Cassidy’s parents were teenagers when he was conceived. In fact, they were high school sweethearts. One month after high school graduation (six months after Cassidy was born), they decided to get married. The marriage only lasted a year before they went their separate ways. Cassidy would be considered:

An illegitimate child.
A legitimate child.
A legitimized child.
An out-of-wedlock child.

A father and son live together. The mother abandoned the child when he was born. The father and mother were never married. The son grew up as a social outcast because his parents had never married. He blames this condition as an out-of-wedlock child for the fact that he was unable to get a proper education. Instead, he follows in his father’s footsteps to become a miner. Upon finding his rich mother’s whereabouts, the son decided to sue her based on a theory of tort in which the son was forced to enter into a wrongful life because the mother never married the father. The court would likely:

Reconsider precedent and ignore stare decisis and hold for the son.
Hold for the son because the son had actually been wronged by the mother.
Implead the father into the action because he was a necessary party to the action and hold against both parents.
Dismiss the case for lack of a cause of action.

Tanya was recently admitted to the pediatric ward of a local hospital for eye surgery. One morning a man entered her room, seemingly to escort her to a medical test. Instead, he took her to a nearby conference room and raped her. Nine months later (two months before her sixteenth birthday) Tanya gave birth to a son. If the child (through a guardian ad litem) sues the hospital for negligence, the court would likely:

Dismiss the suit against the hospital, as there is no cause of action recognized for wrongful birth.
Hold for the child and allow the suit to proceed, since courts recognize a wrongful life suit against a third party.
Dismiss the suit against the hospital and direct the child to sue the rapist instead.
Implead the rapist and let the suit proceed against the hospital and the rapist.

Mark was an illegitimate child of King Preposterous, who ran his kingdom according to the early common law. Under the common law, which rights would Mark have?

Entitlement to support from the King.
Entitlement to an inheritance from the King.
Entitlement to be successor to the throne.
None of the above.

Basil, after many rounds to court, has finally met the definition of being a legitimate child in Arizona. Basil’s adoptive parents are moving to Illinois. Basil’s parents fear the courts in Illinois will not recognize his legitimate status. What is the best advice?

Stay in Arizona where his rights as a legitimate child are recognized.
Move to Illinois and if the courts do not accept Basil as a legitimate child, sue Illinois under the Equal Protection clause.
Illinois will recognize Basil’s legitimate status because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Request recognition of Basil’s status before moving to Illinois.

When illegitimate children bring their cause of action in court basing it on an Equal Protection claim, what they are really arguing is:

Their status as illegitimate children is differentiating them from other people who are legitimate children.
The laws are not treating the class of legitimate and illegitimate people equally.
The laws are favoring the children born in wedlock as compared to children born out of wedlock.
All of the above.

Chastity comes into your office seeking professional assistance. Her half-siblings are refusing to share her mother’s wrongful death action award of one million dollars. They are telling Chastity that she was not their mother’s child, as defined in the statute, because the statute only recognizes children born in wedlock; Chastity was born out of wedlock. What would you advise Chastity to do?

Sue her half-siblings for her equitable share of the award.
Tell her the hassle of suing them is not worth it.
To be justified that her mother’s death was avenged with the payment of the award.
None of the above.

Alexis, a non-marital child, has not had paternity established by her father. When compared to Andrea, a marital child whose parents have recently divorced, Alexis has a more limited right to paternal support?

True
False

Candy and Ted were having marital problems when she discovered she was pregnant. Unbeknownst to Ted, Candy had been having an affair with her boss, Stanley. When the child was born, she let Ted believe he was the child’s father and put his name on the birth certificate, even though she was unsure who the child’s actual father was. When the child is three years old, Stanley decides to challenge paternity. The likely outcome:

The court allows Stanley’s challenge and orders a paternity test.
The court presumes Ted is the father and dismisses Stanley’s case.
The UPA precludes Stanley’s challenge because he waited too long to challenge paternity.
The court would allow Stanley’s challenge if Candy also joins in the action.

Louise and Simon are unmarried. Louise gets pregnant. Once her parents find out about the pregnancy, they force Louise to marry their business partner, Marty. Pursuant to the UPA, when the child is born there is a presumption that Marty is the child’s father. Infuriated, Simon brings an action to establish paternity. How can Simon successfully establish paternity?

By DNA testing.
By bringing in a written agreement between Louise and Marty where Marty acknowledges under oath that he is not the legal or biological father.
By proving that Marty is sterile.
The court will not allow Simon to establish paternity because it would defeat the best interest of the child and public policy against breaking up families.

Seth is a member of the United States Army and has been serving overseas for the past six months. He has not come home in between and has only kept contact with his wife, Stephanie, via e-mail and telephone. Three months after Seth returns home Stephanie gives birth to a baby girl, Camille. Seth insists on having his name listed on the birth certificate, provides all essentials for the baby and tells everyone she is his daughter. Nevertheless, Jake, the biological father wants to bring a paternity proceeding in court. Who has the least standing to bring an action to determine parentage?

Seth
Stephanie
Jake
Camille

Sharon and Arnold are husband and wife. They have one child. Unbeknownst to Arnold, the child is not his. Rather, Sharon’s ex-lover is the child’s biological father. When that affair ended, Sharon and Arnold reconciled and now wish to raise the child as their own, without interference from the biological father. What advice would be useful?

List Arnold as the father on the birth certificate.
Have Arnold “hold himself out” as the father to the child.
Have Arnold support the child.
All of the above.

Edward suspected that he might not be the father of his ex-girlfriend’s child. His ex-girlfriend, Georgina, insisted that he was the father and obtained a court order to force him to undergo a paternity test. In their state of residence, the standard for the probability of paternity is 98%. The results of the paternity test showed that Edward was excluded from being the biological father. Is Edward liable for child support?

Yes
No