Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,852 posts, read 3,276,149 times
Reputation: 9123
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
No, what we have here is a confused poster who doesn't understand the law or even what is going on.
In Iowa, as in most states, a married man is presumed to be the father of the children of his wife. For example, my wife and I have three children. The state simply presumes - correctly - that I am the father of those three children by virtue of our marriage. This makes sense because it would be absurd to make every couple who has a child run out and take tests to establish paternity. So the married man is the default father.
Is that too much for you to understand?
If you'd bothered to read the article that you yourself linked, you'd see the following:
Got that? DHR enforces child support. Not the courts (as you wrongly are claiming) but DHR.
And if you'd read just one paragraph further, you'd have seen this:
Because the legal presumption of his fatherhood is not absolute. Yes, he can challenge it. Yes, even though he was too stupid and/or lazy to get divorce when his relationship with his wife ended, he can still establish that he is not legally the father of said child. But it doesn't happen magically. It's not going to happen if he sits on his married ass whining about how unfair life is.
And how does he do this? Well, it took me about 10 seconds to google up the relevant law in Iowa - you know, something that this clown should have done many years ago.
The law is not the problem. The law works just fine. But it's not magic. And if idiots who are no longer in a relationship stay married for idiotic reasons, complications ensue. There's a solution for that - idiots need to stop being idiots!
And people who don't understand the law need to stop making excuses for the lazy idiots.
No, what we have here is a confused poster who doesn't understand the law or even what is going on.
In Iowa, as in most states, a married man is presumed to be the father of the children of his wife. For example, my wife and I have three children. The state simply presumes - correctly - that I am the father of those three children by virtue of our marriage. This makes sense because it would be absurd to make every couple who has a child run out and take tests to establish paternity. So the married man is the default father.
Is that too much for you to understand?
If you'd bothered to read the article that you yourself linked, you'd see the following:
Got that? DHR enforces child support. Not the courts (as you wrongly are claiming) but DHR.
And if you'd read just one paragraph further, you'd have seen this:
Because the legal presumption of his fatherhood is not absolute. Yes, he can challenge it. Yes, even though he was too stupid and/or lazy to get divorce when his relationship with his wife ended, he can still establish that he is not legally the father of said child. But it doesn't happen magically. It's not going to happen if he sits on his married ass whining about how unfair life is.
And how does he do this? Well, it took me about 10 seconds to google up the relevant law in Iowa - you know, something that this clown should have done many years ago.
The law is not the problem. The law works just fine. But it's not magic. And if idiots who are no longer in a relationship stay married for idiotic reasons, complications ensue. There's a solution for that - idiots need to stop being idiots!
And people who don't understand the law need to stop making excuses for the lazy idiots.
Legal presumptions come in two types; rebuttable and nonrebuttable. Paternity tests are capable of providing evidence to rebut or affirm. If a state's presumption, that a husband is the father of the wife's children, is not rebuttable, the law is an ass.
No, what we have here is a confused poster who doesn't understand the law or even what is going on.
In Iowa, as in most states, a married man is presumed to be the father of the children of his wife. For example, my wife and I have three children. The state simply presumes - correctly - that I am the father of those three children by virtue of our marriage. This makes sense because it would be absurd to make every couple who has a child run out and take tests to establish paternity. So the married man is the default father.
Is that too much for you to understand?
If you'd bothered to read the article that you yourself linked, you'd see the following:
Got that? DHR enforces child support. Not the courts (as you wrongly are claiming) but DHR.
And if you'd read just one paragraph further, you'd have seen this:
Because the legal presumption of his fatherhood is not absolute. Yes, he can challenge it. Yes, even though he was too stupid and/or lazy to get divorce when his relationship with his wife ended, he can still establish that he is not legally the father of said child. But it doesn't happen magically. It's not going to happen if he sits on his married ass whining about how unfair life is.
