₦airaland Forum

ARISHEM:
What if the woman now marries and convinced the new husband that the child is his, like a paternity fraud. And after like 2 years or more the original father changed his mind and say he wants the child or children back that he was the one that impregnated or impregnating the woman and not her husband.
And the husband don’t want divorce his wife as a result

Dogalmighty17:
Good morning Ebele. I follow your posts closely.
There's this particular incident where a man with two wives raped a 12 year old girl. The girl got pregnant and gave birth to twins. One died. The man is in custody waiting for sentencing.
Now the girls father wants the baby adopted out. He has found a childless woman who has already taken the baby. The girls father
will be signing the adoption papers next week.

The girls father wants to have nothing to do with the baby and he also doesn't want his daughter to. That's why they are giving the child away.

My question is, considering that the mother is a minor, can any papers signed by her father be considered valid? If the rapist somehow escapes sentencing and is freed, can he make claims for the child? The baby is currently 6 weeks old and his mom just clocked 13 last month.
I'll appreciate your take please. Thank you.

pansophist:
Two people can have custody at the same time, if they are both responsible. A child born outside wedlock does not deny the father custodian rights and duties.

Ortherwise, it will create a situation where the freedom of the individual is trampled upon by the states, because there are lots of women that do not want to get married, but still wants a child.

omooba969:
Do you disagree with my comment, if yes, can you point out the part you don't agree with?

Kobojunkie:
Why not include a image referencing the actual record and section of the law where these ideas are recorded?

pansophist:
Your comment suggests or implies that the father may not have custodial rights and obligations. Or that his right commences if the mother for whatever reasons cant

ExudeLoveToAll:
There is nothing like a child out of wedlock belongs to the family, that's cultural practices that have no basis in law just like the igbos also don't inheritance to women which has no basis in law, supreme Court has set a precedence in this. Once you sure you are the child's father, you are the father for life unless you don't want to activate your rights if stepped upon.

When a man refuses to be a dad, the onus is in the lady to take him to court so the court forces him to also care for his child. If the lady refuses to do this and the man comes after ten years to now wants to be in the child's life you as a lady can't do shit , the court will grant him that fatherly right to the child. This has nothing to do whether you were married or not, children out of wedlock have same rights with children born in wedlock.

That child you speak about if the man dies he has rights to inheritance just as other children but the stupid culture will allow him to inherit. There are things are may seem ok culturally but are illegal in the sight of the law this is one of them.

Successlane:
Out of wedlock or legally married,

A child belongs to the

BIOLOGICAL FATHER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Period.

Kobojunkie:
Why not include a image referencing the actual record and section of the law where these ideas are recorded?

43Ronin:
✓ The Court of Appeal made this clear in Muojekwu v. Ejikeme (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 402. In that case, TOBI, J.C.A. held:
Why don't you Google the above judgement to gain clarity

gr8child:
✓ He cited a Court of Appeal case.

Zouzer:
✓ The OP cited a landmark case law where the Supreme Court made the pronouncement. That forms part of our laws and all lower courts must apply it as it is. Laws are not only recorded in statutes. The court's pronouncements(case law) forms part of law too

MrDoGood:
✓ Try dey read finish.... W get why

yemre:
✓ Do yourself a favour by getting the law report detailing the referenced judgement. The judges would not just pass a judgement without an extensive details and references to the part of the law or constitution that supports it.
You will even learn more beyond what you envisaged .

alphaconde:
✓ WHAT RECORD. THE NWLR WAS QUOTED. HAVE U LOOKED IT UP AND DIDNT FIND IT

ALLNIGERIANSMAD:
I'm a victim currently, one Igbo girl from Enugu got pregnant for me, I spent a lot on her till she gave birth job carry me from my location to another town on the nine months she suppose to deliver, I sent her money for hospital bill, and also for upkeep, this lady delivered successfully and disappeared with my baby, she blocked my line, if I use a new number to call her, she will block that too

kaltonga:
My man you are correct, the only reason why people leave this court process is that they are traditional that have very strong traditional dietes and oracle, that will not bother to go to court with you, them go just knack you wan strong jazz,you go begin see any how till you come beg them so no be everything you dey carry go court except say the family na church peoole

Fiscus105:
Is community customs and traditions superceded Nigeria constitution?

Capital No.

Let the father takes them to court ,he would come out victorious. I know it is Igbo tribe that has, all these funny traditions.

That was how they wanted to play nonsense with Bianca until she defeated then in Court.

CondemnBattery:
But sharia law supercedes Nigerian law abi.

This country is a joke.

What is good for guinea is good for uganda

Kobojunkie:
...... Knowing what I know of Nigerian judicial decisions and how they tend to violate/contravene even the Law of the land from time to time, I rather focus m learning what the Law in fact says.

And no, your court decisions are not intended to form part of the Law. Rather, Court decisions are meant to comply with the Law. Otherwise, they violate they are in direct violation of the Law and ought to be done away with. That is why any right minder person should insist on knowing what the Law says before investigating other opinions.

ExudeLoveToAll:
There is nothing like a child out of wedlock belongs to the family, that's cultural practices that have no basis in law just like the igbos also don't inheritance to women which has no basis in law, supreme Court has set a precedence in this. Once you sure you are the child's father, you are the father for life unless you don't want to activate your rights if stepped upon.

When a man refuses to be a dad, the onus is in the lady to take him to court so the court forces him to also care for his child. If the lady refuses to do this and the man comes after ten years to now wants to be in the child's life you as a lady can't do shit , the court will grant him that fatherly right to the child. This has nothing to do whether you were married or not, children out of wedlock have same rights with children born in wedlock.

That child you speak about if the man dies he has rights to inheritance just as other children but the stupid culture will allow him to inherit. There are things are may seem ok culturally but are illegal in the sight of the law this is one of them.

Zouzer:
➜....Let it be known to you today that, whatever authoritative interpretation the courts give to a statute acquires the force of law. The only ways such interpretation will cease its authority is if It's overturned by higher courts (eg Supreme Court overturning the Court of Appeal judgement) or by the same court in future cases (eg Supreme Court reversing its decision on a point of law it had decided in the past) or through legislative amendment.

ALLNIGERIANSMAD:
I'm a victim currently, one Igbo girl from Enugu got pregnant for me, I spent a lot on her till she gave birth job carry me from my location to another town on the nine months she suppose to deliver, I sent her money for hospital bill, and also for upkeep, this lady delivered successfully and disappeared with my baby, she blocked my line, if I use a new number to call her, she will block that too

Kobojunkie:
Why not include a image referencing the actual record and section of the law where these ideas are recorded?

dom:
➜He cited an authority there; a Court of Appeal decision. That suffices.

Kobojunkie:
This is the only part I will bother broaching at this point since I made myself clear in previous comments on why I prefer to focus on learning what the Law instead says.

Yes, Judicial interpretations can have the force of law. However, as you also hinted at there in the last part of your post, they are not absolute and can be challenged.

Zouzer:
➜Mister, you can pick up the Constitution, an Act of the National Assembly, a Law of a State House of Assembly, or even delegated legislation made by statutory bodies, and you might understand some of the provisions.
But UNDERSTANDING the law is not limited to just reading statutes. You are still straitjacketing your understanding of what “law” truly entails. Like I said, case law adds flesh to statutes. You can't understand the law if all you do is to read statutes but don't read judicial decisions on how those laws apply

Kobojunkie:
Yes, Judicial interpretations can have the force of law. However, as you also hinted at there in the last part of your post, they are not absolute and can be challenged.