Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Sperm Donor May Be Told to Support Teen
A sperm donor who fathered a colleague's child 18 years ago and has held himself out as the father cannot now deny his paternity, said a Nassau judge, who denied the donor's request for a genetic test.
Family Court Judge Ellen R. Greenberg found that reversing course now would have a 'traumatic effect' on the 18-year-old, who now lives in Oregon. The decision in P.D. v. S.K., U-2725-07, stemmed from a child support proceeding started by the child's mother, Ms. D, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. She resides in Oregon, and the donor, Mr. K, resides in Nassau County.
In response, Mr. K requested genetic testing for the purpose of denying paternity. The law guardian assigned to represent the child moved to have Mr. K equitably estopped from denying paternity. According to an affidavit submitted by the law guardian, Mona N. Glanzer of Lawrence, the child never knew anyone other than Mr. K to be his father, and Mr. K had sent him cards and gifts signed 'Dad' or 'Daddy.' That, plus the child's birth certificate, which lists Ms. D and Mr. K as the mother and father, was enough for Judge Greenberg to find that Mr. K was estopped from denying paternity. 'In the instant proceeding, the law guardian has met her burden by submitting affidavits that the child has never known anyone other than the respondent as his father, and that the respondent has sent him money, gifts and cards which are signed either 'Dad' or 'Daddy,” wrote the judge. 'Therefore, the burden shifts to the respondent to show why estoppel should not be granted. Here, the respondent concedes that he has sent cards, money and gifts over the last 15 years and that he allowed his name to be listed on the child's birth certificate as the father because he 'felt it was in the child's best interests that he would have an identity.”
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.