Its no wonder. Aside, from personal concerns, legally (and while we at
H&Z practice divorce ONLY under Indiana law and therefore cannot advise
as to what may occur in the state they have filed for divorce) –
if these parties were divorcing in Indiana and there was no final dissolution
by the time Kim were to give birth, under Indiana law the child would
be presumed to be a child of the marriage. Thus, the basis to push for
the finalization of the divorce prior to the child's birth. This is
due to the law defining who is presumed to be a child's biological
father. Under Indiana law, Kris would be presumed to be the child's
(1) the child was born during the marriage; or
(2) the child was born not later than 300 days after the marriage is terminated by dissolution.
See Indiana Code Section 31-14-7-1.
Of course this is a rebuttable presumption. However, under Indiana law, should the issue be left unaddressed, there could be implications affecting each party's rights. Namely, the presumption may lead to a right of either party to orders regarding child support and parenting time. While it may be unlikely for such an outcome to occur, this fact scenario is a prime example of an instance where the law leads to bizarre results.
For a full-text version of the article, please visit the following link:
At Hollingsworth Roberts Means, LLC Attorneys at Law, our team has the experience, the understanding, and the compassion to assist with your family law needs. If you have questions or concerns regarding divorce, custody, support, or any other family law concerns contact our firm at 317.DIVORCE or visit our website at www.hzlegal.com.