DNA testing can get you off death row, but not out of support payments
Custody with no paternity
This article speaks about a phenomenon occuring more often now that DNA and paternity testing is becoming less expensive. More and more men are finding out that children they may have thought were their children for years are not their children.
This could be handled a bit easier of the couples were still married but this often is coming up after divorce. The men who have been paying between 33%-40% of their take home pay for custody have discovered they are doing so for children that are not biologically their own.
Likewise there have been courts that have granted support orders to men who did not father the children at all, but supported them for a period of time while they and the mother were living together.
What do you think? Do you find it odd that a DNA test can exonerate a killer from death row, but can't relieve a man from child support payments for a child he didn't creat?
Nick
This article speaks about a phenomenon occuring more often now that DNA and paternity testing is becoming less expensive. More and more men are finding out that children they may have thought were their children for years are not their children.
This could be handled a bit easier of the couples were still married but this often is coming up after divorce. The men who have been paying between 33%-40% of their take home pay for custody have discovered they are doing so for children that are not biologically their own.
Likewise there have been courts that have granted support orders to men who did not father the children at all, but supported them for a period of time while they and the mother were living together.
What do you think? Do you find it odd that a DNA test can exonerate a killer from death row, but can't relieve a man from child support payments for a child he didn't creat?
Nick
Comments
now i'm not going to get into the moral obligation that this guy still has towards these children, but to me this just sucks from a legal standpoint.
Originally posted by running with scissors
i saw or heard something along this vain regarding a man that was divorced and paying not only child support but alimony as well. the guy got totally fvcked by the courts imho, while his wife had obviously been busy fvcking everyone else. both of the kids it turns out were fathered by someone(s) else according to paternal dna testing. not only did the guy loose custody, but when presented with the facts in later appeals, they still made him continue to pay child support.
now i'm not going to get into the moral obligation that this guy still has towards these children, but to me this just sucks from a legal standpoint.
What moral obligation? His wife had a moral obligation to not screw other men. She created the lie, she should pay for it.
Nick
The fact that a man can prove a child is not his, and yet still have to pay for its upbringing is all the proof you'll ever need that the courts are completely biased in terms of judging in favor of women. Even when there's no logical basis for it.
A woman is married, bangs another guy, has a kid (while still married)... then they get divorced and the ex-husband finds out it's not his kid? And he's supposed to continue paying for the kid anyway?! FUK THAT. Step up, Ms. Independant 21st century woman and fix your own problems! Problems that you chose to create.
Were I in a situaiton like that I would appeal and appeal until I had to live in a cardboard box, before I'd work all day long to pay for another man's bastard child. [A man whose actions] surely had a hand in ruining my marriage. I don't know how many cases a year there are like this, but this type of blindly feminist policy-making is total crap.
What happened to "men and women are equals"? The media would have us believe that women are: harder working, more forward thinking and more in tune with the world's problems then are men. Yet somehow in the courts, women become these feeble, poor things to be pitied and sheltered by another human being's labor. Which is it?
I agree if you have a woman who spent her adult life raising a family instead of climbing a ladder, then you have some reason to make sure she is financially stable after divorce (and her kids too if she gets them - almost a given today). Otherwise, all these high-profile working women who try to get married and have kids and be the vice president of finance too -- they should get no special consideration at all in court.
ESPECIALLY if the kid is hers but not his. Lame.
There's still a stigma of being a whiney bitch if you complain, after all, women have it so rough. But eventually it will go to far, and this is getting close to that edge.
Originally posted by trumptman
What moral obligation? His wife had a moral obligation to not screw other men. She created the lie, she should pay for it.
Nick
think of it from the kids perspective. the man that raised you as a son finds out that you are really not biologically his and suddenly has no obligation to you at any level? that's pretty messed up. sure, mom is a c-u-n-t and all, but could you just up and walk away. i couldn't.
Originally posted by running with scissors
think of it from the kids perspective. the man that raised you as a son finds out that you are really not biologically his and suddenly has no obligation to you at any level? that's pretty messed up. sure, mom is a c-u-n-t and all, but could you just up and walk away. i couldn't.
You're talking about the non-legislatable aspect of the parent child relationship. If the father loves the kids, even if they are not his, he might still want to be a father and provide support even, but he can't be forced to love them. Certainly he shouldn't be forced to pay for them.
If he was deceived by the mother for a long time and has a genuine bond with his children then, if anything, the deception should weigh in favor of the father getting sole custody. Of course, if the mother was in all other respects a good mother then you can't argue that taking them away from their mother is fair.
I would guess that this is a fairly widespread problem. I once saw a show on infidelity and they estimate that 1 in 10 men with children were raising another man's kids without knowing it.
Originally posted by running with scissors
think of it from the kids perspective.
That's an interesting point. Who has more rights, the kid or the man? If one or the other is getting shafted, why the kid and not the man? Or vice versa?
Originally posted by bunge
That's an interesting point. Who has more rights, the kid or the man? If one or the other is getting shafted, why the kid and not the man? Or vice versa?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If the woman LIES to the husband, it is her fault. Are you advocating that MARRIED MEN should all go out and get paternity tests? Yeah, that will really help bolster trust in a relationship and I'm sure we'll see the divorce rates drop as a result. Riiiight.
It's downright fraud. The woman should be forced to pay restitution to the man.
Originally posted by BR
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If the woman LIES to the husband, it is her fault. Are you advocating that MARRIED MEN should all go out and get paternity tests? Yeah, that will really help bolster trust in a relationship and I'm sure we'll see the divorce rates drop as a result. Riiiight.
It's downright fraud. The woman should be forced to pay restitution to the man.
First of, it's not fraud. It could be an accident. In the cases of fraud, perhaps something should happen to the women.
Second, you didn't address my point. Who has more rights, the kids or the fathers?
Originally posted by bunge
First of, it's not fraud. It could be an accident. In the cases of fraud, perhaps something should happen to the women.
Second, you didn't address my point. Who has more rights, the kids or the fathers?
Find the real father.
Originally posted by bunge
First of, it's not fraud. It could be an accident. In the cases of fraud, perhaps something should happen to the women.
Second, you didn't address my point. Who has more rights, the kids or the fathers?
How could it be an accident? I was walking along and whoops, I fell on your shlong?
In this particular instance you misstate the question. It is not the kids vs. the father. It is the kids vs. man who was told to support me though he did not create me.
The state will, on the behest of the child, go after whomever else the mother names as the father. Likewise the mother should have to pay the falsely accused man restitution.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
Find the real father.
Please, stop, you are making too much sense. I can't take it!
Originally posted by BR
Find the real father.
Doesn't address the point.
Originally posted by bunge
Doesn't address the point.
Well, not your irrelevant one. It does address the point of this topic though.
Originally posted by bunge
Doesn't address the point.
How doesn't it? You falsely labeled the question. If the paternity test shows that the man isn't the father, then how can you say the rights are kid vs. father? He isn't the father.
The kid's rights do not change. The court will seek the true father and gain the necessary support.
Nick
DING.
Originally posted by trumptman
How doesn't it? You falsely labeled the question. If the paternity test shows that the man isn't the father, then how can you say the rights are kid vs. father? He isn't the father.
The kid's rights do not change. The court will seek the true father and gain the necessary support.
Call it the parent then, rather than father. In either case, I obviously wasn't referring to the biological father.