M
mallymal614
Posts: 3,746
Jan 31, 2011 12:03pm
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.....
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.....
wildcats20
Posts: 27,794
Jan 31, 2011 12:16pm
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.
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.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jan 31, 2011 12:23pm
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:
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?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.
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.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jan 31, 2011 12:24pm
Oh, and just because:
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jan 31, 2011 12:26pm
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.
M
mallymal614
Posts: 3,746
Jan 31, 2011 12:26pm
lol!O-Trap;659033 wrote:Oh, and just because:
M
mallymal614
Posts: 3,746
Jan 31, 2011 12:29pm
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.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jan 31, 2011 12:34pm
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?
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Jan 31, 2011 12:35pm
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.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.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Jan 31, 2011 12:36pm
Manhattan Buckeye;659049 wrote:What if he willingly stayed because he was fraudulently induced?
Exactly.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 31, 2011 12:42pm
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.
W
wkfan
Posts: 1,641
Jan 31, 2011 12:54pm
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????mallymal614;659042 wrote:The problem I have is that there is a double standard........
M
mallymal614
Posts: 3,746
Jan 31, 2011 1:12pm
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.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Jan 31, 2011 1:17pm
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.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jan 31, 2011 1:24pm
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.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Jan 31, 2011 1:27pm
The only way he makes a legally binding gesture is if he adopts the said child... not if he marries its mother.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jan 31, 2011 1:31pm
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.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 31, 2011 1:32pm
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.
THE4RINGZ
Posts: 16,816
Jan 31, 2011 1:41pm
In Ohio, a man can recover monies paid in a child support case if he is proven later not to be the biological father.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jan 31, 2011 1:42pm
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.
GoChiefs
Posts: 16,754
Jan 31, 2011 2:16pm
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.
)
M
mallymal614
Posts: 3,746
Jan 31, 2011 10:10pm
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.
Little Danny
Posts: 4,288
Jan 31, 2011 10:27pm
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.