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.
How many different times and ways do I have to answer this.
I believe the parental bond establishment commonly accepted by the court is a good thing.
I believe once parental bond is verified, that person is legally the parent of that child regardless of biological markers. I believe actions, bonds and commitment in a relationship are stronger and more important that biological coding.
I do not believe any parent should be off the hook for supporting their child. By child I mean and establishment of bond and acceptance of paternity not a 98% match in genetic markers.
Sometimes a woman decides a boyfriend who comes into her child's life later and helps raise the kid should also be a forever dad. Should courts force a live-in boyfriend who as bonded with a woman's child to provide support, or continue to provide support if he has done so? Its kind of the next step on a slippery slope. Jenny McCarthy tried to force Jim Carrey to carry on the same relationship with her child after they broke up, he gave a large sum of money to her for the child's benefit, but that didn't stop her from public shaming of Carrey.
I do not know if there have been any cases, but I would not be surprised if unrelated live-in boyfriends have been put on the hook if they stop supporting single mothers and their kids, if there was a bond formed with the child and the man acted as dad. Because, best interests of the child and no DNA necessary to grab at a wallet.
Sometimes a woman decides a boyfriend who comes into her child's life later and helps raise the kid should also be a forever dad. Should courts force a live-in boyfriend who as bonded with a woman's child to provide support, or continue to provide support if he has done so? Its kind of the next step on a slippery slope. Jenny McCarthy tried to force Jim Carrey to carry on the same relationship with her child after they broke up, he gave a large sum of money to her for the child's benefit, but that didn't stop her from public shaming of Carrey.
I do not know if there have been any cases, but I would not be surprised if unrelated live-in boyfriends have been put on the hook if they stop supporting single mothers and their kids, if there was a bond formed with the child and the man acted as dad. Because, best interests of the child and no DNA necessary to grab at a wallet.
So then you do feel like the ACTUAL father should be off the hook.
Yeah, that's kinda what I thought. That's BS.
The actual father IS RESPONSIBLE for that child being here today. As such he should be paying child support and all back child support for HIS CHILD.
NONE of that precludes this stand up person from acting as this child's father, nor from being in this child's life.
If I have a child and then me and the child's mother break up I am still responsible for that child PERIOD.
Even if she gets married to mark Cuban that SHOULD NOT diminish my financial obligation to supporting that child.
It really isn't complicated. The man who is "on the hook" had ZERO to do with this child coming into this world. He has already done a tremendous job and knowing the bond he has he would probably be willing to help her in any way he could. BUT to suggest he should be LEGALLY "on the hook" and then suggest that is the "right" call is absurd.
I don't view continuation of supporting a child that is yours legally after having supported and parented and been that child's parent as "being on the hook".
Actually, it is very complicated. And people and the court apparently have had and still have differing opinions. Both sides have legitimate arguments. I can see both sides in may situations. I am glad I'm not a justice and have to make these decisions.
I also see the side of a man who had sex with a woman, not necessarily a relationship, who may have never known about the pregnancy, never seen the child, never had a relationship with the child, then 15 years later a knock on the door forcing him to pay back CS and forward CS. That doesn't seem right to me.
Many men feel that if they did not want that child or agree to continue the pregnancy they should be "off the hook" for support. Many think if they don't see the kid they should be "off the hook" for support.
And there is nothing stand up or heroic about a person acting as a child's parent when that person thinks they are that child's parent. That's what parents are expected to do. As soon as he found out he wasn't a biological parent he stopped acting as her parent as in I don't want to provide for her anymore. I don't care if she has a roof over her head, food in her belly or clothes on her back. What is stand up about that?
DNA has changed everything when it comes to child support but the courts and states are not catching up quickly. There are men who are definitively not the father but still have to pay child support. Some statistics have the numbers as high as 1.6 million men.
Biological fatherhood isn’t everything of course but what about women who lie and defraud men into believing they are the father for money or to hide a betrayal? Should women be held accountable? They aren’t now. What about the biological fathers, should they be made to pay for their children?
It looks like 2mares believes that this is for the benefits of the children. Well, think again.
The court has this "Once the father children relationship is established there is no turning back" policy for one reason and one reason only
Many worry that the state will be forced to pick up the costs of supporting the children if men are allowed to bow out of paternity.
Sometimes a woman decides a boyfriend who comes into her child's life later and helps raise the kid should also be a forever dad. Should courts force a live-in boyfriend who as bonded with a woman's child to provide support, or continue to provide support if he has done so? Its kind of the next step on a slippery slope. Jenny McCarthy tried to force Jim Carrey to carry on the same relationship with her child after they broke up, he gave a large sum of money to her for the child's benefit, but that didn't stop her from public shaming of Carrey.
I do not know if there have been any cases, but I would not be surprised if unrelated live-in boyfriends have been put on the hook if they stop supporting single mothers and their kids, if there was a bond formed with the child and the man acted as dad. Because, best interests of the child and no DNA necessary to grab at a wallet.
Did he sign a document saying he accepted paternity?
Yes it all is a slippery slope and every case has different circumstances. That's what the job of a judge is. To determine. Often based on the best interest of the child and not necessarily fairness.
