On the bright(?) side, ISTR that MdR are lawyers for very rich people, and hopefuly therefore likely to do a good job disposing of this kind of nastiness. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that any judge has (yet) agreed with Blunkett's lawyers either.
It turns out that he definitely isn't the father (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4320827.stm) anyway. The same article says he denies he started any legal proceedings; so either he's lying or the Telegraph got it badly wrong.
No. The only people who can have parental responsibility - the right to veto changes to a child's name, residence, medical care or education (the only rights laid out in law) are a child's biological parents, unless the child is adopted. If a couple are married, the husband and wife both have parental responsibility, however if a third person comes along and proves himself to be the biological father, he takes the rights from the husband.
I've since become sceptical about the original report, incidentally - did it really reflect facts, or were the Quinns just trying to smear Blunkett? I have no idea.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 06:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 07:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 12:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-05 12:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-16 11:45 am (UTC)No. The only people who can have parental responsibility - the right to veto changes to a child's name, residence, medical care or education (the only rights laid out in law) are a child's biological parents, unless the child is adopted. If a couple are married, the husband and wife both have parental responsibility, however if a third person comes along and proves himself to be the biological father, he takes the rights from the husband.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 12:54 pm (UTC)