So SS 35 who has not talked to DH for most of the last 3 years because he felt he was not given enough of his father's inheritance when H's mother passed away went around to H's brothers about a year ago claiming that he had a baby. SS 35 even brought the baby over to H's brother's house to visit one evening showing him off. Naturally H's brother told H about this but SS never bothered to tell H himself. Of course it originally had the desired effect of upsetting H that SS 35 could not be bothered to tell him he had a grandchild but I recommended that H take the news with caution as I could just envision SS 35 borrowing the baby one evening or volunteering to babysit just to make up this story to get back at H. Besides I could not see getting any of us involved with another grandchild that would just be withheld from us again. We decided not to mention the "baby" until H was officialy notified by SS 35. SS 35 had H's brothers convinced.

The reason it crossed my mind that SS 35 may have borrwoed the baby for retaliation was that SS35's story made no sense. SS 35 had called up his cousin and fussed at her for not telling him about her pregnancy after the baby he claims is his was born. He did not mention he was a Dad at that time. I have to wonder why not. He also gave some lame excuse about the baby supposedly being the result of a one night stand yet he was supposedly accepting the baby as his with no DNA at that time. SS 35 claimed that he was asking the baby's mother to put his name on the birth certificate with no proof that the baby was his. SS 35 claimed that she would not do this??? If the baby was SS 35s, it seems real odd to me that she wouldn't do this???? SS 35 claimed he was supporting the baby but we never heard that he was paying child support.

SS 35 even demanded a Christmas party with H's niece last Christmas so the two babys could be introduced. SS 35 never called H to tell him anything or to introduce the fact that he had a baby but he made sure H knew about this get together through SD 34's husband.

H did not say anything about the baby until last month during his last phone call with SS 35 when SS 35 had his latest adult temper tantrum. At this time SS 35 tells H that the baby was NOT his. SS 35 claims that he had had three (count them THREE) DNA tests done - supposedly one said the baby was his and two others said he was not the father. I had never heard that this was decided by majority rule. SS 35 never offically called H's brothers to tell them that the baby was not his.

While I can't say for sure this seems very suspicous. I simply can not see SS 35 paying for 3 DNA tests (at least 2 k) . Could you really have contradictory results like SS 35 claims?

Could this have been just another attempt to hurt H or try to get him to cater to him on SS 35's part?

Just curious what others think.