Burden Of Proof

Question: Am I intitle to get child support from the biological father? Hi guys.Thanks ever so much for ur answers to my other questions.My question now is am I intitle to get child support from the biological father in case i get married again,or if I get married now for someone else while i am pregnant,and my husband adopt the baby.Because the biological father of the baby broke up the engagment and left me pregnant .And doesn't want to know about the baby at all or to see it.

Answer: If you get married to someone else, that does NOT sever ties with the bio. dad....he is still responsible for his child up until their are 18.... he will still have to pay child support..unless your new husband adopts your child. If that happens then the child's bio dad is no longer responsible for his child. The responsibility falls then on her legal father "step-dad" (because if your new husband adopts her / him it terminates the bio's dad's right completely. and that includes financial responsibility) Normally you would have to wait 6 months after you marry for your new husband to adopt your child. What you need to do is apply for child support and get the process going. I have delt with many cases regarding this. What he pays depends on if he is working or not and how much money he is taking home (if he is working) He May not want anything to do with the child, but it is still his responsibilty to financially pay for the baby. You would also have to do a paternity test before child support to determine that he is the father.

Question: Should a man take custody of to baby girls that he is the biological father of? Should a man take custody of to baby girls that he is the biological father of? He has sex with local women who will to put them up for adoption, if he does not want them.

Answer: Yes if he is a good father.

Question: Do I need consent from my sons biological father to apply for a US passport for him? I have no Idea where my sons biological father is. I am now married and want to apply for a US passport for my son. Will this be a problem? I am receiving child Support from his biological father but he has no interest in being apart of my sons life. They are not garnishing his checks... I live on the east coast, he lives on the west and we havent spoken in 4 years...

Answer: if your son is us citizen, you do not need his father to apply for his passport

Question: Can a mother obtain child support in California when she divorces a man who is not the kids biological father? The biological father who is overseas was never approached for financial support. Is the non-adopting step-dad liable for payments in California?

Answer: Does he know he's not the father?

Question: My fiance wants to adopt my child, does the biological father have to sign over his rights? My fiance wants to adopt my daughter from a previous relationship because her father doesn't help me support her. I was never married to her biological father, and since I live in Indiana and we have never gone through the court, he technically has no rights over her what so ever. But his name is on the birth certificate so I was wondering if I would have to take him to court and have him sign over his rights so my fiance can officially adopt her. Any ideas?

Answer: Her biological father has rights. It doesnt matter that you weren't married to him. Your fiance cannot adopt until he becomes your husband. When that happens, contact a family law attorney in your area to see if there is a period of time you must be married before he can adopt. If so you will have to wait. (some states have a waiting period, other don't) When the time comes, the biological father must sign his rights away and consent to a step parent adoption OR if he has not paid child support or attempted to contact the child in a year, then his rights can be involuntarily terminated. Your lawyer will assist you with this part. You will HAVE to have a lawyer. This is not something you can just do yourself.

Question: When is a good time to explain to my daughter that my husband is not her biological father? My daughter is 6 years old. My husband has been in her life since she was 2 months old and her real father has had no relationship with her at all. When my husband and I got married her biological father signed over his rights so my husband could adopt her. She has always had a relationship with her paternal grandparents but just recently she has wondered why she has three sets of grandparents. I just told her because she was a special girl and left it at that. I was never up front with her about her real dad because I thought she was too young and I couldn't and still can't imagine having to tell a child their own parent wanted nothing to do with them. It hurts me that I have to tell her but I know I will have to do it but I'm just not sure if I should now at this age or if I should wait. Also what would be the best way for me to tell her? Any suggestions would be great.

Answer: Speaking from experience, I would tell her now if you feel she is able to understand. Don't let her find out the same way I did. I went snooping through my mother's metal box where she kept important papers and found mine and my brother's adoption papers. Needless to say, I was NOT impressed. I don't think telling an adoptee from the get go is warranted, as they need to reach an age where they will understand. But don't underestimate your child. They know more and have a better grasp on reality than we parents tend to give them credit for. In the end, only you know your child. You and your husband will do what you feel in your heart is the right thing to do for her. But I do suggest you don't wait til she is old enough to go snooping ;) I wasn't much older than she is.

Question: Is it true that a unusually high proportion of black men have never know their biological father? Is it true that a unusually high proportion of black men have never know their biological father? Is it true that most black men were raised either by their maternal grandmother in a single-parent household, or a nearby female neighbor whom also had children outside of a traditional family?

