NJ: Man must pay support for child not his

TRENTON, N.J. - Paternity doesn't count when it comes to a Hunterdon County man's bid to lower child support payments for a child that's not his.

An appeals court upheld a lower court which denied the man's request in 2006 after he said he discovered he was not the father of the 10-year-old girl.

The appeals panel found the judge put the best interest of the child first.

Link

:popcorn:

if the child is not his, then why don't they try to find the real father and make him pay?

mean time, the child must be supported. I am with the judge on this one, you can't punish the child for the actions of her parents...

That makes no sense.

than is currently being felt by the one member of society now paying.

the net cost to each member of society will be negligible. The net cost to this man is not.

That's the only just option. Child doesn't pay for the actions of parents. Man doesn't pay for a child he didn't help create.
The Professor

and quite likely the only father she has ever known. She's probably made crayon drawings for him at school, spent Christmas mornings giving him little girl hugs after she opened her presents and kept little treasures he's given to her in a keepsake box.

Do you really think she won't pay a price if his responsibilities are terminated?

If we are talking money (child support) than no she is no more affected. If were talking emotionally then that ship has already sailed...

Or would you rather your taxes go to kill people instead?

If both parents die is society taking care of the kid 'punishing'? If someone loses their job is food stamps punishing? The difference between society and the step-dad doing it is that in the case of the later its everyone picking on one individuals..

and he is most likely on the birth certificate, therefore her legal father. He is not being punished but being forced to continue his legal obligations to his daughter.

The husband of a married woman is considered the father of all children she has while married, even if by another man. I think its that way to serve the child's interests, although I agree its not completely fair to the non-father. Actually, IIRC, even if they weren't married, but the guy acted as her father for a period of time, he's still liable for support.

A man has a set length of time that differs from state to state but generally is two years or less to contest paternity regardless of marital status. Generally, if a man has reason to suspect biological parenthood may lie elsewhere, that is plenty of time to have the test ordered. That way, the child is not emotionally and financially damaged by the loss of their legal and known father just because one or more of their parents is an asshole.

we know that the parents divorced when the child was two. We know that he's been paying child support for 10 years. It's possible he hasn't been acting as her father for 8 of the past 10 years. Also, he found out she wasn't his biological child 2 years ago.

It's an awful situation but it could be solved by simply making it standard procedure to do DNA testing of fathers at birth.

In this case he isn't even expecting to stop making payments, he just doesn't want his payments raised or something.

"It's an awful situation but it could be solved by simply making it standard procedure to do DNA testing of fathers at birth."

You think the divorce rate is high now, wait until they start doing this.

let's get the guy from new jersey on the phone, and tell him that we've found someone willing to "stand by the little girl".

that's really a beautiful thing you're willing to do.

was borne and for ten years, I would not turn my back on her just because of something her mother had done. And any one who would is a slimy piece of shit! This child only knows that her dad doesn't want her any more. She's the same little girl today that she was yesterday, but today her dad tells her to drop dead, he doesn't want to see her anymore! That is a scum-sucking lower life form and anyone who would do this to a child is the same!

You don't even know the situation. To jump to such conclusions without knowing the details is a bit premature. Perhaps he has every intention of caring for the child and to be part of her life but doesn't believe he needs to give a chunk of his paycheck to the woman who not only cheated on him and got pregnant with another man's child. I think that sucks.

All mommies are perfect and completely blameless -- so sayeth the Family Court system. If you have any doubts, take a look at how often fathers get custody.

When a woman offs her four children the excuses in here for her behavior are numerous. When a man doesn't want to HAVE to legally pay for his cheating wife and her lover's children, he is a monster.

Unbelievable

Umm the last time I checked he has that right... Our society does not mandate we all be nice people.

FWIW I don't know what I would do if in ten years one of the angels turned out to be from another man, I would be surprised as they are bi-racial and still came out looking more like me than their mother. I love my girls to death and would think I would still love them just as much afterwards but that whol walk a mile in someone else's shoes thing comes to mind..

"This child only knows that her dad doesn't want her any more."

There is going to damage from this one way or the other it does not matter if the money is coming in. Right now this man is having most of his take home (after taxes) removed making it hard for him to start over after an already painful divorce and he himself is really hurting and betrayed.

Best solution: Find the real father and garnish HIM, while allowing the emotional father to continue in that role..

