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.
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.
Unbelievable. The conservatives of yesterday were wrong about gay marriage and the like harming society. It's crap like this that harms marriage, relationships, and traditional society. What guy would ever want to get married, have kids, have a serious relationship, or start to take on any type of responsibility with alimony and child support laws being the way they are?
Men who later learn they are not the biological father of their child often find themselves without relief. If you later learn you are the victim of paternity fraud, it is not as easy as submitting the DNA test results to the court to eliminate a child support order. Depending on the jurisdiction, once the deadlines for contesting paternity have passed and the court has ordered terms for support, you may still be obligated to continue to support the child despite the fact that a DNA test has proven you are not the father. In fact, many states have declared that a DNA test alone is not sufficient to vacate a paternity order. Family courts are courts of equity and if the biological father is not produced, the courts may completely overlook the victimization and turn to the best interest of the child which is to continue to require you to support the child.
"Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proved otherwise"
This is simply unjust and needs to go. I don't understand on what basis of justice or logic this would be passed as a law. The man should not be put in a position to have to be legally sophisticated, or to be forced to hire a lawyer, or to have to get DNA tests himself. It should be the responsibility of the woman claiming this man is the biological father, to prove it before she gets a dime from him. A woman can put down anyone's name as a father and he is forced to prove he is not.
I agree with RedZin that the man should have asked for a paternity test and contested.
However, at this point, I believe the mother should drop the case. I know that the state of TX though can go after him, but if she were a stand up woman, she would go and testify for him that he should not be responsible, that she was mistaken and that he should not have to pay. Of course that would be up to the state's decision, but the woman should make an effort for him IMO.
I agree though that no man should ever sign a BC or statement acknowledging paternity unless they have received a DNA test if they are not married at the time the child was born and/or conceived. I know people that this sort of scenario has happened to - they went years and years paying child support only to find out later that the child was not theres and at that time it is a horrible situation for both the father and the child who now doesn't know who his/her father is.
It is better to just be proactive and get the test.
Family courts are courts of equity and if the biological father is not produced, the courts may completely overlook the victimization and turn to the best interest of the child which is to continue to require you to support the child.
bold is the key. If the court decided it is the child's best interests for the man to pay child support until he/she is 18, then he will never be completely off the hook.
Men who later learn they are not the biological father of their child often find themselves without relief. If you later learn you are the victim of paternity fraud, it is not as easy as submitting the DNA test results to the court to eliminate a child support order. Depending on the jurisdiction, once the deadlines for contesting paternity have passed and the court has ordered terms for support, you may still be obligated to continue to support the child despite the fact that a DNA test has proven you are not the father. In fact, many states have declared that a DNA test alone is not sufficient to vacate a paternity order. Family courts are courts of equity and if the biological father is not produced, the courts may completely overlook the victimization and turn to the best interest of the child which is to continue to require you to support the child.
And this is exactly where the law needs to change.
First it should be required that the presumed father sign the birth certificate. Once there is a signature that person assumes parental obligations of that child, period. If in doubt get a DNA verification.
If there is no father it should be up to the mother through the courts to compel a signature after DNA verification. If a man is in court for paternity there should be a DNA test done immediately before any judgement.
None of this surprise after 14 years, pay up. I'm sorry but if a woman decides to keep and raise a child without informing said father the financial obligation for that child is on her.
People need to start being more discrete concerning their sexual partners and more responsible about their BC.
And this is exactly where the law needs to change.
First it should be required that the presumed father sign the birth certificate. Once there is a signature that person assumes parental obligations of that child, period. If in doubt get a DNA verification.
If there is no father it should be up to the mother through the courts to compel a signature after DNA verification. If a man is in court for paternity there should be a DNA test done immediately before any judgement.
None of this surprise after 14 years, pay up. I'm sorry but if a woman decides to keep and raise a child without informing said father the financial obligation for that child is on her.
People need to start being more discrete concerning their sexual partners and more responsible about their BC.
So, they were dating. She had a kid she thought was his. They started garnishing his wages years ago and he never questioned it.
He finally up and decided he wanted a paternity test and this test proved he's not the father.
Here's where he messed up... he didn't go right in immediately and ask for that test.
To the state, this demonstrated that he believed himself to be the father and that he was willing to pay child support.
It's his own fault for not getting this checked out right away. Nobody can say she was trying to pull a fast one, because she may well have believed he was the father.
And, ultimately, the child still needs care.
Men? If you are with a woman and you are not married to her, you need to get a DNA test if you don't want to pay child support. Period.
yes, exactly. The time to address this was when he was first informed about it, not to assume that if he ignored the situation it would go away.
Whether the law is fair or not is a totally separate issue, it's still the law and he doesn't get a pass because he ignored the law for 16 years.
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.
