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.
Doug M. Richardson of Michigan discovered one of the two children born during his marriage were not his biological child. Armed with DNA evidence of this fact he tried to keep the court from ordering him to pay child support to his ex-wife. Nevertheless, based on his ex-wife’s false testimony the court entered an order of child support against him anyway.
Just can't see not asking for it BEFORE signing anything in this day and age. Not exactly news, women have done it for eons, (see the "virgin mary" giving birth to jesus) just acknowledging this in a court would put even more of it on taxpayers..
Like anything else, money takes the front seat from justice in most cases.
I'm not sure I'm correct, but I believe if a child is born in a marriage he/she is pinned to the husband... It may be different these days with the DNA tests.
I'm not sure I'm correct, but I believe if a child is born in a marriage he/she is pinned to the husband... It may be different these days with the DNA tests.
That's true, which is what makes paternity fraud possible. Some states allow for DNA testing, some do not make it admissible, which means that the "father" is stuck no matter what.
That's true, which is what makes paternity fraud possible. Some states allow for DNA testing, some do not make it admissible, which means that the "father" is stuck no matter what.
I agree it's not fair. It's a tough topic... After having raised a child DNA results don't make him or her any less your child. Once things get to DNA testing, a couple is on the divorce road anyway...
I'm not sure I'm correct, but I believe if a child is born in a marriage he/she is pinned to the husband... It may be different these days with the DNA tests.
Depends on where I think, the registered lawyers here could answer it better I'm sure. I do think that is still the way it is regardless for most. If out of wedlock you have to sign at birth, and you still have to get the mother's permission to get a DNA test, also effed in the head, but..They still try to get you to sign anyhow as to them it's just paperwork they want to get out of the way.
Regardless I don't care how "in love" or trusting you are, I can't see not asking for it at birth even if it does cause a giant fight. I don't consider myself bitter either, to me it would just mean being 99% sure and 100%, wouldn't you want that anyhow, regardless?
I agree it's not fair. It's a tough topic... After having raised a child DNA results don't make him or her any less your child. Once things get to DNA testing, a couple is on the divorce road anyway...
That's the problem IMO with that mentality, in the child's eyes it does. And who should decide that for the father?
Being lied to in the worst way to stick with someone who cheated, and then got you to raise someone else's biological child on top of it?
Everything could be hunky-dory, guy happily thinking he's passed along his genes for the family before with a woman he trusts implicitly, the WOMAN still gets to, but might be far too late for him to do anything otherwise by that point. Not counting all the years of deception she's pulled wasting his life on that lie.
I'll refrain from voicing my true opinion of someone who would stoop that incredibly low.
I'll refrain from voicing my true opinion of that one.
I think you made it quite obvious already.
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.