"She's the same little girl today that she was yesterday, but today her dad tells her to drop dead"

You may be able to shut out all emotion but many dont work that way. Every time he looks at that girl he is going to see every feature which is not his wifes and start to picture the real father.

pretty jacked up...

wear a condom :evilgrin:

Since this is all done "In the best interests of the child", I'd like to see a judge with a 6-figure salary take over the child support payments for a child that isn't his. It makes as much sense as making any other non-father pay it, plus the judge could pay more, which is obviously better for the child.

That said, it should be the child's parent ponying up. But the child of that union, regardless of genetic donors, by law is entitled to being supported as if her parents weren't divorced.

Or let the judge pay. After all, he's not the father any more than this guy.

It's a question of who should pay. Mom, the real father or everyone.

Since mom can't (or won't) identify real dad, then the responsibility falls to everyone.

caring for a child. This guy has been this little girl's dad for her whole life, how could he possibly turn his back on her because of something the mother did years ago? No, if this were me, she would be my daughter till the day I died - and she would always be able to count on me...

and he and mom were only married for the first 2 years of her life before they were divorced. Read the article in the OP.

Imagine the biggest betrayal in your life having a cute little face...

Like I said I would hope I would do better than this guy but Ive never been in that situation.

I stand by the little girl to get child support from the person most able to afford it.

:sarcasm:

After all, you're as much the father as this guy.

Let the state welfare system cover it. Then the child doesn't suffer any consequences and the man doesn't pay for a child that wasn't his.

You keep saying that being a dad isn't just DNA. However, do you know if that guy would have stayed with the mother had he known she was carrying someone else's child. He raised that child because he thought it was his kid! So, he tried to do the right thing.

Standing by the child doesn't mean that we abrogate our overall sense of justice.
The Professor

not know or refuse to share who the father is. seeming to me the finger to point is at the woman.... dontcha think. i am so opposed to the judge and disgusted that anyone would feel the woman not "responsible" and go after a man lied to. wow.... on that and puke

making a father that isnt.... it means an honesty and taking care of the needs without using another human. that means, if the mother cannot fulfill her responsiblity, we the state take care of that little girl who is innocent of her MOTHERS irresponsibilities. to teach that little girl paying in such an injust manner is the way of our society is a betrayal to the little girl

how arrogantly you stand "by the little girl" at anothers expense. try standing by the little girl, and being just.

with loving and caring for a child. If this were me and I had been this little girl's father for 10 years, no one, but no one, would ever tell me I wasn't her father! This is the most sickening thing I can think of! He is still that little girls father, even if he is too big a scum-bag to acknowledge it. I don't give a fuck about the mother of the father - only the little girl. It is too bad that the guy she always thought of as her dad, is such a loser - tool...

the man is not the father, in any form. you are suggesting him paying will make him the father. not. it is ALL on the mothers shoulders.

he wants to dump her, because her DNA isn't right? We aren't fucking animals!

We are animals, we're just on the upper end of the food chain.

Do you mean to say that the stork really is the one who brings us babies??

silly u.

cute

This man raised and loved this child all her life and now suddenly cuts her off, and she must deal with the loss of the only father she's ever known, because her DNA isn't up to his approval? The emotional damage alone will be horrendous and it appears all this man cares about is money. Most real men I know would continue to love and care for the child without regard to the fact that she doesn't share his blood. Punish the mother, not the child. And taking away the only father she's ever known is a horrendous, life-ruining punishment. To hell with this man and his sole focus on money.

law. where the emotion is not part of the equation. you cannot make a father by making him pay. are you suggesting because he is not man enough to love this girl, innocent girl, no fault of hers she has a mother that cant get it right, any better than the father.....that paying for her is going ot some how make this girl feel ANY better? it is a penalty to this man for not being man enough. that is not what our laws should be. mother pays repercussions for HER fuck ups and the father, legitimate father that may not even know he has a daughter cause of this womans poor choices.

instead of text bs, I'd be more inclined to respond.

But anyway, what I meant was that he's been the only father this girl has known all of her life. He's loved and cared for her as a father and if he's going to cut her off because her DNA doesn't suit him and if all he cares about is money and not this child, then the hell with him. What the court is doing is ensuring that the best interests of the child are taken care of, and that's what this ruling does. And, btw, it is based on solid law in most states.

on this thread!

