Man forced to pay child support for a kid that isn't his

[bonniep 0]

Should a man who is legally married to a woman but is not the biological father be required to pay child support?

Well, if the man is married to the woman and living in the house with his wife and her child then NO, he shouldn't have to pay child support. He probably helps to pay for the mortgage/rent, food, recreation for and with the child, etc. Child support is not appropriate here. Child support comes in when the parents of a child are divorced!

If this man has been raising this child as his own is he not now both morally and legally bound to continue his support? He has, afterall, already entered into an emotional and financial contract with the child

I assume you are now suggesting that the mother and step-father are divorced and not still living together.

In this case, NO, the man is not required to pay support because presumably, the biological father is paying support and we are talking about a step-parent -- the child has always known that the step-parent is NOT their real parent. A step-parent is not required by law to pay child support. If the step-parent would like to continue to have an emotional and/or financial relationship with the child, then it's up to the custodial parent to decide whether it's appropriate or not...

In these instances how should the state deal with mothers who have lied about biological parentage?

One has to first prove that the biological mother has purposely lied about the biological parentage. I would assume this would be very hard to prove in a court of law.

And should the state attempt to hunt down the biological fathers in order to force them to pay their fair share? Won't this kind of action on the part of the state contravene a big bunch of Constitutional Rights

Many states have done and are doing this in the case of mothers who are on welfare because of deadbeat dads. So YES, this can and is being done.

Should the state excuse a husband from his financial obligations with respect to child support when his wife has presented him with a baby that is proven to be not biologically his if the marriage break down occurs within the first year after the child was born? Before the poor sap has bonded with this kid, that is to say

I would think it would be up to the court to decide. If the husband could prove that the wife purposely and maliciously lied to him about parentage and if the child is an infant and no bonding has occurred, then it's my opinion that letting this man out of any monetary obligation toward the child is fair and just. That's my opinion and a court could decide differently, of course. It would then be up to the husband to take the case to a higher court if he disagreed with the ruling.

In many ways it is much cheaper for the state/the people to maintain the status quo and the logic behind this would be: you were the one who married the cheating bitch and now you will have to pay.

I take offense at your language and your condescending tone toward women. I am not the enemy and please don't treat me like one. If you can't remain civil, then please refrain from discussing this admittedly heated topic.

bonnie

[TheGh0st 9]

"Green":In many ways it is much cheaper for the state/the people to maintain the status quo and the logic behind this would be: you were the one who married the cheating bitch and now you will have to pay.

"Bonniep": I take offense at your language and your condescending tone toward women. I am not the enemy and please don't treat me like one. If you can't remain civil, then please refrain from discussing this admittedly heated topic.

Since I am not Green I will leave it to her to choose whether or not to respond to the bulk of your post, however, I did want to point out that Green is a girl and I think you mistook her negative phrase at the end. I truly believe she was NOT stating her personal opinions of these husbands or wives, but her percieved opinion of the court system.

Though I will say that any woman that would INTENTIONALLY lie to a man about the paternity of her child in order to gain profit is HIGHLY suspect in MY EYES. Yes, I know there are unfortunately many cases that could be pointed out where it was not intentional, but more wishfull thinking on the woman's part that led to the deception, and I am not making any judgements against those women. I also tend to seek the good in people and want to believe those that lie intentionally are in the minority.

In my opinion she was only trying to describe how it seemed that in the situation where a man was (in the courts eyes, not necessarily hers) "foolish" enough to marry woman who would lie to him about him being the biological father (therefore making her appear to be of "of suspect morals"), then proceed to raise the child with the wife for a period of time believing her lies. The court appears to frequently take the "easy out" stance of making them pay the CS rather than deal with all the difficult issues surrounding this hopefully unique set of circumstances posed by the original poster.

I think if you reread her post keeping the original topic in mind her comments may make more sense.

[anonemouse 1]

Since I am not Green I will leave it to her to choose whether or not to respond to the bulk of your post, however, I did want to point out that Green is a girl and I think you mistook her negative phrase at the end. I truly believe she was NOT stating her personal opinions of these husbands or wives, but her percieved opinion of the court system.

Though I will say that any woman that would INTENTIONALLY lie to a man about the paternity of her child in order to gain profit is HIGHLY suspect in MY EYES. Yes, I know there are unfortunately many cases that could be pointed out where it was not intentional, but more wishfull thinking on the woman's part that led to the deception, and I am not making any judgements against those women. I also tend to seek the good in people and want to believe those that lie intentionally are in the minority.

