men forced to pay for kids that arent theirs?

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_ethbio_patfraud.htm

Men pay child support for a kid, even though the child is proven to not be theirs. Courts of law make them continue to pay.
what gives?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

I can see both sides of it. But the one that got me was your second article...for over a decade, he's been happy to pay child support, and he wants full parental rights. But because his ex-wife is going to marry the man who is actually the child's father, suddenly he wants to stop paying, but he still wants his existing parental rights. You can't have your cake and eat it too, buddy. Sorry.

*It should be noted I am very bitter about child support, having grown up a child whose father actually tried to prove in court wasn't his, and who paid a token sum in support. He also "forgot" to pay if he was on vacation. We lived on free clothes from the church, and went without a lot of things, sometimes food, because there wasn't enough money.

 

Agreed, he cant get rights and not pay for those rights
he should be able to get back the money he paid to her to raise the child that wasnt his, She commiited fraud making him pay.
he is out of luck on having a relationship forced with the child,

I understand what you went through and feel for you.
But I also know a mom who has 3 kids by 2 different dads and she was never married and gets no support, yet she has a decent job and cares for her 3 kids just fine. Even though she has be given the chance to get child support via lawyers,etc. she still scrapes by.

I understand women/people enough to know they do things emotionally, not logically, and those emotions(like eating/using drugs) are part of their pride/hedonistic lifestyle.

The people who have no pride, who are smart enough to not stand on pride, to look at the big picture, or who are lazy as hell and would rather ask for help then try to look smart, those are the ones to emulate

 

I should point out...when my parents got divorced after 23 years, my mom was a 43-year-old woman who had never been allowed to be anything but a housewife since she got married two years out of high school. She was going to school, and also working part time, and she eventually landed a real job about four years after the divorce. From there, we actually started having stuff again. And we were never starving...mom would go without so us kids could have as much as possible, and she got us into a program at school for breakfast and lunch. But it was pretty bad there for a few years. Things were a lot different in 1978.

As for the guy, I honestly don't think he should be entitled to get his money back. He knew for several years that the child was not his, yet he continued to pay support without trying to get out of it. It wasn't until his ex-wife was getting married that he decided he shouldn't have to pay. I'm sorry, but that ship sailed some time in the first year after he learned the girl wasn't his. He found out when the girl was five, he and his wife divorced shortly thereafter, and he didn't file the suit to terminate parental responsibility until she was nine. That's four years he was paying child support, knowing for a certain fact by DNA test she was not his daughter. Either you want her, and are willing to pay child support for her care, or you want to walk away.

I totally understand he doesn't want to be cut out of her life, and it would be awful all around (especially for the girl) if he were to suddenly be gone. And I am not in any way excusing what his wife did. But seriously...four years he knew and did nothing about it. After that length of time, you hit the "sit down and shut up" portion of the program. In other words, suck it up, buttercup. You made your bed, now lie in it. The fact that he's jacked up about his wife marrying the child's actual father is not a good enough excuse.

As to the fraud...he already knew before he ever started paying child support that the girl was not biologically his. Finding out she wasn't is what killed their marriage. That argument holds no water.

 

opps

 

I looked back at what I wrote and I didnt understand enough about details about your situation, cept I knew it had to be pretty devastating. I should have said that it sounds like your mom did the best that could be done. and yes, times have changed since then in what women are "allowed" to do. schooling, jobs, etc, I'm glad your mom did so well, it allowed you to be here on this board today

I didnt really read all that stuff, I was given the link and I passed it on in this thread.
I dont think there is a time when you get to give up your rights
I just got a bill within the last 2 weeks from when I saw my GP back in 1-16-2012
OVER A YEAR AGO

I called and asked why I'm getting this now
"I dont know" is what the hospital billing department said(it was an GP visit for an annual checkup)
so over a year later I get a bill?
I dont have the same insurance I had then, I was covered by insurance that his office takes(as I was this year) but the 1st thing my insurance did was deny me, because I am no longer a customer of theirs....BUT I WAS LAST YEAR.,..

so no, the man didnt give up his rights to be forced to pay for a child that is not his...He needs to see a better lawyer to stop paying. espicaly since the ex wife is getting married.(when alimony stops being paid)
I do agree, he isnt going to get money back from years of paying child support.

 

But, see, he already knew before he ever paid a dime in child support that she wasn't his. It was his choice to pay it in the first place. And then four years later he decides he doesn't want to any more because she's not his. No one forced him to do anything in the first place, it was his choice. Just because he's pi**ed his wife is marrying the guy she cheated on him with is not a good enough reason to reverse his own original decision, which he made with the full knowledge that he was agreeing to pay child support for a child he did not father. Nobody forced him to start paying, he chose to do so even though he knew she wasn't his daughter and legally he had no responsibility to pay for her care.