:grr:

i take care of my children. i dont fuck around not knowing who the damn father is or trying to rope some man in to take care of a baby for whatever reason. i not only take care of my children, i take care of my nieces and nephews because of parents that are not capable, willing or able to take care of their own. i volunteer taking care of other peoples children because they dont parent and take care of their own. it takes a village. it is not pinning a man who is not the father to pay his way to fatherhood, understanding that doesnt work. it takes the community picking up the slack on ALL these children that are NOT being parented.

that you have such an emotional play on the right and wrong of the law, that is dry, that is not about emotion is your issue.... but to even preceive that you have the high road on loving, caring for fellow human beings is not only arrogant, .... stupid, ..... but wrong.

would abandon her. That is where you and I differ...

i cannot state to you how bottom line pathetic it is for you to assume, because legally i do not believe a man not the father should be made to pay child support means i care more about him, less about the girl, or per you.... i dont care about the little girl at all. that is such limited thinking on your part

shame on you

i dont CARE about the man at all. i agree with you all that it would be pathetic if this man did have a ten year relationship as father (though that doesnt seem to be the reality seeing he was divorced within two years of the kids life, we dont know relationship) to this girl and wanted to ditch or abandon her. i dont have to like him. i do not have to respect him. i dont have to think much at all about him to feel he does not have to legally pay for this child when he was lead to believe it was his to find out it is not. and i can be outraged that any woman would use a baby to use a man in this mannner.....

and still, .... i can unconditionally love this child i do not know and want the best for her.

go after the mom. it is the moms job to take care of this child. and the natural father, that may have been left out in the cold, that may very much want his daughter and may not have ever been told.....

that too appauls and outrages me.... if that were to be the case.

we dont know

we dont know all the many poor poor choices any of these people make

maybe none of the three want the child. maybe they are all users. maybe all three are good people doing the best each can. none of us know.

Your statement appears to be quite out of line and dramatically disingenuous at best.

That you infer she does not care about the child in question simply because she states her concern for the law is an invalid use of the "or" qualifier.

Caring for one does not preclude caring for the other...

concern being totally placed on the man who's suddenly cutting himself off from an innocent child shoe only crime is that he's suddenly discovered that she doesn't share his DNA. He has loved and treated her as his daughter for ten years, all of her life, in short, he's BEEN THE FATHER to her, the only one she's ever known. Most men I know who'd find themselves in that situation would continue to love and care for the child, as they would have formed an attachment that would not easily have been shaken off. How he can walk away and cut himself off from her like that and make it all about the money and then still look at himself in the mirror and call himself a human being is beyond my understanding.

Yes, the mother was wrong. But punishing the child by taking away the only father she's ever known is not, is never, the answer. THAT is what is arrogant, stupid and just plain wrong, PERIOD. I've seen the damage this kind of things does to children, they never get over it. For this "man" to only concern himself with money is truly sickening. The court is upholding the best interests of the child, which is what it's supposed to do.

where in the article does it say he has BEEN THE FATHER. and is it his fault if mom lied to him and the daughter. shouldnt the outrage be on the mom. who says there was an attachment. the adults had been divorced before the kid was two. how often did he visit? how close were they? did they even live in the same state?

you are making a lot of your story up here.

i dont have to like the man. i dont have to respect the man. i dont have to think much about the man at all defend his right to not pay money for a child that is not his. a child the wife said was his adn later said it was not. what i would do, what you would do is irrelevant.

i do not have to like a kkk member to stand up for his right to speak out.
i do not have to like smoke to stand up for a smokers right to smoke
i do not have to like porn to stand up for those that want it in their life
i do not have to like abortions to stand up for a womans right to chose.

you are putting this on an emotional level and of punishment to the man for his moral character. that is not what law is to me

are being met regardless of convenience or fairness to the parents. And that's what it's doing in this case. Chances are, if he's paid support for ten years, he's been involved as her father and has established a relationship with her. Again. The law's job is to ENSURE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD ARE BEING MET REGARDLESS OF CONVENIENCE OR FAIRNESS TO THE PARENTS. And that is what the law is doing in this case.

That means that there would be plenty of assets to take care of her.

But the dude in this case is not one of "the parents"

"The law's job is to ensure that the best interests of the child"

Its the laws job to make sure our rights are not stepped on by either other citizens or the government as a whole. That is the rights of young and old, black and white, male and female, gay and straight, and Little Girl and non related older Man duped into caring for the mothers cheating ways.

I find it quite funny that you keep spouting it out as if it is a legitimate argument somehow. In reality, it's nothing but an empty strawman and it's laughable in it's logic.