In my opinion she was only trying to describe how it seemed that in the situation where a man was (in the courts eyes, not necessarily hers) "foolish" enough to marry woman who would lie to him about him being the biological father (therefore making her appear to be of "of suspect morals"), then proceed to raise the child with the wife for a period of time believing her lies. The court appears to frequently take the "easy out" stance of making them pay the CS rather than deal with all the difficult issues surrounding this hopefully unique set of circumstances posed by the original poster.

I think if you reread her post keeping the original topic in mind her comments may make more sense.

Yep, what Diane said.

[gadgetlady 4]

OK, I have a solution: purity until marriage, monogamy afterwards. Parentage and child support issues never rear their ugly heads. Problem solved!

[TheGh0st 9]

Bonnie - I also have to say I LOVED LOVED LOVED your post about your personal experience growing up. Thankyou so much for sharing something so personal and painful. And I agreed 100% with everything you expressed.

Luckily or unluckily as the case may be my parents did not divorce until over a decade after I left home, despite my constant pleas since gradeschool for them to quit staying together for the "sake of us kids". And my father is my biological father which basically throws me completely out of this discussion. However, in some ways I still feel I am dealing with some of the same issues as many children of divorce.

Even though my father was still living with us, I never felt he was emotionally or even financially there for us. One of my biggest issues with him was that he had this policy that if he worked any overtime the money was his to spend as he wished. This was a two edge sword. First in that he would spend many hours away from home working to earn those overtime dollars, then just as many out spending them on his hobbies. While at the same time my mother was forced to both raise us and work a full time job. Even with both of them working and his overtime that he kept for himself we still qualified for free school lunches through most of my childhood. But my parents were too proud accept the assistance and risk anyone in our small finding out how poor we were. Each year my grandfather would slip a $100 dollar bill into my sister & I's hands. My mother would invariably start crying telling her father he didn't need to give us the money and that she could make do, then he would start crying to and insist we keep it. The truth of the matter was she was already wearing her own clothes until they were literally falling apart and could no longer be patched or mended in order to add another $50 to my sister & I's chlothing budget for the year. This was in the 1970-80's and though $150 was worth more than now it was still no where near average. The worse times were when I would find my mom crying over a box of family heirlooms that she was getting ready to take to auction so we could have enough money for food that week.

All things considered I do still love my father and I know my dad loves my sister & I. He is only a product of his own difficult childhood. Still to have the memories of my crying as she was forced to sell her family memories just to put food on the table for another week while my father was out working overtime or spending it on another piece for his collection continues to break my heart and continues to have serious effects on my relationship with him to this day.

For the life of him he can not understand why I don't just "grow up" and get over the past. I can tell it hurts him that we aren't closer now. He sees what happened back then as strictly between him & my mother and nothing to do with me or my sister. I'm really not trying to "punish" him for the past but like Bonnie I can only feel ambivalent to his "pain" when compared to the pain he caused me and my mother.

[TheGh0st 9]

Darn it all. Here I thought I was joining in some intellectual debate about a topic not directly related to my life and now I'm sitting here crying over a father that didn't leave my mother until after it was to late for Child Support to even be an issue. I think I need to go to bed.

[green 6]

Should a man who is legally married to a woman but is not the biological father be required to pay child support?

Well, if the man is married to the woman and living in the house with his wife and her child then NO, he shouldn't have to pay child support. He probably helps to pay for the mortgage/rent, food, recreation for and with the child, etc. Child support is not appropriate here. Child support comes in when the parents of a child are divorced!

If this man has been raising this child as his own is he not now both morally and legally bound to continue his support? He has, afterall, already entered into an emotional and financial contract with the child

I assume you are now suggesting that the mother and step-father are divorced and not still living together.

In this case, NO, the man is not required to pay support because presumably, the biological father is paying support and we are talking about a step-parent -- the child has always known that the step-parent is NOT their real parent. A step-parent is not required by law to pay child support. If the step-parent would like to continue to have an emotional and/or financial relationship with the child, then it's up to the custodial parent to decide whether it's appropriate or not...

In these instances how should the state deal with mothers who have lied about biological parentage?

