonymously.
Nobody needs 2 fathers unless they like them a lot.
I only hope she will befriend her step dad, He is most sincere,
he did take care of her, she will have a faster bond with him.

If she is curious about the other fine. but while I did stick up for him before; the fact that he lawyerd up made me very suspicious of him.

 

[Pink Panther]

This is only my opinion. I don't know this guy. Whoever he might be...
but my opinion is that he is a "Loser" and I hope he crawls right back under the rock he's been hiding under for over 18 years!

Bleh.

Gloria Alred - I hope you've done your research!

 

[RJA00]

ok i lied about not posting again. want to set the record striaght here.
he did not pay a cent in child support. he never sent a birthday card, called her, or made a personal viist. we can make all the excuses for this we want but these are the facts.

we will probley never know the whole story

my sister pretty much as the same story

she was 19 when she had her son, her son is now 28, the father never paid a dime and never bothered to see him

but, that was my sister choice, she did not go after child support becouse she did not want to worry with visitation

( when he would show up at the house to caouse trouble, my mom would tell home come back when your striaght and you can see him, and if he kept on, she would say the magic words, do you want to pay child support and he would run)

i will give him a half credit, he did call my mom every once in awhile to say hi and to ask about him, when he was straight

my mom and dad said they would rather help support there grandchild then help to support lawyer,

my nephew is getting married and he did send him a wedding invitation and we are all waiting to see if he shows up,

he was never put on the birth cert, he has his mother maiden name


to add, maybe if my sister pushed the child support, he would of strighten up and became the worlds greatest father
we will never know

 

[MBK]

California State Code Grandparents Rights

CALIFORNIA CODES
FAMILY.CODE
SECTIONS 3102-3104

3102. (a) If either parent of an unemancipated minor child is
deceased, the children, siblings, parents, and grandparents of the
deceased parent may be granted reasonable visitation with the child
during the child's minority upon a finding that the visitation would
be in the best interest of the minor child.
(b) In granting visitation pursuant to this section to a person
other than a grandparent of the child, the court shall consider the
amount of personal contact between the person and the child before
the application for the visitation order.
(c) This section does not apply if the child has been adopted by a
person other than a stepparent or grandparent of the child. Any
visitation rights granted pursuant to this section before the
adoption of the child automatically terminate if the child is adopted
by a person other than a stepparent or grandparent of the child.


3103. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a
proceeding described in Section 3021, the court may grant reasonable
visitation to a grandparent of a minor child of a party to the
proceeding if the court determines that visitation by the grandparent
is in the best interest of the child.
(b) If a protective order as defined in Section 6218 has been
directed to the grandparent during the pendency of the proceeding,
the court shall consider whether the best interest of the child
requires that visitation by the grandparent be denied.
(c) The petitioner shall give notice of the petition to each of
the parents of the child, any stepparent, and any person who has
physical custody of the child, by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, to the person's last known address, or to
the attorneys of record of the parties to the proceeding.
(d) There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of
proof that the visitation of a grandparent is not in the best
interest of a minor child if the child's parents agree that the
grandparent should not be granted visitation rights.
(e) Visitation rights may not be ordered under this section if
that would conflict with a right of custody or visitation of a birth
parent who is not a party to the proceeding.
(f) Visitation ordered pursuant to this section shall not create a
basis for or against a change of residence of the child, but shall
be one of the factors for the court to consider in ordering a change
of residence.
(g) When a court orders grandparental visitation pursuant to this
section, the court in its discretion may, based upon the relevant
circumstances of the case:
(1) Allocate the percentage of grandparental visitation between
the parents for purposes of the calculation of child support pursuant
to the statewide uniform guideline (Article 2 (commencing with
Section 4050) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 9).
(2) Notwithstanding Sections 3930 and 3951, order a parent or
grandparent to pay to the other, an amount for the support of the
child or grandchild. For purposes of this paragraph, "support" means
costs related to visitation such as any of the following:
(A) Transportation.
(B) Provision of basic expenses for the child or grandchild, such
as medical expenses, day care costs, and other necessities.
(h) As used in this section, "birth parent" means "birth parent"
as defined in Section 8512.


3104. (a) On petition to the court by a grandparent of a minor
child, the court may grant reasonable visitation rights to the
grandparent if the court does both of the following:
(1) Finds that there is a preexisting relationship between the
grandparent and the grandchild that has engendered a bond such that
visitation is in the best interest of the child.
(2) Balances the interest of the child in having visitation with
the grandparent against the right of the parents to exercise their
parental authority.
(b) A petition for visitation under this section may not be filed
while the natural or adoptive parents are married, unless one or more
of the following circumstances exist:
(1) The parents are currently living separately and apart on a
permanent or indefinite basis.
(2) One of the parents has been absent for more than one month
without the other spouse knowing the whereabouts of the absent
spouse.
(3) One of the parents joins in the petition with the
grandparents.
(4) The child is not residing with either parent.
At any time that a change of circumstances occurs such that none
of these circumstances exist, the parent or parents may move the
court to terminate grandparental visitation and the court shall grant
the termination.
(c) The petitioner shall give notice of the petition to each of
the parents of the child, any stepparent, and any person who has
physical custody of the child, by personal service pursuant to
Section 415.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d) If a protective order as defined in Section 6218 has been
directed to the grandparent during the pendency of the proceeding,
the court shall consider whether the best interest of the child
requires that any visitation by that grandparent should be denied.
(e) There is a rebuttable presumption that the visitation of a
grandparent is not in the best interest of a minor child if the
natural or adoptive parents agree that the grandparent should not be
granted visitation rights.
(f) There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of
proof that the visitation of a grandparent is not in the best
interest of a minor child if the parent who has been awarded sole
legal and physical custody of the child in another proceeding or with
whom the child resides if there is currently no operative custody
order objects to visitation by the grandparent.
(g) Visitation rights may not be ordered under this section if
that would conflict with a right of custody or visitation of a birth
parent who is not a party to the proceeding.
(h) Visitation ordered pursuant to this section shall not create a
basis for or against a change of residence of the child, but shall
be one of the factors for the court to consider in ordering a change
of residence.
(i) When a court orders grandparental visitation pursuant to this
section, the court in its discretion may, based upon the relevant
circumstances of the case:
(1) Allocate the percentage of grandparental visitation between
the parents for purposes of the calculation of child support pursuant
to the statewide uniform guideline (Article 2 (commencing with
Section 4050) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 9).
(2) Notwithstanding Sections 3930 and 3951, order a parent or
grandparent to pay to the other, an amount for the support of the
child or grandchild. For purposes of this paragraph, "support" means
costs related to visitation such as any of the following:
(A) Transportation.
(B) Provision of basic expenses for the child or grandchild, such
as medical expenses, day care costs, and other necessities.
(j) As used in this section, "birth parent" means "birth parent"
as defined in Section 8512.

