What Are the Possible Legal Implications of Schwarzenegger's Affair and Love Child?

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," May 18, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has really done it to himself. He has just blown up his marriage, hurt his children beyond words, and destroyed his reputation. And I figure the only way it could get worse, possibly worse, is if California attorney Gloria Allred somehow goes after him. She's tough and she joins us. Good evening, Gloria.

GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY: Good evening, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: Gloria, you've been a champion for women and causes like this for many years and I think to myself, Is there anything you could theoretically challenge or go after Arnold Schwarzenegger for? There's been no crime, right?

ALLRED: No crime, but I can say that if the mother of this newly-acknowledged child would like to assert some legal rights against Arnold, it may be possible for her to do so. The problem is, there are still very sketchy reports about what the facts are. Now, it's interesting, you may - - it -- it -- because in the divorce documents which, apparently, were released today, the divorce from her husband, and she was married, she indicates that there were no children of the marriage and, yet, apparently, you know, she is indicating -- she -- she allegedly was married at the time that she conceived.

So, she's not lying to the court that she didn't have a child by her then-husband. The issue is -- he -- if he's been paying support to her secretly for many years, that is, Arnold, has she ever attempted to establish paternity of the child legally and, if she has not, could she do so now and that depends on a lot of factors under California law but those are some of the interesting legal issues at play here.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, he is certainly -- this certainly no crime. Let me emphasize again he is certainly amoral, I would be -- I think that's pretty safe to say. I think most people would agree. But, I -- I'm sort of curious. I'm suspicious and I don't know if -- what's being reported is that Governor Schwarzenegger told his wife in early January, early part of the year, and she didn't move out until just recently and the newspapers didn't pick it up until recently. And something -- why in the world would he suddenly have told her in the early part of the year? I'm suspicious that the mother of the child took a run at him for money.

ALLRED: Well, there are all kinds of possibilities. Maybe she didn't -- maybe the mother of the child didn't feel that he was properly supporting the child or that she should have an increase in support. Maybe she felt that the child needed to be acknowledged publicly. Maybe she felt -- apparently, she said in her Facebook page that it's being reported that she was feeling that perhaps he was ashamed of the child and ashamed of her and, that, of course would be complete disrespect for the child. And maybe she just couldn't stand having the secret any more, maybe the press found out. I don't know. There are a lot of maybes but what's interesting is.

VAN SUSTEREN: And -- and ...

ALLRED: And coinciding with that is that she's -- her employment was terminated. The first report was that she retired. Now, another report says she didn't want to go but that he made her go, that Maria then found out about the same time.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it would be sort of stunning if she all of a sudden discovered that she thought that he was disrespecting the child and suddenly she discovers that he's not a particularly moral person because, as I noted before, it certainly takes two to tango. I'm curious, in the State of California, in many states they have this sort of grid for child support, you pay a certain amount of money for -- for a child. Do you have that grid in California because they're usually pretty artificially low or is child support somehow related to income?

ALLRED: We do have what we call guidelines for child support in California, Greta, and the three factors are, very quickly, the ability of the non-custodial parent, that would be the father in this case, to pay. The ability of the mother to contribute towards the support of the child and the needs of the child. In a case like Arnold's he, obviously, can pay whatever the child needs are so he would just say I can pay whatever the child's needs are and then the mother just have to prove up what the needs of the child are.

But, of course, before she does that in court, she would have to establish as a matter of law that paternity and that, in fact, he is the father and that's all very problematic because it's presumed and conclusively presumed that a child born during a marriage is a child of the father, the spouse during the marriage and that's a rebuttable presumption but the rebuttal has to come, generally, within two years -- the first two years. If -- if he wasn't told until the third year it may be that that's a conclusive presumption and that -- and that she can't establish paternity now unless everyone possibly agrees. In other words, if Arnold agrees that...

VAN SUSTEREN: It's getting complicated.

ALLRED: ... That paternity can be established legally, and if the -- if the then husband doesn't object now and if she agrees, then, maybe they can do it.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, my guess is I wouldn't be surprised if you got a call Gloria. But, anyway, you get all of them anyway. Anyway, Gloria, thank you.

ALLRED: Thank you.