The saga surrounding Michael Jordan's alleged love child continues. Jordan's attorney filed a motion to dismiss Pamela Smith's paternity suit, citing the existence of Taj Reynold's legal father, Glenville George Reynolds.
That explains Taj's surname. His mother and Mr. Reynolds were married when he was born. So according to Georgia law, Taj is presumed Mr. Reynolds's son, whether biologically related or not. To add to that, when the Reynolds divorced in 2003, the now Ms. Smith swore out a complaint alleging that Mr. Reynolds was the father of Taj Reynolds. Jordan's attorney cited this fact in his motion to dismiss.
In Georgia a child's paternity can be established in several ways, including through a paternity suit. To learn more about how Georgia determines paternity, read here. Georgia and North Carolina are similar in the establishment of paternity based on marriage. In both states, a child born in wedlock is presumed to be the child of the married parties.
Though the states may differ in how that presumption may be overcome, the baseline is: if you have a child while married, that child, presumably, belongs to the wife and the husband. In essence, a child may be biologically fathered by one person, but legally fathered by another.
So what happens when a child is not biologically the husband's child? In many states a third party, the child, or the mother can seek legitimation of the child. Both Georgia and North Carolina have legitimation procedures. But when a man who is the "putative" father wants to reject paternity, he may be out of luck. You can wait too late to say, "I am not the father," when you have acknowledged paternity already or been legally deemed the father.
Here it is, almost seventeen years after Taj Reynolds was born. Is it too late to determine who his father is legally? If the case were in North Carolina, it most definitely would be too late. Check out the consequences of having a legal (married/husband) father and a biological father according to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services:
In those situations involving a "legal" (spouse) and a "biological" father, it is necessary to determine the correct approach on a case by case basis. In general, it is not always be necessary to require the presence of the legal father or to make the legal father a necessary party to a subsequent action against the biological father, per Lombroia V. Peek, 107 N.C. App. 745 {1992}.
Under Lombroia, the court found that a judgment already existed in Florida, finding that the husband was not the father of the child in question, making the issue res judicata as to his interest in the subsequent proceeding against the biological father. In addition, if a paternity test performed on the biological father indicates a ninety-seven percent (97%) or above probability of paternity, then the biological father must rebut the presumption with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Therefore, paternity testing should be encouraged even if the biological father is agreeable to voluntarily establish paternity and support.
If a biological father has such a paternity test result, and the mother can testify to sexual relations with the biological father, and non-access to the legal father, then suing both the biological and legal fathers is not only unnecessary but also can assist the biological father in rebutting the presumption of paternity, per Wright V. Wright 27 N.C. app. 45 cert. denied, 288 N.C. 513 (1975).
However, if the husband had already been adjudicated by the court as the legal father (such as a divorce proceeding), then the issue is res judicata, and the presumed biological father should not be pursued. The CSS attorney advising the agency should be consulted before proceeding with any paternity case involving both a legal and a biological father.
What do you think will happen with Jordan's case? Who do you think is Taj Reynold's father?
Comments