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.
It shouldn't even matter. He didn't act as a father to the kid and the kid isn't his biologically. He's not the father so he should not have to pay.
All the men's groups should go loud on this, it gives them some credibility, because it is something people can understand and agree it is wrong.
Your right, it shouldn't but apparently the courts dont see it that way.
I agree this case and others like it are a perfect opportunity for men's advocacy groups to bring this to light and fight to adjust the law as well as to educate other men on the law.
For the most part I agree, but once the DNA test confirms he isn't the dad, he should be let off the hook. He shouldn't be entitled to a refund of past payments. (Not implying he is trying to get a refund)
Generally, I agree, but most states that are supporting a mom because the father is not making payments aren't willing to give up that revenue (by way of a refund to the state).
And, that seems like what might be going on here.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
wow...that's weird. In California the person owing support can file a motion to set aside for a support order based on a fraudulent claim and the parent who lied to the court can be charged with contempt. However, if you are married there is a presumption that the child is yours.
And if the mother legitimately thought this man was the father, and he didn't protest when the claim was first made against him and some of his wages were garnished, where's the fraud? She may have been mistaken but that doesn't mean she knowingly lied.
And if the mother legitimately thought this man was the father, and he didn't protest when the claim was first made against him and some of his wages were garnished, where's the fraud? She may have been mistaken but that doesn't mean she knowingly lied.
If the timing was such that there was more than one guy, which there obviously was, then she couldn't know for sure. She just picked one to claim as father. Since there was a good chance he wasn't the father it would count as a lie.
They finish last a lot of the time. A minority but a good sized minority of my friends who have been cheated on, the wife/GF fell for a bad boy.
Most grew a spine at that point and divorced/ broke up. The ones that begged her to stop cheating.... ugh!
Could we also say that a good sized minority of good women have been cheated on when the husband/BF fell for the younger or hotter chick or whatever is the equivalent of bad boy?
And agree that as many good women/mothers have been left holding the bag when their husband/BF/father of their child(ren) refused to provide financial/parental help with their children?
Its really not a blame game it should be about enacting logical, fair laws involving CS, custody, paternity and parenting while still looking out for the best interest of the child.
There is a mandatory paternity tests debate in another forum.
The debate is quite heated. In my humble opinion, mandatory paternity test is the ONLY way to prevent men from denying paternity and to prevent women from intentionally naming the wrong men as the fathers of their children/lying about the paternities of their children.
But we all know that ANYTHING mandatory is not going to happen in real life.
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.