From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Sat Mar  4 22:12:34 2006
Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34])
	by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k255CYjb008330;
	Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:12:34 -0700
Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l.rootsweb.com [66.43.16.22])
	by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k255CWsk006992
	for <roots-approved@rootsweb.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:12:32 -0700
Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l [127.0.0.1])
	by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k252gZFI005807
	for <roots-approved@rootsweb.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 21:42:35 -0500
Received: (from roots-in@localhost)
	by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k252gZgf005806
	for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 21:42:35 -0500
Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [66.43.27.41])
	by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k24K6GFI003442
	for <roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:06:16 -0500
Received: (from slist@localhost)
	by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k24Ma0d9006122
	for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:36:00 -0700
X-Envelope-From: listpig@earthlink.net Sat Mar  4 15:36:00 2006
Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34])
	by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k24Ma0jb006113
	for <ROOTS-M@lists5.rootsweb.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:36:00 -0700
Received: from smtpauth01.mail.atl.earthlink.net (smtpauth01.mail.atl.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61])
	by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k24MZvCp024987
	for <ROOTS-M@rootsweb.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:35:57 -0700
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=eooxFCqwH4ugym/vixpEDzYnXL0lyGU0DCCI97k8U5HsDDjCIGZJIB3YI96hPWeO;
  h=Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [24.14.194.54] (helo=[192.168.1.100])
	by smtpauth01.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1FFfLt-0006we-Kw; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:35:53 -0500
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 16:35:52 -0600
Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] COMMON-LAW MATES/CHILDREN
From: Listpig <listpig@earthlink.net>
To: Arlynda <arlynda@oakharbor.net>, <ROOTS-M@rootsweb.com>
Message-ID: <C02F7268.34A70%listpig@earthlink.net>
Thread-Topic: [ROOTS-L] COMMON-LAW MATES/CHILDREN
Thread-Index: AcY/2/4XPI4a+qvPEdqAdAANk0pHdA==
In-Reply-To: <000501c63fab$66850930$2f01a8c0@yourw04gtxld67>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: db202341c41578ced780f4a490ca69563f9fea00a6dd62bc68e7f757beb64cbd63909e69f35e3551350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 24.14.194.54
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34
Sender: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com

The distinctions seem to have changed.  As near as I can extrapolate (with
no legal consultation or qualifications), in Illinois, you have four
possible situations:

1) parents are both listed; parents are married; legal responsibility for
and access to the child is mutual by presumption, given the marriage

2) parents are both listed; parents are not married; legal responsibility
for and access to the child is mutual following the father and mother both
signing witnessed legal documents that the child is his and he takes
responsibility.  Once you do this, the mother can't suddenly decide the
child is all hers and the father has no access any more than she could if
she were married to the father. (This is called the Voluntary
Acknowledgement of Paternity form.)

3) parents are not married, father is not present.  Doesn't matter whether
or not she says "Joe Jones is the father" or "none of your business who it
was".  Unless she was married at either time of conception or time of
delivery, without that form signed, nobody is *legally* the father of the
child, barring a court proceeding later to establish same.

4) a moderately weird situation: mother is married, but husband is not
father of child, and they want the actual father acknowledged: same form can
be used, but requires mother, father and husband all to sign.

Source:
http://www.ilcadv.org/legal/vol_establishment.htm#10

--pig

On 3/4/06 10:48, "Arlynda" <arlynda@oakharbor.net> wrote:

> Thank Heavens, California seems to have gotten away from marking their birth
> certificates with the word illigetimate....and I hope other states have
> followed suit...