This isn't about 'standing by the little girl'. It's about simply what is logical and right. No person who is of no relation or guardianship to a child should EVER be forced by the courts to directly support that child. I find the notion to be utterly ridiculous.

We have social programs for just that reason; to support those in need. Ya don't force a non parent to pay and claim it's standing by the little girl. If you want to stand by her then pay yourself. This guy was fucked with in so many ways and the last thing he should do is pay a dime further. I would hope the little girl got all that she needed, but that should come from normal routes as every other child of a single parent; not out of force from some guy who isn't even the father. Your argument is ridiculous.

saying "you stand by the little girl" is a cold-hearted lie, you have never put yourself out one penny for this little girl

to beat this man and everyone over the head with your spiritual elitism. You think you are so much better than others because you ARE LOOKING OUT FOR THE CHILD. What crap.

We know the man claims she said he's not the father, and we know the man claims he had a paternity test that proved it. We don't know that either of these claims is true, nor do we know that the mother "had enough men to not know or refuse to share who the father is."

We don't know her side at all.

What actions is "dad" being held responsible for?

Then open your wallet...

> What actions is "dad" being held responsible for?

He was foolish enough not to take appropriate action
when originally cuckolded.

He probably thought he was doing the right thing
at the time.

Now that (likely) kindness has come back to hurt him.

Tesha

just so they wont be foolish enough to believe their woman having a baby is their very own.

oooooosh.... what a statement to make. i wouldnt want to be in your shoes

he was duped. Why should some random guy pay child support for a kid who isn't his because he was lied to?

Are you standing by the little girl, or what?

has been this little girl's father her whole life, he is an asshole for turning his back on her now. If it were me, she would always be my daughter, no matter what...

step up and agree to become the kid's make believe dad? Not only can you start paying her mother child support, you can repay the other pretend father for all the money he had to pay for the girl that was not his daughter.

I'm guessing you wouldn't be to quick to "stand by the little girl" if it meant YOU had to open your wallet and pay for a kid that wasn't yours.

You own me a kb

She wanted to tell you, "Stop standing by me and give me your damn money!"

why don't you call them.

If you guys on this thread are what passes for "men" these days, then it is no wonder we are in the shape we are in. A child needs a dad, the genetics don't matter. That it seems to be the only thing that matters to you "guys", is just a sad commentary on what passes for "progressive" these days. You should really feel good about yourselves...

and a mom.

If a man chooses to raise a child who isn't biologically his, that's great, but he shouldn't be forced into it through deceit, which is what happened here.

for a man who can be a dad for ten years - be the only dad this little girl knows - and then just dump her because of something her mother did. If you can support that kind of man, well, I can't - we'll just leave it at that...

Then go be the dad.

What a bigoted statement

:eyes:

It's unclear from the article whether he has a father/daughter relationship with her too, but he's named on the birth certificate and he's been paying child support. He may not be the biological father, but he appears to be the child's parent in every other way. Yes, it sucks if his ex knew this all along and duped him. He should go after the mother in court if he wants remedy.

Him being lied to for a long time makes it OK?

But the judge ruled weighing all of the evidence that under the law he was the father.

Had the mother never broadcast it he would have paid the support until the child was 18 and he still would have been duped. I have no idea what motivated her to deceive him or to start broadcasting the fact that he wasn't the child's biological father but I'd love to see her punished in court for it if it would help matters. Regardless the child is the one who loses.

I don't agree with it.

girl who needs him. If he had to pay double, he would still come out ahead. I can't believe that there are so many cold-hearted people on this thread, who only think about the the dad having to "pay", but never consider how much he is receiving in return...

but he didn't make that choice.

I think I'll get the court to make Bill Gates be my kid's father and pay child support. He has more money than my husband.

If a woman lies to you for ten years, you get to pay for another 8. He probably gets to see her every other weekend too.

... do you stand by the little girl? It's unclear from your previous posts.

:shrug:

We don't know what kind of relationship this man may or may not have had with the little girl after the divorce. For all we know this marriage didn't end amicably, so without any in depth information we cannot make an honest assessment of this particular situation.
Can you say with any certainty that there is a relationship between the father and the daughter, no you can't, unless you're personally involved.

Yes, we can all point out what "we" as individuals would do, but for the most part it's wishful thinking!

Because until an individual has faced a situation, they can speculate all they want on what they think they would do, but you can only be sure when you're facing it directly.

