Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

Paternity Fraud

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Paternity Fraud
M

mallymal614

Senior Member

3,746 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:03 PM
Wow!

From 2002 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-02-paternity-usat_x.htm

"In almost a dozen states, men have won the right to use conclusive genetic tests to end their financial obligations to children they didn't father. But women's groups and many public officials responsible for enforcing child support are battling the movement, which they say imperils children. Most states design their family laws to protect what they call "the interests of the child." That means siding with the child's financial and emotional needs and against supposed fathers who want to avoid paying for tricycles and braces."

"There are signs of substantial fraud or mistakes in identifying fathers in child support disputes. The American Association of Blood Banks says the 300,626 paternity tests it conducted on men in 2000 ruled out nearly 30% as the father."

What has the world come to? smh.....
Jan 31, 2011 12:03pm
wildcats20's avatar

wildcats20

In ROY I Trust!!

27,794 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:16 PM
I don't have a problem with a man NOT paying support to a kid that is not theirs.

HOWEVER....if the man has willingly stayed with the mother and acted as a father to that child; and then divorce/split up, then yes that man should pay support.
Jan 31, 2011 12:16pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:23 PM
mallymal614;659002 wrote:Wow!

From 2002 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-02-paternity-usat_x.htm

"In almost a dozen states, men have won the right to use conclusive genetic tests to end their financial obligations to children they didn't father. But women's groups and many public officials responsible for enforcing child support are battling the movement, which they say imperils children. Most states design their family laws to protect what they call "the interests of the child." That means siding with the child's financial and emotional needs and against supposed fathers who want to avoid paying for tricycles and braces."

"There are signs of substantial fraud or mistakes in identifying fathers in child support disputes. The American Association of Blood Banks says the 300,626 paternity tests it conducted on men in 2000 ruled out nearly 30% as the father."

What has the world come to? smh.....

Just read this bit:
Nebraska's Supreme Court ruled last week that an ex-husband who is not a child's father cannot sue the mother to recover child support payments.
So special exception is now granted in the legal system. Awesome. A simple "Oops, my bad!" from a woman who has allowed for multiple paternal options is good enough?

Don't get me wrong. I think that if a man has willfully parented a child for a period of time, even if he knew it wasn't his, that's different. Forcing child support from someone who isn't the father, and who has either not had any financially supportive relationship with the child, or who had such under the pretense that the child was his own, is retarded.
Jan 31, 2011 12:23pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:24 PM
Oh, and just because:

Jan 31, 2011 12:24pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:26 PM
wildcats20;659020 wrote:I don't have a problem with a man NOT paying support to a kid that is not theirs.

HOWEVER....if the man has willingly stayed with the mother and acted as a father to that child; and then divorce/split up, then yes that man should pay support.

Provided that the man did so knowing full-well that the child was not his, then I agree.
Jan 31, 2011 12:26pm
M

mallymal614

Senior Member

3,746 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:26 PM
O-Trap;659033 wrote:Oh, and just because:

lol!
Jan 31, 2011 12:26pm
M

mallymal614

Senior Member

3,746 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:29 PM
The problem I have is that there is a double standard. If a man doesn't pay child support, he is locked up, have his license taken away, or put on back child support. But if a woman LIE about paternity, then she isn't entitled to pay anything back and a guy still might have to pay. What is up with that? Thank goodness I have no children yet. Let me make sure I find that special someone first but even then it doesn't guarantee a woman will be honest about paternity.
Jan 31, 2011 12:29pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:34 PM
wildcats20;659020 wrote:I don't have a problem with a man NOT paying support to a kid that is not theirs.

HOWEVER....if the man has willingly stayed with the mother and acted as a father to that child; and then divorce/split up, then yes that man should pay support.

What if he willingly stayed because he was fraudulently induced?
Jan 31, 2011 12:34pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:35 PM
wildcats20;659020 wrote:...

HOWEVER....if the man has willingly stayed with the mother and acted as a father to that child; and then divorce/split up, then yes that man should pay support.
If he acted as the father because he was made to believe he was the father but in truth was not, he should not have any further liability financially.
Jan 31, 2011 12:35pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:36 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;659049 wrote:What if he willingly stayed because he was fraudulently induced?

