LadyMacAlpine said:
Someone help me here I'm confussed if she doesn't need money but according to one source lost custody of her older children because she couldn't support them then why this? Bankruptcy Court is for someone trying to write off debts they can't afford. And now we know why she was at the courthouse. To get paternity and child support you go to civil court. Her in Bankruptcy court seems to me it is about money. Or am I wrong?
LadyMacAlpine said:
SMDouglas thanks for the link.
I wonder where the info about here actually going to this bankruptcy court about something is coming from. And in my opinion, the custody situation of her other boys has nothing to do with any of this thing at all.
I guess the main question here could be like this;
1. Is the boy Albert's son or not.
2. If he is Albert son, is the boy legally entitled to be an heir on Albert (not to be a prince, but to other things).
3. If he is Albert son, and legally entitled to something, what is it.
In my opinion, the court would be able to get the result of the test that was said to have been done already (maybe they are trying to wait for Albert to give approval - but who knows); that would tell everything straight away. But, I do not know that.
I must say, I do not know what I would do if I were either of them. But, right or not, she has courage taking on that organization, knowing (or perhaps not knowing) what they and their supporters will try to do to her reputation -- it may well be beyond anything she could ever do herself.
This sort of thing always happens to anyone anywhere who challenges an established way of doing something rightly or not.
'That organization' is going to put her through alot over this thing. I hope she has a strong internal resources, because
if she is truly doing all this to protect the right of the 2 year old boy, the things that she will have to endure (the smears and mud throwing and such) can 'break one's spirit' right off.
If she has been honest about all of this, and her advisor is helping to do what need to protect the legal rights of the little boy, since he cannot do so himself, then she needs to understand not to let her own self be defined by the situation.
If this boy belong to Albert, he should maybe admit it and move forward with settling the issue and put it behind himself. He is almost a 50 years old, a grown-up, and it's far too late to go back and undo things.
It may not look so nice eventually if he seems to let his people behave as if they aim to deprive the 2 yrs old baby what the baby may legally be entitled to, if anything.
But I do not know. in my opinion, unless it is proven she is a depraved liar, then Albert did have a role in making this situation.
It is truly very unfortunate to carry on so over what a baby is entitled to have.
Again, all that is just a guess on my part

I don't know.