And just because someone has a different opinion on a subject doesn't make them cold-hearted.

What exactly was the action of the now step father?

"If yuh never went there, yuh name couldn't call"

I'm sure as far as the child is concerned, she thinks he is her father.

Wonder how long it will be until DNA testing at birth becomes the norm?
Hell, it might be a good idea.

i cant believe the people going after the man when the woman is solely responsible

Legally, parenting in this country is becoming less about DNA.

Now, if we want justice, he should be able to sue the mom for damages, due when the child turns 18.

This case, and many others posted here over the years, plus what I've seen locally show that not to be true.

That is about the *best* idea to come out of this thread...

From the article:
"The man raised the issue of paternity in 2006 after he claimed his ex in 2003 started making statements that he wasn't the father."

He acted as the father for ten years. In our legal system, acting like a father makes you for all intents and purposes the legitimate father. This has upsides as well as downsides.

I'm not saying this man didn't get a raw deal, but that's just how it is. Now, if he still loves this girl, but wants to stick it to his ex wife then he should get custody and make his ex wife pay him support. If suddenly he finds that this kid not having his DNA means that he's going to stomp on this girls feelings (a girl who obviously grew up with him as her father), then he's a dick.

If you want to avoid this situation at all costs, get DNA testing at birth. Is been around for quite a while now.

Why not make the biological father pay? :shrug:

What the fraud against the man in question here perpetrated by the biological father?
Seems to me, the one who should be paying is the mom. But at no point should the child suffer. Her interests win out.
I still think he should be able to go after the mother for this, but I don't think she should have to pay until the child is 18.

Who knows where the biological father is. Heck, is the biological father even known? Would it be right to stick it to that man after 10 years, especially if he never knew?

Personally, I'd love to see it legally possible to place all the financial onus back on the mother here, but delayed, so you avoid hurting the child. That would be justice IMHO.

:shrug:

you are saying that because he was lied to by the mother, his feelings of fatherly love and his obligations as father should be terminated the moment he realized he was lied to because he does not share a biological tie?

I disagree. I think that the mother should face punitive consequences, but the child should not. The child believes him to be her father, and it sounds like she's come up on the low end of the lottery of life. A lying mother and a jackass who obviously never cared for her at all if he can break his father-daughter relationship with her over that lie.

at a moment of his choosing, not the State's. And, apparently, that moment is now (or in 2006 when the original suit was filed)

legal "responsibility" by signing his name to a birth certificate or paying child support the law views the child as his regardless of dna, regardless of circumstances, etc.

i think the courts want SOMEONE to support the child other than the state, and once you legally sign on then you're the one!

now--as far as some guy who has been co-raising a child and after several years finds out he is not the biological father and wants to cut loose--that's something else. and, whether or not the courts allow him to, the fact that he wants to be rid of the child is very sad. (how do you turn your love off like a faucet when you love someone?) and how sad for the kid--losing the father that child has known and loved and counted on and needed.

someone mentioned this upthread--you want to make sure do the dna testing before ANYTHING.

as for women who do this--i believe there are times when it is not intentional (perhaps she is uncertain), and the ones who intentionally deceive their partner .... well, that's a whole other story!

and the article says NOTHING about how much he has been in the child's life since then, apart from the support checks.

According to the court's decision, he had the paternity test in 2004, but it wasn't until 2006 that he challenged it in court.

We also don't know the veracity of his claims--either of what he claims the mother said (she still maintains that he is absolutely the father) or what he claims about the paternity test itself.

If you haven't successfully challenged paternity within two years of the birth of a child to your spouse, there is nothing you can do about it.

Rules of evidence - Paternity test more than two years after the fact is inadmissable.

Wonder how long it will be until DNA testing at birth becomes the norm?
Hell, it might be a good idea.

From the perspective of a man, a three-way blood test is the minimum you should get if you have any doubt at all. It happened to a friend of mine, whom I will call "Joe". Of course his soon-to-be-ex-wife-and-single-mom pitched a fit about how he wouldn't insist on a test if he really loved her.

:eyes:

There was one scene of levity in that situation. When the baby was a month old, there was a party at my Joe's parents' house for someone's birthday. The baby's mother said "Doesn't he have Joe's eyes?

Joe's mom had had a few glasses of wine. She said sharply "No he doesn't!"

Good on your friend "Joe" for finding out in time.

The cognitive dissonance and goading by his friends and relatives finally got to him.

