Once I got past the "she said she was on the pill" rhetoric ( as if that's the only thing you should worry about in this day and age of AIDS, HIV, etc...) I thought of several answers to the rest of your query. Of course, my comments are prefaced with the caveat that a paternity test is first order of business.

First of all, the obvious. You cannot have partial custody unless you move all the way across the country. Secondly, you have no grounds for full custody--why would you? Because her other children aren't with her doesn't mean you can just take the child. Joint custody is only a possibility if you live close enough for it to be practical. Also, the court may rule that the husband is the legal father ( even if he isn't the natural father).

In my state of SC, if the woman is married at the time of birth ( you call him her "ex"--ex husband?) then the husband IS the legal father of the child--whether or not they were even cohabitating at the time. The same thing just happened to a friend of mine----he was with a woman for 12 years without interruption ( no separation or no living apart). However, her divorce was finalized three weeks after their child was born 12 years ago---so the "husband" is the "father". He pays child support, etc. and has for 12 years. My friend, since he wasn't married to the woman, was told to "leave the boy alone--he isn't yours" by the judge when their relationship ended, although he is the only father the boy has ever known. I don't know about California law---but I suspect that might be the same. However, the court cannot force you to pay child support and then keep you from seeing the child. If you pay child support, the birth certificate will have to be amended and you will be granted equal right to the child. Joint custody half way cross the nation? I doubt it.

As far as visitation--SHE doesn't get to say whether or not you see the child. A COURT makes that determination. Unfortunately--and this is a great tragedy for the child, you may well be planning to move if you want to see the child. Do you think it is in your best interest to let the child be adopted by the husband? I'm not suggesting you do that---I'm just offering possibilities that could be best for the child. In a way, though, she is right in that the court isn't going to make her put a six week old baby on a plane and fly him out to see daddy every weekend. While that may be possible for an older child--although unnecessarily tragic, I cannot see it happening with an infant or even young child.

What do you think your options are? I cannot think of a legal reason you would be granted custody of him---especially since he is a very young baby. What do you think your options are? The only ones I see are either you terminate your rights and let the child have a life with the "parents" he has now, or you pack up and move closer and be a father and fight for your rights.