One has to first prove that the biological mother has purposely lied about the biological parentage. I would assume this would be very hard to prove in a court of law.

And should the state attempt to hunt down the biological fathers in order to force them to pay their fair share? Won't this kind of action on the part of the state contravene a big bunch of Constitutional Rights

Many states have done and are doing this in the case of mothers who are on welfare because of deadbeat dads. So YES, this can and is being done.

Should the state excuse a husband from his financial obligations with respect to child support when his wife has presented him with a baby that is proven to be not biologically his if the marriage break down occurs within the first year after the child was born? Before the poor sap has bonded with this kid, that is to say

I would think it would be up to the court to decide. If the husband could prove that the wife purposely and maliciously lied to him about parentage and if the child is an infant and no bonding has occurred, then it's my opinion that letting this man out of any monetary obligation toward the child is fair and just. That's my opinion and a court could decide differently, of course. It would then be up to the husband to take the case to a higher court if he disagreed with the ruling.

In many ways it is much cheaper for the state/the people to maintain the status quo and the logic behind this would be: you were the one who married the cheating bitch and now you will have to pay.

I take offense at your language and your condescending tone toward women. I am not the enemy and please don't treat me like one. If you can't remain civil, then please refrain from discussing this admittedly heated topic.

bonnie

I am indeed a woman. I put those questions out there simply in order that they might be debated. In the province where I live I know of one man, a stepfather, who is on the hook for paying child support for his stepchild. I cannot say, however, that I am aware of the general policies concerning child support in this jurisdiction. My personal belief, however, is that the child's welfare must always come first and that in an ideal world all adults would recognise this.

With respect to the final comment in my post, I was stating what might well be the state's point of view, that when a couple marries they incur responsibility for each other's behaviour, and this would include all children produced during that marriage as well as financial debts.

Of course this business of cheating does cut two ways: a woman might be in the position of finding that her husband's paycheck shrinking because he has to pay child support on a child he fathered on another woman while still married. A man like this I would be inclined to call a cheating bastard.

Thanks, Laurend and Ghost, for getting my back, eh.

[Kat817 19]

Green--in ALL debates and discussions--I have never seen you be anything but fair, and treat people with respect. Often you simply sit back, put things into perspective, and never really take a side on an issue...keeping an open mind.

Many times, you have made me rethink things, sometimes even making me change my own views! But always giving me another viewpoint to consider, if we are not already in agreement.

In this case, we are in agreement that the child SHOULD come first with both parents---but obviously does not. While we are all lambasting this man, for his want to abandon--no one else but you mentioned the mother negatively. I ask ---- if she is truly the loving mother??? Why did she reveal this? She obviously still wants the money.....Why tell? Did she not think this would hurt her child? Shouldn't her first thought be, not to hurt the husband purposely, but to not hurt her DD? I think your terminology is fitting!

Keep the thought provoking posts coming....this poster at least sometimes needs her blinders removed!!!

Kat

[green 6]

Thanks, Kat, for those very generous words. You are right to wonder why that child's mother would choose to go all confessional on the question of the girl's paternity ten years after the fact. My hunch is that she simply wanted to hurt her ex and was heedless of the child's feelings. Now this poor girl is left suffering greatly, both pyschologically and with respect to this ugly financial brawl.

Speaking of psychological grief, this kid, a child on the verge of adolescence, has just had her sense of self and, by extension, her sense of belonging and of security, dealt a grievous blow. Imagine, if you can, how you would feel if you were suddenly to learn that your father is not your father? And how much worse you would feel if the man you had come to love and trust as your father now wants to walk away from you? This poor kid will likely have to deal with some pretty big identity and abandonment issues.

Had she learned of her paternity problems when she was either much younger or much older she would be in a less risky situation; but the thing about adolescents is that they feel everything with such intensity. I don't know all the details of this story but as I presently understand it, it certainly does raise a raft of legal and moral issues concerning the responsibilities of adults towards children who are not their own genetic product. This is why this tale is an interesting one for all of us to discuss.

I must add, however, it seems to me that this child's mum has chosen to behave in a less than responsible fashion.

[green 6]

OK, I have a solution: purity until marriage, monogamy afterwards. Parentage and child support issues never rear their ugly heads. Problem solved!