Those, and the dirty diapers. :-)

My girls actually looked like my baby picture and given my Wife is another race that says something about Irish Genetics ;)

His wife was horrified and I give the man credit he took his wifes word against the test and after 30 minutes of badgering got them to redo the test, turns out they had swapped the results.. The thing that *really* gives this guy props in my eyes is that this kid is a result of a snipping that reversed itself after 5 years :0

(BTW this was confirmed at a later date)

Therefore it will never happen.

Men must be really sick of being treated as second-class citizens all the time - time to rise up against the oppressive yoke of matriarchy!

It is a mans responsibility to be held accountable for a womans misdeeds. Also, the interests of children entirely trumps the interest of whomever mom wants to arbitrarily choose as "dad".

It a (I say "the") fundamental manifestation of the patriarchy, and one which is enshrined in our laws. It's the edge of the sword that no one has seen fit to blunt.

honestly. Allow the man to opt out if he wants, but i think it should be standard regardless. If I push a baby out of me, I know without any doubt it's mine, and men should really have that same level of knowledge.

I don't think this happens very often but I know it does happen, and they do so many blood tests in the hospital after birth anyway, I don't see why they can't just do this one other one.

The data is all over the place. Disputed paternity cases are a bad sample population. Some of the blind studies were better and yet the data is so hugely varied that you cannot really say much of anything other than: 'wow, its probably much higher than you expect'. I'm actually shocked.

There are very few broad studies which indicate that it's outside that range.

Buried on that site is a stat that 27 point-something percent of DNA tests result in exclusion, but those tests were conducted because someone had a reason to request the test.

and had another man taking care of things.... geez. i am so pissed at the woman, and everyone is going after the men

If I were him I'd file a civil suit against her and get the money back.

The mother should have to pay him back all the payments with interest.

the skank mother of that child is a thief.

The child belongs with the person who did not lie about her parentage. I say let the man have custody of her and force the woman to pay child support.

In Norfolk about 14 years ago, there was this girl about 19 or 20 who got around the neighborhood...REALLY got around...So much so to the point where when she got pregnant, she took FOUR men to court for child support...long story short, the first three men were all unemployed lowlifes in their early 20s with spotty police records...so of course the judge orders the fourth man to pay child support (respectable, middle 30s, steady middle-class job) even though DNA proved he was NOT the father...

A man who never acted as a father, not married to the woman, with DNA tests proving he wasn't the father ordered to become the father?

Color me skeptical about that.

After all, the welfare of the child would usually be promoted by getting child support from the richest guy in the neighborhood.

was that he was the only one who could even pay anything...i can't remember if the guy ever bought anything for the baby or donated money/time, but if he did, it would have been minimal...I don't blame you for not believing it, but it did happen (i was in HS at the time and was scared to death that something similar could happen to me)

it was such a strange ruling, his attorney said he would appeal, but i never read anything in the newspaper about it after that...not long after, i moved away for college...I did always intend to try and look it up...

they are making a mockery of the system.

this whole 'somebodys gotta take responsibility' that the judge felt he was high and mighty enough to bestow on this poor guy is just outrageous.

and once again the person who ACTUALLY should be responsible gets off the hook...
one kinda message does this send to deadbeat dads?
find ur ex a good guy and ur home free!

The lesson seems to be, if you date a single mom, don't do it for too long if you don't want to be stuck with the kid's bills.

guy comes forward to make a claim and some court rules that he is now the legal father.


If guys are so worried about making child support they should never get married and should never sign a birth certificate in the first place. And if some woman tells them it is their kid, they should demand a DNA test.

Once you agree to be the father a child, there is no going back, same as if he was a woman who gave birth. Men need to act like grown up responsible people when it comes to children. Don't just claim a baby to make your girlfriend happy. When you are a dad, you are a dad forever. There is no escape clause, and if you try to make an escape clause, you are no better than a mom who dumps her kids somewhere.

How do your kids feel if you divorce the mom because you no longer love her and then you say "I'm divorcing from the kids, too, because I don't want to give them any of my money." ? And now they are struggling to get money for clothes and doctor bills. They feel like shit.

:grr:

I am so fed up with irresponsible men who think that it only takes one parent---a mother--to raise a child.

case law that children born to a married couple are presumed to be fruit of that marriage. (dates from before DNA testing)


And dammit, being a mom or being a dad is about a whole hell of lot more than DNA.