Answer: "In the nature argument, black men, in comparison to white and Latino men, have more of a natural proclivity to walk away from their children; in the nurture argument, the irresponsibility is bred into black men as part of their societal conditioning." http://www.theroot.com/views/father-figures While vilifying absent black fathers, this ignores the fact that many black fathers have been driven out of their children's lives by vengeful or selfish mothers and the family courts which support them. As one black father notes: " All the official talk about promoting black fatherhood doesn't amount to anything. I did the best I could as a father but the moment I wasn't convenient anymore I was gone. The courts didn't care about my kids having time with me, all they cared about was my money, and I don't even have much." http://www.fathercare.org/blackman.htm Even after three DNA tests proved Smith was not the biological father of her child, this woman still went after him with a relentless vigor. http://www.gillistriplett.com/manhood/articles/gender_war.html http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1731

Question: Who carries the burden of proof at a criminal trial? You are charged of second-degree murder. You claim it was self-defense. Criminal trial for second-degree murder starts. There was not witness during the killing. Which party carries the burden of proof? Does the defendant have to prove that it was self-defense or does the prosecutor have to prove that it was no self-defense? Is it more likely that the jury has to acquit because with no witnesses there is room for doubt and the benefit of doubt always goes to the defendant?

Answer: The prosecution has the responsibility of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. However, "self defense" is an 'affirmative defense' which means that the defense has to convince the jury that that's what happened.

Question: Traffic Ticket Questions: Is the burden of proof still beyond a reasonable doubt? 1. Is the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"? 2. If it is just a citizen calling to complain about speeding on his street, how can the state meet that burden when the driver is just going to testify that they were driving safely?

Answer: Depends on your State. In most States traffic infractions are still criminal matters, which means that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard. Several States, though, have decriminalized traffic infractions, and made them civil matters. In those states the burden is "by a preponderance of the evidence", and there's no 5th amendment right not to testify against yourself. Richard

Question: Is the burden of proof on the tenant or the landlord in providing evidence of damages to the apartment? My landlord is withholding almost half of my security deposit because of damages he said I am responsible for. These damages were already evident when I first arrived in the apartment 5 years earlier. I do not have photos and there was no walk through when I first signed the lease so I have no evidence of the original condition. If I go to court, will the burden of proof lie on my landlord or on the myself (the tenant)?

Answer: He could take photos to prove the damage is there. It will be assumed that you have done the damage, unless you can prove otherwise. Learn from this, if you rent again, take an inventory with the landlord/agent and make a note of anything not 100% and have them sign to that effect. And if anything goes wrong whilst you are residing there, put your notification to the landlord in writing.

Question: When will believers accept the burden of proof? I hear many claim, "well, atheists cant prove god does not exist". The burden of proof lies in the camp making the positive claim. You claim he exists, that he is real, that he has some effect on this universe. When will you back up your claims with even a tiny little shred of evidence? Put up, or shut up.

Answer: They think "Miracle On 34th Street" is a documentary. In really real life, the "prove me wrong" argument is retarded.

Question: Can someone explain the burden/standard of proof in civil and criminal law? Hi, I have just started studying my ilex law course and would be grateful of someone could explain the burden of proof and standard of proof. Thanks, Emma

Answer: 1. The Burden of Proof (i.e. who has to prove what) In civil matters (as a general rule), the burden of proving any particular fact is borne by the party alleging that fact. However, this rule is subject to various exceptions and presumptions, for example, the principle of res ipsa loquiture can be seen as reversing the burden of proof where it applies. In Criminal matters (again, as a general rule), the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case, however, the Defendant, if he wishes to raise a particular defence (for example, self defence), will usually bear a burden of proof in relation to the facts upon which that defence depends. 2. The Standard of Proof (The test to establish whether a party has succeeded in proving a fact in issue) In civil matters, the standard of proof is generally "on the balance of probabilities" or "a preponderance of the evidence", meaning that if it is more likely than not that the fact alleged is true, then the standard has been met. In criminal matters, the standard of the burden of proof borne by the prosecution is to prove that the Defendant is guilty so that the jury are "sure". The old formulation of "beyond all reasonable doubt" in jury instructions has been abandoned. Juries are now told simply that the prosecution must convince them of the Defendant's guilt, so that they are sure. If a Defendant bears a burden of proof it will usually be to a lesser "evidentiary" standard of proof - sufficient to raise the facts as an issue.

Question: The burden of proof for Unemployment Compensation falls on which party? I filed for unemployment because my employer was not scheduling me for work. After 3 weeks of this I filed for Unemployment Compensation. I started to collect and my employer then told the people at Unemployment that I had quit the job. This being a lie, I appealed. When I have my hearing for appeal, who is it that has the burden of proof? The employer who said that I voluntarily quit or me who says that I was not being called in for work?