This is a sweet post, Gadget, and in an ideal world, one where this behaviour could be easily put into practice, it sure would solve a lot of problems. But as you know, even for those folk who do manage to remain pure until they choose a mate to marry, well, they are buying a pig in a poke. Each and everyone of us can exert some - questionable - degree of control over our own behaviour but we really are out of luck when it comes to that business of reining in the behaviour of anyone else.

What does this mean? Well, as we all know, here in the western world most marriages are entered into in the spirit of romantic optimism. People who marry do so for love and because they genuinely believe that they have chosen well and that their unions will last a lifetime. But what this can mean is that they might end up by discovering that their mates are physically/psychologically abusive, or that the monogamy rule is not equally honoured by both mates. It only takes one ill-judged misstep to father a child on another woman or to find that you, a woman, is pregnant with another man's child.

Of course marital dysfunction might mean nothing more than that the romantic couple eventually discovers that once they grow up they grow apart, that they have absolutely nothing, but less than zero, nothing in common. A landscape between such couples may be unsullied by physical transgressions yet be dreadfully bleak.

Although I have always been a bit of free spirit when it has come to the management of my own life, I am believe that I might be on your page, Gadget, when it concerns this issue of raising children. I do run with the conservatives.

I believe that children call for responsibility, thoughtfulness and love. Caring for children is a whole lot more complicated and a whole lot more important than caring for yer pets. This is why practising birth control is important. Don't have 'em unless you can look after them pre and ante natally. Be aware that the research says that they do tend to do better in two parent homes. Show them lots of love but show them discipline, too. Feed them healthy foods, talk to them. And make sure that they receive as much education possible. Education is both fun and, as Homer Simpson would say, very embiggening.

I have worked hard to remain childless because I have always felt and still do feel that I lack the psychological, intellectual, and physical characteristics to be able to properly perform in this field. In an ideal world every child would be a wanted, loved, and properly cared for entrant in this often painful, always interesting, and sometimes splendid existance. I am inclined to think that those people who really do love children might wish to be more careful about selecting the circumstances under which they will have them.

[Teal 0]

No to the refund of past payments, but I don't think this man should me made to pay child support for a child that is not his.

[marjon9 6]

OK, I have a solution: purity until marriage, monogamy afterwards. Parentage and child support issues never rear their ugly heads. Problem solved!

Im all for being "pure," before marriage, during marriage, and after marriage. But I have a very hard time comprehending the world view that says that anyone who has sex before marriage is "impure." I know that many see the world that way. But it is really impossible for me to comprehend. Why would anyone choose a view leads to the conclusion that one is surrounded every day, morning, noon, and night, by "impure" beings. Sounds like Night of the Living Dead, or something like that.

And thinking of it from "god's" point of view, I would think he or she would be so offended that human beings would actually believe that god that would create a world full of impure things. What god would do that? I would imagine god would want people to understand that all god's works are perfect. And I don't mean "potentially perfect." I mean, perfect.

[green 6]

Im all for being "pure," before marriage, during marriage, and after marriage. But I have a very hard time comprehending the world view that says that anyone who has sex before marriage is "impure." I know that many see the world that way. But it is really impossible for me to comprehend. Why would anyone choose a view leads to the conclusion that one is surrounded every day, morning, noon, and night, by "impure" beings. Sounds like Night of the Living Dead, or something like that.

And thinking of it from "god's" point of view, I would think he or she would be so offended that human beings would actually believe that god that would create a world full of impure things. What god would do that? I would imagine god would want people to understand that all god's works are perfect. And I don't mean "potentially perfect." I mean, perfect.

Marjon is right, I figure. The trouble is that we are all such flawed creatures. I personally like to examine our behaviour within the framework of social and animal anthropology, within this notion of genetic hardwiring.... In brief, I like the notion that although we human creatures we have certainly dramatically exceeded our mammalian mates, we are, nevertheless, hinged to our brothers and sisters: we do share the same hardwiring even though this may now longer be a good thing for us.

[marjon9 6]

The trouble is that we are all such flawed creatures.

green, this is the point where we diverge. I just don't see the universe that way. I think the reason most people agree with you is because we superimpose our values on the universe. Humans believe, for example, that it is "better" to tell the truth, to avoid murdering other people, to finish your vegetables, etc. I just don't agree with those things. It may be "better" for the mouse to avoid being eaten by the fox, but isn't it "better" for the fox to eat the mouse? So, is the fox a sinner? For me, I just see the universe as being in perfect harmony. I certainly don't understand it all, but that does not compel me to get out some book with the purported "word of god" to try to give me some sort of explanation. Frankly, I just think that's silly.