Maybe he can get out of paying child support from now on, but it was still his decision, and his alone, to agree to pay in the first place. He can't blame anybody for that but himself, and hasn't got a leg to stand on if he tries to do so.

 

Im lost what you are arguing here? I agreed with you about child support refund?..he choose to give his wife money for her child and he can freely choose to stop giving her money.

 

I'm not talking about a refund. I'm talking about the fact that he's an idiot and doesn't deserve to stop paying purely because he's being a jerk about his ex-wife getting married. He cannot, in fact, freely choose to stop giving her money, as it was an agreement he entered into in a court of law while being completely aware that he was paying for a child that was not his. You're not allowed to change your mind just because you no longer want to have to pay. If that was the case, I would stop paying my medical bills, because although I agreed to pay them, I no longer think I want to. That dog don't hunt.

 

he gave money of his own free will/stupidity,
what basis do you have that he has to keep giving money? because he did in the begining?
that's not a valid reason at all

valid reasons are:
-he chooses to stop paying
-he gets married,
-she gets married(which she is, which would also stop any alimony from him to her)

invalid reasons
\
-he gave her money before....
so I guess I can be sued by hobos/american red cross/american cancer society. etc because I HAVE GIVEN THEM MONEY

whether the child is legally his or not, is not relevant to him giving or stopping giving money because the child is not his

 

He entered into a legal agreement with his ex-wife in a court of law to pay child support for a child he knew was not his. His wife getting married should in no way affect his payment of child support, as it does not if the child were his. The fact remains it is a legal agreement, enforceable by law, which he agreed to.

The ex getting married is not a valid reason to quit paying child support under the law once you have entered into a legal agreement to pay it, unless you find out AFTER you agreed to pay child support that the child is not yours. If you know going in that is the case and still agree to pay, then you can't change your mind later. End of story.

 

What you're saying is that this guy should have followed in Carnell Smith's and your own father's footsteps and this guy should 'buck up' because he wasn't the coldhearted bastard they were?

The biological father, especially now that he is back in the picture, should be expected to share the burden for raising his own progeny. It's time once again for law to catch up with science.

 

No, what I'm saying is that since it was acceptable for him to pay child support knowing she wasn't his daughter then, there is no good reason for him to change his mind now. And yes, her biological father should be held responsible. Obviously he never has been, and the child is now 11 years old. But simply getting remarried does not mean that a woman (or man) no longer collects child support from the person who was paying it while they were single.

 

I'm apparently not making myself clear. He entered into a legal agreement to pay child support for a child he knew was not biologically his. This is something enforceable by law.

He did not find out later the child wasn't his. Finding out the child wasn't his is what broke up his marriage, when the child was five years old. When the child turned nine, or four years after he agreed to, and had been regularly paying, child support, his ex-wife decided to marry the biological father of the child. Whereupon he decided he shouldn't have to pay child support any more, regardless of the legally enforceable, binding agreement he approved of and demonstrated said approval by paying for five years.

If his wife had married someone else, he would not have been legally released from child support payments, even though obviously his wife's new husband would be expected to contribute to the support of the child, who would be living in the house. He understandably does not like it that his wife is marrying the man she cheated on him with, and I don't blame him. But that fact does not magically dissolve the legally binding agreement he entered into to pay child support.

 

please cut/paste the wording that makes you think that? I don't see it, I only see,
" A few months after Smith split up with his girlfriend in 1988, she announced she was pregnant with his child. Believing her, he signed a paternity acknowledgment for their daughter, Chandria. He obtained joint custody, paid her support and spent virtually every weekend with his little girl. When Chandria was 11, her mother sued to increase support. Smith decided to be tested, and the results excluded him as the father.
I dont see him knowing anything but the lie she told him.

when I sign a mechanics order to fix the gasket in my car, I expect that I wont have to pay if he fixes the gasket in your car and not mine.....

an ex getting married is a legal reason to stop paying her alimony, why should be still pay he alimony for a kid that's not his?
Even moreso that now there is a law to protect a situation like this from happening again?
The law that Smith helped to pass in Georgia, like a similar one in Ohio, sets no time limit on using DNA to challenge paternity.

 

I see it, I was looking at the other cases...you are talking about mike, right?

After Mike moved out, the lawyers he consulted told him there was no use contesting paternity: if he denied he was the father, they said, he wouldn’t get to see L. at all, and the state would probably take his money anyway.


so I dont see he had a choice, I'd would say he signed that under duress, wouldnt you? seeing as he thought he was that girls dad for 4-5yrs and didnt want to lose that relationship.....