If it turns out my son is not mine, biologically speaking, I would still walk through hell to keep another man from laying fatherly claim to him.

why wouldn't you sign it?

Neither I nor my wife were ever required to sign the birth certificate.

UPS????

:rofl:

Yeah, so the woman in this case isn't responsible for this.

A PROBLEM?

"The presumption of paternity regardless of biology goes back centuries. Most state laws are based on Medieval English common law, which assumed that a married woman's husband fathered all of her children. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this presumption in 1989 when it gave a custodial father rights over a noncustodial biological father."

That's an interesting last line. A custodial NONBIOLOGICAL father can also exert rights as well as be held responsible.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/ABC_Duped_Dads_02OCT02.aspx

I am personally annoyed with men crying victim, particularly when women are so often held responsible for public morals and birth control.

and that's from sixteen years first hand experience. Real fathers walk away free and clear while a boyfriend has to pay? What's next sperm donor's pay too, oh wait that already happened.

By your logic adoptive fathers can walk away at any time too.

I detected personal bitterness here. I am sorry you had a bad experience. I myself would never dream of visiting such a thing up on a man, and wish all human beings, male and female, would do the same. However, hating on women is not the answer.

An adoptive father actually signs a legal document in which he is taking that responsibility, with full knowledge that the child is NOT biologically his.

That's a choice being made fully and freely with all legal attachments and full knowledge of the situation.

In this situation, the fatherhood responsibilities taken on by this man were done so as a result of being defrauded.

You're comparing apples to oranges.
The Professor

who has been "his" for 10 years just because he found out the sperm wasn't his?

a big selfish shitstain of an asswipe, that's what kind.

How does he explain himself to his daughter?

It wasn't his child.

so what???

i am not getting this woman has no responsibility in this creation and the man has ALL the responsibility

as a parent of the child.

Regardless of who contributed the sperm, this man has been the only father this child has known. So they divorced ... did he stop loving her and caring for her when they divorced? Did he never see her, spend time with her? Did he never do any parenting of her?

I'd love to see him explain his selfishness to his daughter ... "yeah honey, i know i'm the only father you've ever known, and that was cool as long as i thought you came from my sperm, but now that i know you don't, well, too bad, so sad, better luck next time. i know your mother was wrong to screw around on me, but you know, i have no personal honor so since SHE was bad first, then i get to be an asshole too! Whew! gets me out of child support! have a nice life kid."

just because the mother was an asshole is no reason/excuse/justification for him to be one too.

nowhere does it say he is cutting her off and has no contact with her. Why do you presume the worst?

2. You're putting a huge amount of words into his mouth. He's just trying to lower his payments, not leave a 10 year old girl stranded at a truck stop in the desert!

3. You're complaining about the girl's feelings - how do you think he would feel, finding out that 10 years of his life was a lie? Thjat's a bit hard for anyone to swallow.

she may not have lived with him for much of the time. Also sounds like mom was a bit nasty about things. See below.

From the article:

The girl was born in 1997 and the man and his ex-wife divorced in 1999.

The man raised the issue of paternity in 2006 after he claimed his ex in 2003 started making statements that he wasn't the father.

The man claims a DNA test showed he wasn't.

he was out of the door in less than 2 -- NOT the BIOLOGICAL FATHER -- but some here think that he is a jackass for contesting the FRAUD that was perpetrated against HIM and the ten-year old girl.

So technically he really doesn't have to explain anything to his daugher as he doesn't have one. However, the issue is not what he has to explain to this child, but rather does he have a legal obligation to provide for her, and if so, why? If an obligation was incurred due to fraud, as it was in this case, not in good faith, why then should the obligation be continued once the fraud is uncovered?

the law presumes that a child born of a married couple was fathered by the husband. Proving otherwise, does not change the presumption. This same type of case was in the news about 2 or 3 years ago. In that case and Indiana judge ruled the husband had to pay child support to his ex-wife for a son that the he proved via DNA was not his. May not be fair but it was Indiana state law.

Yeah.. as if this child isn't a constant reminder of his ex's infidelity. Do you have the slightest idea how difficult that is? You look at a child and all you can see is the woman you loved fucking some other guy. But yeah..he's the bad guy here..

... a lot of people making a lot of assumptions about what this girl is going through but are damn sure he should remain the "father".

What the fuck is wrong with the courts? Ya know what? It would be in each fatherless child's best interest if each single rich person was forced to pay child support to them too, but I don't see the courts mandating that or anything. Child's best interest does not equal forcing payment from a person who is of no relation; period. Totally insane ruling.

he has a daughter? I really feel for this little girl.