Now, that is not to say that I support anarchy, murder, or the waste of vegetables. In fact, I think that life is more fun for everyone when people interject the maximum amount of love into their dealings with all things. But my total lack of understanding of the big picture only encourages me to try my best to judge myself and others as little as possible. It is so foreign to me to think of any of us as "flawed" or "impure." In the overall scheme of things, which I don't understand at all, who am I to say that the fox is better than the mouse, or vice versa?

Sometimes I enjoy getting out my telescope to look at some stars and planets. This gives me a little perspective on my size in relation to the universe. When I look at the stars I know that nothing that happens on earth could be particularly "important." That is, unless everything is important. Human suffering really sucks, and I don't recommend it at all. But in the overall scheme of things, which I don't understand, is it really "important?" I think it is, but only in the sense that everything is important. When we humans start to think that we are singled out as more important than other things in the universe, that's where I disembark. For me, all I can really do is be grateful for this adventure and marvel at it all. I understand so little of the big picture that I just feel silly attempting to "judge."

[gadgetlady 4]

This is a sweet post, Gadget, and in an ideal world, one where this behaviour could be easily put into practice, it sure would solve a lot of problems. But as you know, even for those folk who do manage to remain pure until they choose a mate to marry, well, they are buying a pig in a poke. Each and everyone of us can exert some - questionable - degree of control over our own behaviour but we really are out of luck when it comes to that business of reining in the behaviour of anyone else.

Ain't that the truth. I wrote that quick post in response to a very sad situation with some friends of ours. We had met them on a vacation, became fast friends a year ago, and were in their town last week. When we went to visit with them, he didn't show up. Turns out he had an affair and left his gorgeous wife (literally) and two darling children (girl age 9 and boy age 14, charming and responsible kids). I was reeling all night. He absolutely destroyed a perfectly good family for a self-admitted mid-life crisis.

That being said, while some people may think I live in a fantasy world for saying what I said (purity until marriage, monogamy afterwards), I can tell you from personal experience that while it IS the (an?) ideal, it CAN certainly work and I believe in my heart it is the goal to shoot for. Just because the mark is often missed doesn't mean we shouldn't shoot for it.

Well, as we all know, here in the western world most marriages are entered into in the spirit of romantic optimism. People who marry do so for love and because they genuinely believe that they have chosen well and that their unions will last a lifetime. But what this can mean is that they might end up by discovering that their mates are physically/psychologically abusive, or that the monogamy rule is not equally honoured by both mates. It only takes one ill-judged misstep to father a child on another woman or to find that you, a woman, is pregnant with another man's child.

I wholeheartedly agree. If people didn't enter into marriage with the idea that it's a disposable institution, maybe both parties would behave a little more responsibly. My dh and I are marriage mentors at our church, and we teach the kiddos (sheesh, they're young!) to enter the marriage with the mindset that divorce is not a possibility; from there, build a great marriage with what you enter the relationship with. We also have them take a good hard look at things like personality mesh, finances, expectations, etc. so as to dispel as many romantic notions as possible.

That is not to say that some people just "go south", as in the disheartening example of our friends above.

Although I have always been a bit of free spirit when it has come to the management of my own life, I am believe that I might be on your page, Gadget, when it concerns this issue of raising children. I do run with the conservatives.

I believe that children call for responsibility, thoughtfulness and love. Caring for children is a whole lot more complicated and a whole lot more important than caring for yer pets. This is why practising birth control is important. Don't have 'em unless you can look after them pre and ante natally. Be aware that the research says that they do tend to do better in two parent homes. Show them lots of love but show them discipline, too. Feed them healthy foods, talk to them. And make sure that they receive as much education possible. Education is both fun and, as Homer Simpson would say, very embiggening.

I have worked hard to remain childless because I have always felt and still do feel that I lack the psychological, intellectual, and physical characteristics to be able to properly perform in this field.

Although I applaud you for your responsibility in this area, I believe you have sold yourself short. I understand, based on some of your posts about your childhood, how you would never want to be a parent. But, quite honestly, I think you would have made a terrific one. The crap we go through has the potential to make us stronger and more responsible and I believe you would have surprised yourself had you opted to be a parent.