GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-01 > 0948946291
From: RTansey959< >
Subject: Re: False Fathers --- Not the Real Dad
Date: 27 Jan 2000 04:11:31 GMT
>The principle of father is, who the husband is, is to my knowledge the basis
>of "family law" in Christian Europe (I don't remember the exact referance to
>canon law here - if someone might shed some light on this).
At common law, in anglo-saxon countries, (I can't speak for civil law
countries) a man married to a woman was assumed to be the father of her child.
This is, however, a rebuttable presumption, and a husband say, in an action
for child support, can introduce evidence showing otherwise. I'm not sure
about the distinction being made in the posts between "legal" evidence vs.
"biological" evidence. "Biological" evidence such as DNA tests is simply
another form of evidence which may or may not support paternity in court
actions. In that sense, I suppose they are indeed "legal," but the more proper
term is probably "admissible."
In the context of genealogy, the "rebuttable presumption" of paternity would
seem to make sense. If you have no evidence that the husband is not also the
father, why wouldn't you accept it? Indeed, in the context of medieval
genealogy... it would appear we have no choice.
In any event, as another writer noted, there is always the matrilineal line.
Judaism, for example, accepts as Jewish those born to a Jewish mother
because....ya always know who the mother is!
Thanks, Roger Tansey
|Re: False Fathers --- Not the Real Dad by RTansey959< >|