If I were judging IDK. If they guy was there at birth through 10 years and that child knew him as Dad and the only Dad, yeah maybe I would rule he had full parental rights and responsibilities even though they were not married or it was not his biological child. If he moved in when the kids were older, maybe not. None of it is black and white IMO. Like I said I wouldn't not want the job of a Judge.
What if this imaginary boyfriend paid CS voluntarily or wasn't asked or forced to but wanted visitation and continued relationship with said kid. Should he be granted that?
If I were judging IDK. If they guy was there at birth through 10 years and that child knew him as Dad and the only Dad, yeah maybe I would rule he had full parental rights and responsibilities even though they were not married or it was not his biological child. If he moved in when the kids were older, maybe not. None of it is black and white IMO. Like I said I wouldn't not want the job of a Judge.
What if this imaginary boyfriend paid CS voluntarily or wasn't asked or forced to but wanted visitation and continued relationship with said kid. Should he be granted that?
Are you serious?
I would rule that he has visitation right and he should NOT be financially responsible for the child. If he decided to pay, great, but if he decided not to pay, he shouldn't be legally obligated to pay.
The FINANCIAL obligation belongs to the bio dad and bio mom.
The last thing you want is a man who resents the child or the situation. Like I said earlier, if he turns out to be a loving father, he will choose to stay in that child's life anyway. Why forcing him?
DNA has changed everything when it comes to child support but the courts and states are not catching up quickly. There are men who are definitively not the father but still have to pay child support. Some statistics have the numbers as high as 1.6 million men.
Biological fatherhood isn’t everything of course but what about women who lie and defraud men into believing they are the father for money or to hide a betrayal? Should women be held accountable? They aren’t now. What about the biological fathers, should they be made to pay for their children?
It looks like 2mares believes that this is for the benefits of the children. Well, think again.
The court has this "Once the father children relationship is established there is no turning back" policy for one reason and one reason only
Many worry that the state will be forced to pick up the costs of supporting the children if men are allowed to bow out of paternity.
that is it, folks.
That's your opinion.
Yes I believe in theory and sometimes for real these decisions are in the best interest of the child. I'm I naïve enough to believe all judges and courts and laws are altruistic, fair, even logical. Of course not. I'm aware of corruption and ignorance and just uncaring. I'm also not naïve enough to believe its a huge conspiracy.
Of course no one feels the tax payers should have to pay to subsidize others children especially when your giving a pass to the one who is responsible but I think mainly because we don't want to see these children in extreme poverty. This is what we had before the courts stepped in and forced fathers to pay support. And someone mentioned this would not happen in Japan. Child poverty is beginning to be a big problem because Japan doesn't really enforce any child support. I bet you will begin to see measures taken to impose court ordered payment.
I would rule that he has visitation right and he should NOT be financially responsible for the child. If he decided to pay, great, but if he decided not to pay, he shouldn't be legally obligated to pay.
The FINANCIAL obligation belongs to the bio dad and bio mom.
The last thing you want is a man who resents the child or the situation. Like I said earlier, if he turns out to be a loving father, he will choose to stay in that child's life anyway. Why forcing him?
So you feel he is a father in respect to having a relationship but not a father in respect to having obligations. You feel a parent should have all the parental rights with none of the parental responsibly. Interesting.
That's your opinion.
Yes I believe in theory and sometimes for real these decisions are in the best interest of the child. I'm I naïve enough to believe all judges and courts and laws are altruistic, fair, even logical. Of course not. I'm aware of corruption and ignorance and just uncaring. I'm also not naïve enough to believe its a huge conspiracy.
Of course no one feels the tax payers should have to pay to subsidize others children especially when your giving a pass to the one who is responsible but I think mainly because we don't want to see these children in extreme poverty. This is what we had before the courts stepped in and forced fathers to pay support. And someone mentioned this would not happen in Japan. Child poverty is beginning to be a big problem because Japan doesn't really enforce any child support. I bet you will begin to see measures taken to impose court ordered payment.
Who said it is a conspiracy? LOL
In term of Japan, well, I stayed in Japan for 4+ years. I can tell you this much
The child poverty rate among these single-parent households shoots up to 54.6 percent.
In the policy outline, the government calls for expert support to help mothers in single-parent households keep up their jobs while rearing children, as well as measures to assist such mothers to receive education for a better job prospect.
But Japan is NOT forcing NONE biologically dad to pay for any single mom's children. They should force the bio dad to pay, but NOT non-bio dad. Get your fact straight.
I would rule that he has visitation right and he should NOT be financially responsible for the child. If he decided to pay, great, but if he decided not to pay, he shouldn't be legally obligated to pay.
The FINANCIAL obligation belongs to the bio dad and bio mom.
The last thing you want is a man who resents the child or the situation. Like I said earlier, if he turns out to be a loving father, he will choose to stay in that child's life anyway. Why forcing him?
Why? Adoption again. We allow the biological dad and mom off the hook. Fosters, we allow the bio dad and mom of the hook.
You think a man is going to resent his kids because he has to kick in 30% of his income to help provide the basics and that's the last thing you want? Kids not having the basics isn't the last thing your want?
What about the kids resentment for the person they loved and called daddy saying meh, live in the street, eat worms, but I still want to see you. I love you but don't care if your hungry or if you get to go on that field trip, or play ball, I'm keeping that 700/month (which sounds excessive to me for one child) because your mom betrayed me. No resentment or therapy there.
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.
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.