 

-no reason to stop paying child support? tough economy, maybe he lost his job,
maybe we wants to have pizza/hookers daily and he could use the money he is sending to another family to use for that purpose?

or as the article says"
Mike would later marry. Lori deeply resented the chunk of Mike’s salary that went to another man’s child, while she was reduced to clipping coupons.
--so what if she is 11? he was lied to by his wife about the real dad when she was 3, and at age 3 got hard DNA evidence,

yes, again, getting married does change things, it would stop alimony being paid by an ex to the person getting remarried

the bigger question is, why isnt the biologic father paying child support? he gets a free kid?
I'd love to have a pet dog, if I had someone else pay for its food, vet bills, toys, and dog walker....sign me up!

 

Child support is not alimony. Alimony is either paid for a finite length of time or until the spouse gets married. Child support is paid until the child reaches the age of majority.

I'm done arguing with you. About everything.

 

I know alimony is different, but you kept saying gettting remarried shouldnt change anything...and I showed it does and gave an example
I kept calling it alimony because it's not his child, he can sign all the "legal" documents(under duress, etc) he wants, the kid isnt his

I agree to stop hypothesizing what these cases are all about. our source of info, the article, does a crappy job of laying out the facts, and the facts all don't make that much sense.
does it? in one case, mike, is paying child support for someone elses kid He was initally lied to about it, which caused him to sign for the parental rights, (since he had no idea who the bio dad was, and had spent 5yr estabilishing a relationship with a fatherless girl.... in the end,the bio dad isnt paying anything? yeah, makes a lot of sense....hey send me your next car payment, I'll pay it and from here on out, because the car has no owner....rmakes sense, right?

I consulted with a lawyer(my mom) about this and she laughed at the article

Id wager a decent lawyer could throw out the "legal document" that was signed and then the dude would stop paying further child support

then Id go to small claims court,(aka, peoples court/judge alex, etc) and get a ruling about a refund of some sort.
if I ever get a girl knocked up, I'm getting a DNA test before I spend any money for

 

From the first paragraph of the article YOU posted. You don't even have to read the whole thing to see he did, in fact, know she wasn't his before he started paying.

If you do read the entire article, you'll see that they didn't even have the DNA test done until the child was about five years old, and as soon as the results came back they divorced. Maybe you should read your own article before arguing incorrectly on facts that are available in black and white.

 

I really dislike these kind of threads as they inevitably turn hostile, one way or another.


*hint, hint*

 

you are taking my side now? that mike, the nonbiodad shouldnt pay child support to a complete family? or maybe I dont get the point of what you posted?

were you pointing out that I missed something? If so, you dont tell me what it was I missed, so I cant accurately remark on your post.
I did initially miss that part, where he signed a statement saying he was the bio-dad, which was based on the lie wife told him.
As irrelevant as it is to the case,(because it was signed up duress, as Ive previously stated)
I did read that section finally since you kept saying OMG HE SIGNED LEGAL PAPER blah blah blah...I mention this in post 16, I mentioned that as inno need to toss out inflammatory remarks to me, eh?:-D)

and I mention why he kept the relationship with the little girl who had no father in her life, besides him..

so what was your point again? can you sum it up in a few sentences?
My point is a man who is not the biodad, who has his own family, shouldnt have to pay child support for another mans child.
If you feel otherwise, please send me money so i can buy childcare/car/food/entertainment, thanks!:wave

 

this thread called me up last night and wanted to go to the movies and hang out....
oh, yeah, this thread isnt alive, the posters of the thread are.
as House said:
House: You know that relative to their size, gorillas have smaller testicles than humans.
House: Reason is, primate teste size inversely corresponds to the fidelity of our females.
"We're smaller and better than chimps, bigger and worse than gorillas. For all our rationality, our supposed trust and fealty to a higher power, our ability to create a system of rules and laws; our baser drives are more powerful than any of that. We want to control our emotions, but we can't. [Wilson looks tolerably annoyed] If we're happy, things don't annoy us"

hint hintlike poker, to have a rational discussion/exchange of ideas and interpretations, remove emotions.

 

Ok, maybe I wasn't clear.


Here is the hint: If you guys don't want this thread locked, stay civil. Obviously it is teetering on the edge or I wouldn't have said something. The thread is civil now, but it is leaning towards the hot side. That is all I, or any other moderator, will say on this subject.

Do not discuss this point further and stay on topic. Questions for me or other moderators can be taken to PM. Thanks.