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.
Ever known of a case where the woman was forced to pay alimony?
Yes, I do. Acquaintances from a civic organization. Wife pays both alimony and child support to her ex-husband, who is a stay-at-home-dad. He also kept the house. They are nice people, who seem to have a cordial post-divorce relationship. Both are devoted parents.
You can honestly say you believe women choose to have a child with a non supportive bad man? These are accidental pregnancies. Why not ask why men choose to reproduce with non supportive bad women. I agree if a woman choose to continue the pregnancy and keep the child she should be prepared to care for it alone.
The fact that this woman is still seeking child support from this man even after it was confirmed the child isn't his is what's sickening. This man should sue this woman for trying to bilk this him out of his money.
The fact that this woman is still seeking child support from this man even after it was confirmed the child isn't his is what's sickening. This man should sue this woman for trying to bilk this him out of his money.
agreed
I can never understand this type of mentality. Some people have no shame.
Okay, if we assume she really thought he was the dad and she did not lie at all, it still says something about her character that she would continue to try to extract payment from him knowing he is definitely not the father. So he made a mistake, she made a mistake. Should they not be even? If he has to pay this large amount of money, 65K, it will negatively impact his family and is taking money away from his children. How she can do this, I don't know.
Why should she have to shoulder the entire financial burden? He could have contested the paternity many years prior, when she could have gone to the bio father for child support, but he waited until the child was almost an adult.
He should be responsible for the years that he did not contest. Sure going forward from the date known, he should be off the hook and the bio dad should be paying support for those years, But the mother should be reimbursed for the support she has provided when she was not receiving child support payments.
No it doesnt. Its a statement from the department of human services child support enforcement encouraging new unmarried mothers to get the presumed father to sign the birth certificate or an affidavit of paternity stating that if later you decide to file for child support and the "father" contests and you did not initially get either of these documents then the court will not grant the support without a positive DNA test. This is not the same as a LAW that MANDATES a DNA test when any child support petition is granted.
Look up the actual legal code and show me where the court mandates proven paternity before child support is granted or where this occurs in uncontested cases with a signed BC or affidavit. The laws ALLOW for a DNA test in contested cases. The case of in the OP allowed the defendant a DNA test, it was never mandated.
It does say paternity is established by a DNA test or signing a document stating that you are accepting that you are the parent.
My own case was court ordered DNA testing, even though my ex was on the birth certificate and signed the letter in the hospital. The judge did not order child support until after he had the paternity test results.
yes there are a lot of people who would give up a six figure job with benefits to teach yoga for 25K just to screw over the ex.
My ex did it. I had 5 years of tax returns showing he averaged a salary of $100-130k a year. He had his boss testify in court that they were lowering his salary to $60k. The judge actually believed them and based his child support payments on $60k.
I agree that a woman holds the bigger burden. That said, so why does she still chose to have a child without the father's support? Against his wishes? Why did she chose a bad man to reproduce with?
Women always drone on about how if a man didn't want to father a child he should have kept it in his pants. Those same women will scream SEXISM and ****-SHAMING if anyone dares question her inability to keep her legs closed.
A man's only window of choice in procreating is when he takes it out of his pants and uses it. That is it. A woman can choose to become a parent or not for a much longer window. So when a man choices to have sex, he is accepting the risk of becoming a parent. If he does not want to be a parent and support a child, then yes, he should keep it in his pants.
This should not be a difficult concept, if they use their big head to think instead of the teeny tiny one in their pants.
The fact that this woman is still seeking child support from this man even after it was confirmed the child isn't his is what's sickening. This man should sue this woman for trying to bilk this him out of his money.
She is trying to recoup the money that she has put out to cover his share, from before he contested paternity. She is entitled to the money. Not hard to comprehend.
The fact that this woman is still seeking child support from this man even after it was confirmed the child isn't his is what's sickening. This man should sue this woman for trying to bilk this him out of his money.
I totally agree.
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.