And how does he do this? Well, it took me about 10 seconds to google up the relevant law in Iowa - you know, something that this clown should have done many years ago.
The law is not the problem. The law works just fine. But it's not magic. And if idiots who are no longer in a relationship stay married for idiotic reasons, complications ensue. There's a solution for that - idiots need to stop being idiots!
And people who don't understand the law need to stop making excuses for the lazy idiots.
You think "the law works just fine" when a man who has been separated from his wife for decades is burdened with child support, even after the woman has ADMITTED that the child is not his?
Really? Then you're a dope. The law isn't meant to override common sense. They're supposed to go hand in hand.
Iowa man forced to pay child support for baby that's not his - NY Daily News This is another example of a screwed up law. The court and the mother know that he isn't the father but they still want him to pay up. Yes he should have filed for divorce but years later she gets knocked up and they are trying to make him pay. Of course if he had money he can fix this forthwith.
I've read a number of your posts. I think this is the first one I recall commenting on. You seem to believe there are a lot of problems with the system and you strike me as angry.
What you are referring to is a principle of law followed in all states that I am aware of. It goes by the name "presumptive father law or statute". The basic concept is that a distinction is drawn between biological and legal parentage. When a woman is married to a man that man becomes the father of any child born to her during the duration of their marriage. Being born out of wedlock was stigmatic for a child years ago and possibly would still carry some stigma in different places in this country today. The courts sought to prevent that stigma by simply making the man who was married to that woman the "legal father" of the child.
The stigma against having children out of wedlock may have largely eroded, but what hasn't changed is the need of any child for financial support from his/her parents. If that support is not provided than the state, or the taxpaying public, is likely going to end up paying the expenses for that child. Additionally, the law focuses more on the relationship between a parent and a child and less on the biology involved.
In this case, where the couple had been estranged for years, it does seem to me that an exception ought be created to this rule. Generally, though, the presumptive father law is a concept that ought to remain.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,852 posts, read 3,276,149 times
Reputation: 9123
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I've read a number of your posts. I think this is the first one I recall commenting on. You seem to believe there are a lot of problems with the system and you strike me as angry.
What you are referring to is a principle of law followed in all states that I am aware of. It goes by the name "presumptive father law or statute". The basic concept is that a distinction is drawn between biological and legal parentage. When a woman is married to a man that man becomes the father of any child born to her during the duration of their marriage. Being born out of wedlock was stigmatic for a child years ago and possibly would still carry some stigma in different places in this country today. The courts sought to prevent that stigma by simply making the man who was married to that woman the "legal father" of the child.
The stigma against having children out of wedlock may have largely eroded, but what hasn't changed is the need of any child for financial support from his/her parents. If that support is not provided than the state, or the taxpaying public, is likely going to end up paying the expenses for that child. Additionally, the law focuses more on the relationship between a parent and a child and less on the biology involved.
In this case, where the couple had been estranged for years, it does seem to me that an exception ought be created to this rule. Generally, though, the presumptive father law is a concept that ought to remain.
Not angry. I think the law is complete bs. It is known that this man is not the father. Common sense should prevail. I am sorry when a man and woman have not been together for 17 years the birth of a child should not be presumed!!! In fact it should never be presumed. It should be proven. Its a simple DNA test. As far as stigma goes lets talk about the stigma of a man who is not the father being ordered to pay for a child that is not his!
Not angry. I think the law is complete bs. It is known that this man is not the father. Common sense should prevail. I am sorry when a man and woman have not been together for 17 years the birth of a child should not be presumed!!! In fact it should never be presumed. It should be proven. Its a simple DNA test. As far as stigma goes lets talk about the stigma of a man who is not the father being ordered to pay for a child that is not his!
The presumption should indeed be that any child born to a married woman is that of her husband. Otherwise, we will be in the situation of requiring married women to undergo DNA testing every time they have a child. That would be patronizing and insulting to an extreme. Indeed, that would be complete BS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.