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.
Has absolutely zip to do with DNA testing of children at birth.
It's an analogy, it's not supposed to be a direct comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
Where did you get the information? You'll need to post some reference links.
It looks like someone else already posted reference links while I was away. If you want links for your own state or any others, let me know and I'll research them for you. Or, you can do it and see for yourself. You'll see in many states, that even if a non-biological father was misled there's a statute of limitations, after which he has to support the child up to age 18.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
We'll have to agree to disagree. Theres a difference between an observation and an attack and yes, it comes down to trust, whether it be you or anyone else.
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. Regardless of what you say, your comment was an insult directed at me. I hold many viewpoints that have nothing to do with my personal life. For example, I am for marijuana decriminalization even though I am repulsed by drugs and have never done any. Since you don't know me in real life, it's best to debate my points of view instead of making assumptions.
I am a woman irl, and I wouldn't object to the DNA testing as long as it was disclosed during early dating. Having a child is a lifelong commitment and I wouldn't begrudge my husband the same assurance that I have. I guess I have watched too many Maury Povich baby daddy episodes and read too many child support news articles.
No. I wouldn't go out with him again. You say it has nothing to do with an assumption that any specific woman will cheat on him. You're right. It has to do with his suspicion of all women. Next!
Not necessarily. Using your logic, anyone who trusts but verifies in any situation is suspicious.
After reading the news, seeing family/friends go through it, and studying court decisions, some people just prefer to protect themselves.
How about this. If you can convince the courts to lift the 2 year limit on contesting paternity AND make it so that men can recover the costs of raising a child who they thought was theirs but isn't (repaid by the women), I guarantee you all this nonsense would cease to exist. Any women that could be sued into oblivion 15 years later will think long and hard before doing anything silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justthe6ofus
I would absolutely support this.
If she's going to act like a cheat and a loser she deserves to be treated like one. I would say he has every right to be repaid, with interest and entitled to any emotional damages as well with no statute of limitations coming into play. He can collect whenever he finds out the child isn't his.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
Thanks...may vary by state too. I do believe when DCS offers men the option of DNA testing and the child is not his, whether married or single couples, if hes still required to pay support, it should definately be reimbursed.
I am also for emerald_octane's compromise even though it only covers the financial damage and isn't preventative. I like justthe6ofus's full idea. It's nice to see the two of you who disagreed with me the most are in support of this. Maybe there's hope for this topic after all.
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. Regardless of what you say, your comment was an insult directed at me. I hold many viewpoints that have nothing to do with my personal life. For example, I am for marijuana decriminalization even though I am repulsed by drugs and have never done any. Since you don't know me in real life, it's best to debate my points of view instead of making assumptions.
My apologies...thanks for sharing your points of view.
But do you not see that this could create "devastating pain" on the part of the woman who's done nothing wrong, who has always been faithful, and is faced with a partner who is implying that she is promiscuous and untrustworthy?
If women didn't lie, and the court system wasn't skewed against men, then it wouldn't be a problem.
Here's a novel idea: Instead of coddling and worshiping women who cheat and commit adultery, placing them on a pedestal, start doing the responsible thing and cutting them off and ostracizing them, until they start behaving properly.
You'd feel incredibly comfortable around my male friends, because none of them would even think about cheating on a girlfriend or committing adultery.
Would I feel equally comfortable around your female friends? Or would I have to worry about them coming onto me?
I suppose it's beyond your ability to empathize with a man who wanted nothing more than to experience the joy of creating life out of love, only to find out that he never created any life at all, and now he is too old or unable to do so (perhaps because of a vasectomy or prostate cancer).
Let's say a man wants to test all of his children for paternity at birth. Also, let's say he informs you of this in the beginning, during your dating or friendship stage of the relationship. He does this a general policy, a piece of mind sort of thing. He's heard and read the stories of men raising other kids for years without knowing and just wants to ensure that never happens to him since he plans to be a very emotionally invested father. It has nothing to do with an assumption that any specific woman will cheat on him. He sees it as no different than a woman wanting a marriage license for piece of mind in a long term relationship.
Would you agree with his plans? Why or why not?
No, because the woman has no way of doing a search to find out if the man fathered any children prior to their union. And these children have a way of popping up and asserting their rights over the children the couple has with in the marriage. A woman marrying a man without knowing about all children he has fathered can be on the hook for child support.
But you mainly seem to be worried about your legal and financial exposure, not your future wife's exposure. This itself would make you a poor candidate for marriage because of your mistrust. It is mistrust, even though you vigorously deny it. If you can't trust a woman to remain faithful to you, then don't marry her. Quit trying to hedge your bets. Find someone you can trust. C
No, because the woman has no way of doing a search to find out if the man fathered any children prior to their union. And these children have a way of popping up and asserting their rights over the children the couple has with in the marriage. A woman marrying a man without knowing about all children he has fathered can be on the hook for child support.
No, because the woman has no way of doing a search to find out if the man fathered any children prior to their union. And these children have a way of popping up and asserting their rights over the children the couple has with in the marriage. A woman marrying a man without knowing about all children he has fathered can be on the hook for child support.
But you mainly seem to be worried about your legal and financial exposure, not your future wife's exposure. This itself would make you a poor candidate for marriage because of your mistrust. It is mistrust, even though you vigorously deny it. If you can't trust a woman to remain faithful to you, then don't marry her. Quit trying to hedge your bets. Find someone you can trust. C
A woman marrying a man without knowing about all children he has fathered can be on the hook for child support.
No. A woman cannot be held responsible for something she has no rights over (this other ladies kid). If you are talking about a direct reduction in the "marital" funds as a result of child support, then the wife is injured by proxy of the husbands actions, which is way different than "being on the hook" for someone else's kid legally, generally as a result of adoption.
Note: I am speaking towards the US.
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.