Exactly.
Jan 31, 2011 12:36pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:42 PM
If you're not the father, regardless of a willingness to be such for x amount of time, then he shouldn't have to pay. The burden of proof remains with the mother. Get knocked up, best know who the father is.
Jan 31, 2011 12:42pm
W

wkfan

Senior Member

1,641 posts
Jan 31, 2011 12:54 PM
mallymal614;659042 wrote:The problem I have is that there is a double standard........
Are you just now figuring out that there is a double standard when it comes to men and women and child support, visitation rights, etc, etc, etc when viewed by our domestic court system and women's rights organizations????
Jan 31, 2011 12:54pm
M

mallymal614

Senior Member

3,746 posts
Jan 31, 2011 1:12 PM
wkfan;659082 wrote:Are you just now figuring out that there is a double standard when it comes to men and women and child support, visitation rights, etc, etc, etc when viewed by our domestic court system and women's rights organizations????

I heard it was a problem but I didn't know it was this bad. I have no kids which probably explains a lot of it since I never been through the system.
Jan 31, 2011 1:12pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 31, 2011 1:17 PM
wildcats20;659020 wrote:I don't have a problem with a man NOT paying support to a kid that is not theirs.

HOWEVER....if the man has willingly stayed with the mother and acted as a father to that child; and then divorce/split up, then yes that man should pay support.

I couldn't disagree more here. Just b/c the man was kind and gracious enough to support a kid that wasn't his, doesn't discern a sense of entitlement for the kid or it's mother if they split.
Jan 31, 2011 1:17pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 31, 2011 1:24 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;659131 wrote:I couldn't disagree more here. Just b/c the man was kind and gracious enough to support a kid that wasn't his, doesn't discern a sense of entitlement for the kid or it's mother if they split.

If it is a "live-with" situation, I agree. However, if the man makes any legally binding gesture to indicate an intent of financial responsibility (marriage license, for example), I do think he should be on the hook for it, because I think the documentation shows that he has established the intent to be.
Jan 31, 2011 1:24pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 31, 2011 1:27 PM
The only way he makes a legally binding gesture is if he adopts the said child... not if he marries its mother.
Jan 31, 2011 1:27pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 31, 2011 1:31 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;659150 wrote:The only way he makes a legally binding gesture is if he adopts the said child... not if he marries its mother.

Hmm ... Interesting point. Given that second thought, I might agree.

Not really a nuance of the topic I've ever considered before. Bear with me as I process through it. :D
Jan 31, 2011 1:31pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jan 31, 2011 1:32 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;659150 wrote:The only way he makes a legally binding gesture is if he adopts the said child... not if he marries its mother.

This, as if the father is known the father is financially responsible even during the mothers new relationship.

The father is the father, is the father.
Jan 31, 2011 1:32pm
THE4RINGZ's avatar

THE4RINGZ

R.I.P Thread Bomber

16,816 posts
Jan 31, 2011 1:41 PM
In Ohio, a man can recover monies paid in a child support case if he is proven later not to be the biological father.
Jan 31, 2011 1:41pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 31, 2011 1:42 PM
THE4RINGZ;659162 wrote:In Ohio, a man can recover monies paid in a child support case if he is proven later not to be the biological father.

Good. How it should be.
Jan 31, 2011 1:42pm
GoChiefs's avatar

GoChiefs

Resident Maniac

16,754 posts
Jan 31, 2011 2:16 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;659131 wrote:Just b/c the man was kind and gracious enough to support a kid that wasn't his, doesn't discern a sense of entitlement for the kid or it's mother if they split.

I agree with this. Had I not adopted my son after me and my wife were married, I'd hate to think that if we divorced I'd be financially liable. But since I adopted him, I'd have no problem paying. I knew that was a possibility when we did it. (Although, we did it through some loop holes, so I could probably get out of it. :D)
Jan 31, 2011 2:16pm
M

mallymal614

Senior Member

3,746 posts
Jan 31, 2011 10:10 PM
THE4RINGZ;659162 wrote:In Ohio, a man can recover monies paid in a child support case if he is proven later not to be the biological father.

Glad our state got it right.
Jan 31, 2011 10:10pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Jan 31, 2011 10:27 PM
ytownfootball;659156 wrote:This, as if the father is known the father is financially responsible even during the mothers new relationship.

The father is the father, is the father.

Exactly. If the custodial parent (usually the mother) re-marries, the non-custodial parent's child obligation is not reduced or extinguished, even if the custodial parent were to marry Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. If the non-custodial parent is a deadbeat, it is not the obligation of hubby/boyfriend #2 to pay that guy's tab. It is nice that he does so, but he takes a vow to the wife, not to the other persons child.
Jan 31, 2011 10:27pm