Answer: Unemployment compensation eligible benefit hearings are in general heard in front of an administrative law judge, this means while its formal and the testimony is under oath and recorded the law judge has wide latitude to hear both sides of the case They will need to show; either a letter or other type of instruments showing voluntarily quit on your part or maybe a no call no show code log You will need to demonstrate that you stayed in contact with the employer in regard to your eligibility to work or show you responded to their inquires to availability to work

Question: I have a question concerning the burden of proof, a question my own professor failed to make me understand.? Ok...If and when the burden of proof has been properly found, and any given prosecution now has the burden of proving the case, why should a court take judicial notice of adjudicative facts without the necessity of introducing evidence to actually prove the facts?

Answer: now i'm not a lawyer. and most of the opinions you'll get here are pretty worthless. however, <> is interesting. my inference would be that you're referring to a specific case. i doubt that the general rule is that the prosecutor does introduce the evidence. that being the case, it's not reasonable of you to expect a good explanation, when there are, i would think, many details that you've left out.

Question: Who has the burden of proof under a charge of illegal possession in South Australia.? During discussions with friends I was told that unlike other cases the police do not have the burden of proof but that it is up to the person charged to prove that the goods in question were acquired legally.

Answer: I don't think there is a crime of 'illegal possession' in South Australia, unless perhaps you mean 'receiving', which is dealt with in the same way as theft. This offence is found in s134 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Subsection 5 states: (5) Theft committed by receiving stolen property from another amounts to the offence of receiving but may be described either as theft or receiving in an instrument of charge and is, in any event, punishable as a species of theft. In all criminal offences across Australia (pretty much without exception) the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the standard of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Question: How come atheists refuse to consider the burden of proof? That is a fallacy in itself :o) And even so, negative claims have a bit of a burden (of proof) as well (Source: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.)

Answer: Not necessarily! You are right that negative claims can at times carry the burden of proof but in the case of religion or theism, it's the THEIST who carries the burden of proof because: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof... burden is on the extraordinary nature of claiming the existence of the supernatural.

Question: Burden of proof: How do you disprove a claim which offers no proof nor evidence to disprove it with? And as a Christian how can you make a claim without anything to back it up with and expect everyone to accept it as fact? The Burden lies on your heads and on the blood of your goats.

Answer: And with that we realize Creationism belongs in church, not science class.

Question: What Burden of Proof do you need to win a civil trial, criminal trial, and to make an arrest? What Burden of Proof do you need to: a)win in a civil trial? b)win in a criminal trial? c)make an arrest?

Answer: a) Preponderance of the evidence- The standard for a conviction is based on the balance of probabilities which would make the proposition true at 51% b) Beyond a reasonable doubt- prosecution must prove to the jury that a person who is considered "reasonable" would find the defendant guilty. c) Probable cause-Low standard of evidence used to either search or arrest. In US V Sokolow, probable cause is "a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found" In a criminal trial, the burden of proof usually stays with the prosecution. But a defense counsel who presents prima facie evidence could create evidentiary burden making it difficult for the prosecution to keep burden of proof. But like the prosecutor said, it all depends on the facts presented at trial and up to a jury.

Question: Is it true that since an atheist claims that God is not real, the burden of proof lies on an atheist as well? Remember: The burden of proof lies on a person making a claim of some sort. An atheist claims that God is not real, so the burden of proof lies on an atheist as well. Dictionary: A claim means an assertion of something or someone as a fact. An atheist asserts that God is not real as being factual. I haven't smelled, tasted, heared, felt, or seen any of your family member, but I know that you have some family members, so your reason fails.

Answer: Atheist claim that everything happened naturally and that is a claim. Silly atheist.

Question: What is the burden of proof to show that someone hit and dented your car? Also, what methods of proof are there? Pictures of scratches and dents? Matching paint to another car?

Answer: If you want to win in court, you will have to prove your claims by a preponderance of the evidence. You might think of this as requiring you to prove that it is more likely than not that the person you are suing hit and damaged your car. You can offer various kinds of proof on the matter. Testimony of witnesses w/ first hand knowledge of the incident or related matters (e.g. someone who noticed the defendant's car was damaged after the incident), photographic evidence, etc. If the jury or judge finds your story compelling that may be enough, but you should collect all the evidence to support your case that you can. As for paint samples, there is no need for forensics labs as Just Me suggests...this isn't CSI and no one is on trial for murder. If you have pictures of the other person's car, demonstrating that it is damaged and has the same color paint as that left on your car...that will be just as good as some fancy pants report from a lab.