http://www.parentsrights.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=279&Itemid=32


I am just getting over the flu and can't handle thinking about something so complex. If anyone has reactions, knowledge, insight, or suggestions into interpreting this, please enlighten us!!!!

 

[MBK]

This is an intriguing part of the California Family Code. The ensuing sections appear to apply to BABIES, basically . . . but the points made in this paragraph are something to think about. Obviously, we're not talking about child support, here.

(As for the last line, although knowing one's father is important to a child's development, Jaycee knew Carl Probyn as her stepfather/ father . . . and she is no longer a child. (NB - - I guess Probyn never adopted her????!)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=07001-08000&file=7570-7577

FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 7570-7577

7570. The Legislature hereby finds and declares as follows:
(a) There is a compelling state interest in establishing paternity
for all children. Establishing paternity is the first step toward a
child support award, which, in turn, provides children with equal
rights and access to benefits, including, but not limited to, social
security, health insurance, survivors' benefits, military benefits,
and inh[B]eritance rights[/B]. Knowledge of family medical history is often
necessary for correct medical diagnosis and treatment.
Additionally, knowing one's father is important to a child's
development.

BBM

Check out the California Family Codes here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/fam_table_of_contents.html

 

[Imbackon]

Slayton does not have grandparent rights, so the above is moot.
He is not the legal father of JC, so he cannot be the legal grandfather.

First step would be for him to first establish himself as JC's legal father, which would be next to impossible at this point unless JC's mom went along with it.

Now days, I believe you have only a matter of months to prevent your child from being adopted by another man by signing up for something called the adoption registry. So there is legal precedent for time limits on biological father's rights. If you are the biological father of a child whose mother is married, you must assert your parentage within 2 - 3 years, depending on what state you live in, otherwise mom's husband is the presumed father and will stay that way unless challenged before the time limit.

None of these things of course existed when JC was born, so older laws would have to be invoked, which I believe is the 18 yr limit. Laws have had to be refined due to surrogacy and artificial insemination.

Since JC was born to an unwed mother, JC had no legal father, giving Slayton 18 years to become her legal father which he apparently chose not to do.

 

[MBK]

Slayton does not have grandparent rights, so the above is moot.
He is not the legal father of JC, so he cannot be the legal grandfather.

First step would be for him to first establish himself as JC's legal father, which would be next to impossible at this point unless JC's mom went along with it.

Now days, I believe you have only a matter of months to prevent your child from being adopted by another man by signing up for something called the adoption registry. So there is legal precedent for time limits on biological father's rights. If you are the biological father of a child whose mother is married, you must assert your parentage within 2 - 3 years, depending on what state you live in, otherwise mom's husband is the presumed father and will stay that way unless challenged before the time limit.

None of these things of course existed when JC was born, so older laws would have to be invoked, which I believe is the 18 yr limit. Laws have had to be refined due to surrogacy and artificial insemination.

Since JC was born to an unwed mother, JC had no legal father, giving Slayton 18 years to become her legal father which he apparently chose not to do.

"He is not the legal father of JC, so he cannot be the legal grandfather." THANK YOU!!!!

I wonder if he could be said, legally, to have abandoned his paternal rights way back when Jaycee was a baby.

 

[songline]

This may be an unusual case however, because the grandchildren were in forced confinement and therefore the absence of a relationship would be a weak argument.

Not based on history - JC was 11 and never saw him, so his History is clear.
JC is over 18 and she can tell him to go F himself if she wants to.
But JC would never curse.
At least it has been said that these girls do not know bad words.

They just know bad behaviour - LOL - from the SOB

 

[songline]

This is an intriguing part of the California Family Code. The ensuing sections appear to apply to BABIES, basically . . . but the points made in this paragraph are something to think about. Obviously, we're not talking about child support, here.

(As for the last line, although knowing one's father is important to a child's development, Jaycee knew Carl Probyn as her stepfather/ father . . . and she is no longer a child. (NB - - I guess Probyn never adopted her????!)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=07001-08000&file=7570-7577
BBM

Check out the California Family Codes here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/fam_table_of_contents.html

JUST ONE THING!
Where was he when she was a child?
she is not a child at all - she is 29.
I can not imagine that any of the Laws that pertain
to children will work in this case.

I hope JCs mom will make the right suggestions,
Based on how she feels any of this is going.
My instincts tell me that she will have the strongest influence on JC.