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.
As a woman, I have always felt that my children should know who their paternal father is. My children thank God, has a wonderful realtionship with their dad even though we are divorced.
Needless to say, that isn't always the case in all relationships. Often times there are men who are faced to support a child whom they thought was their biological child, I honestly do not agree with this IF the man was not aware that the child was not his.
Imagine being married or committed to someone and a child is born of that relationship, imagine having braking up with that child's mother but still fulfilling your paternal role only to find out many years later and fights for increased child support that the child was never actually your child.
Do you think that the law should require that any woman who intentionally lied to a man about having fathered a child should be forced to pay back all the years of child support that was paid to her for that child?
Do you feel that the law should still require the man to pay child support even after testing has shown that he is actually NOT the biological father?
I don't think every situation is the same. If the person was told they were the father and had no relationship with them and over time found out they were not actually the father, I don't think they should pay child support.
If they were a father to them, biological or not, they "acted" as the father and found out later they were not, then they should help. The child support is supposed to be just that, to support the child and if they developed a relationship as father & child is that now gone because the mother lied? It's a terrible situation and something similiar happened to my brother, it's a tough one.
Do you feel that the law should still require the man to pay child support even after testing has shown that he is actually NOT the biological father?
No I don't, I would leave it up to him but with no requirment to pay. I know someone waiting for the results of the test now, I think it's a sad thing he has been part of their lives but will not if the test show he's not their father, I think he wants them not to be his and I find that very sad.
Do you think that the law should require that any woman who intentionally lied to a man about having fathered a child should be forced to pay back all the years of child support that was paid to her for that child?
YES, absolutely, key word here being "intentionally" lied. That is just an awful thing to do.
Do you feel that the law should still require the man to pay child support even after testing has shown that he is actually NOT the biological father? NO, he should not have to pay anymore if he is not a part of the child's life in the first place.
No man should be required to pay child support for a child he doesn't have a biological relationship to. But many jurisdictions weight the child's right to a father higher than those of the alleged dads. Many courts won't even allow DNA evidence to be considered if the alleged father is married to the mother. If a child is born into a marriage then the husband in the marriage is responsible for the expenses of caring for the child.
Many states though have tough child support laws on the books to help keep the welfare expenses down. It's very common to see men paying for children's support because for no other reason they were not served properly with a notice of paternity. They miss the court date and then it's too late the judge refuses to reopen the case. And unless a man has fifty-thousand dollars laying around he really can't appeal the verdict. And if he doesn't pay then he goes to jail for contempt and has his assets seized.
If a woman knowingly lies to a man about paternity, and receives child support from the man knowing he isn't the father of her child, then she should be hit with felony embezzlement charges.
Also the real father has a right to know he has a child out there, and the child has a right to know who his or her biological father is as well.
No man should be required to pay child support for a child he doesn't have a biological relationship to. But many jurisdictions weight the child's right to a father higher than those of the alleged dads. Many courts won't even allow DNA evidence to be considered if the alleged father is married to the mother. If a child is born into a marriage then the husband in the marriage is responsible for the expenses of caring for the child.
Many states though have tough child support laws on the books to help keep the welfare expenses down. It's very common to see men paying for children's support because for no other reason they were not served properly with a notice of paternity. They miss the court date and then it's too late the judge refuses to reopen the case. And unless a man has fifty-thousand dollars laying around he really can't appeal the verdict. And if he doesn't pay then he goes to jail for contempt and has his assets seized.
If a woman knowingly lies to a man about paternity, and receives child support from the man knowing he isn't the father of her child, then she should be hit with felony embezzlement charges.
Also the real father has a right to know he has a child out there, and the child has a right to know who his or her biological father is as well.
Great Response - this is soooo very true. Not to mention happens quite frequently
This month, in the case of Parker v. Parker, a Florida appeals court held that a man can, against his will, be deemed a father and obliged to support a child born to his wife during their marriage, despite the fact that the two have no biological or adoptive relationship.
This result may seem counterintuitive to some readers. A man like Richard Parker tends to evoke some immediate sympathy - he's the poor sucker who will pay support for a child conceived by his ex-wife during an adulterous affair.
But is the "poor Richard" impulse enough to justify allowing him to disestablish paternity at any time, and at any cost to the other parties involved?
The Florida court said no, and gave good reasons for doing so. The Facts of the Parker Case
To begin, here are the relevant facts and decisions in the Parker case itself: Richard and Margaret Parker married in 1996, and Margaret bore a child in 1998. When the couple divorced in 2001, the court awarded custody of the child to Margaret and ordered Richard to pay $1200 per month in child support.
When Margaret sued two years later for unpaid child support, Richard subjected the child to DNA testing and discovered that he was not the child's biological father. He thus filed an independent suit to disprove paternity, and to seek damages for what he claimed was his ex-wife's false representation that he was the child's father.
In that suit, he alleged that Margaret had known all along he was not the child's father and had purposefully concealed that fact from him. He asked a Florida court to force her to pay him damages to compensate for his past and future child support obligations.
The trial court dismissed Richard's petition, and, this month, as noted above, a Florida appellate court affirmed. As a result, Richard remains the child's legal father, with an obligation of support - and will not receive damages from Margaret for the value of his past and future child support payments.
Wow, to me that is like the court telling the wife to go ahead and have affairs we'll let your poor husband pay for your adulterous behavior and the child born to your lover. That is very sad because to me the court is defending the affair.
Why can you have a divorce due to infidelity but you can't stop your legal obligations to a child born out of deceit and lies?
Hmmm I wonder if the man were to have a child with another woman during marriage and has gained custody of that child if the court will enforce child support obligation to the his wife who is not the biological mother?
I just feel that sometimes the men tend to get a raw deal when it comes to women being deceitful and as such feel that the courts are actually encouraging these behaviors.
I just feel that sometimes the men tend to get a raw deal when it comes to women being deceitful and as such feel that the courts are actually encouraging these behaviors.
While searching for this court case, I found some wacky other ones. One divorcing couple had adult children, so there was alimony but no child support. Then the wife claimed that she got pregnant just before he left. Then for DNA evidence, she used some from the adult daughter. Then the ex husband fought that and the judge wanted to see the child in the flesh, so the woman grabbed a child off the street, but fortunately was followed the the courthouse by the child's grandmother. Bad bad exwife.
FOXNews.com - False Child Support Case Exposes System's Failures - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219497,00.html - broken link)
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.