If you mess around with unstable, deceitful women then you are putting yourself into jeopardy, and the law works against you. When you want to mess around, hire a professional and use a condom.

Men sleep around all the time, but there's less obvious evidence.

There are a lot of women that sleep around and entrap men into unwanted pregnancies.

males that dont bother with a condom.....

i hear ya

neither gender is all pure, neither is all sin

Problem solved.

Eliminating heterosexuality from your life would better solve this problem. Condoms can break, you know.

ah.... humor. gotta like it.

for not wanting to support the child, regardless of whether she's his own flesh and blood. Why does he think his genes are better than anyone else's? I feel sorry for the child.

I'm a newcomer to NE, so I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me I once read that in NE, paternity tests aren't allowed because they could contribute to "bastardizing" some children.

He's a total asshole and is doing tremendous emotional harm to the girl.

If I found out my 13 year-old wasn't mine, biologically, it would not change a single thing. She's everything to me. I will never understand how a parent can turn off the caring gene for a child in the case of divorce when one parent just completely bolts, or one such as this.

News stories like this really make me sad.

the link worked fine for me.

it doesn't say how much contact he's had with the kid in the past 10 years.

this guy was involved with the kids life at all. I can't see how after raising a kid for 10 years(even weekend visits or whatever) you can instantly change your feelings after finding out she's not your biological kid. Seems to me both the mother and father are assholes and are using the kid as leverage against each other.

the last ten years. if he really was a part of this childs life for a decade, i am not seeing him going after the settlement.

Why should he?

But what's legal and what's right are two different things. I know if that kid thought I was her father and I was the only father she ever knew I wouldn't be able to walk away from that responsibility. Mind you this opinion rides on the relationship he has with the kid which is not detailed in the article.

after all, the judge is just as much a father of the girl as the guy is.

Making this other poor schmuck be her dad isn't in her best interests.

We only know that he claims to have had a DNA test that proved he wasn't the father.

"That's not right!"

Avoid single moms. Let them find some other sucker.

A significant percent of kids born in wedlock are actually sired by men other than the husband. They've figured this out via genetic studies. I forget the actual number, but it's surprisingly high.

Obviously, most men never find this out. Who does dna tests on their kids, after all?

In the case cited by the OP, the child was born during the marriage. It was only years later he learned it was not his child. But children born in wedlock are legally the children of both parents. In effect, he was asking to divorce his own kid. This is not something we as a society really want to do.

The decision was absolutely correct.

... find a good provider, but surreptitiously obtain better genes elsewhere. Best of both worlds.

and perpetrated a fraud, she should have the child taken away from her and this guy should be awarded custody.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

good bad or inbetween we can talk ourselves into about anything with a little justification, and all being human and non perfect, that is exactly the animal we will continue being.

such anger and hatred. sad. i can also understand. especially in a case like this

being female, .... i am appauled, angry and as outraged as you. one of the reasons is the short end of the stick that i have watched males get when it comes to things like this. the mother can be the worst and hte father the best, and i watch the male get screwed. and i fight, and speak out.

plenty of my opinion above in the thread adressing a male opposing view.

but seeing the injustice of this i can equally balance the bullshit males commit to women and not suggest that there are not areas with the male gender to address in my blind anger to females who behave like this or that ALL females have so little ethics or morals, just as not all men are pigs......

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Personally, I can clearly understand why this guy would go "Postal" on the woman and all who decided this bullshit decision. And that is exactly what it is... BULLSHIT!

I would go to prison, before I paid this bitch a dime. Yes, exactly what she is. Now defend her and the noble sisterhood.

The amount of woman hating venom on this thread is disgusting, most of it having very little to do with the article but a lot to do with having an excuse to spew this shit. I've got a whole new list of people I REALLY don't like.

there's as much man-hating going on in here as woman-hating.

to and about women in this thread is staggering. I haven't seen anything near that level of base hatred and disdain for men.

Hatred for a liar, cheat, manipulator, fraud, etc. etc. ??? Oh yes, I'm sure you have happy fuzzy thoughts about a rapist and con-artist that steals from women.

I have an issue with. Which you are so conveniently ignoring even though I've explained that several times.

If you and others had stuck to using terms like liar, cheat, manipulator, I'd have no problem. It's when words such as whore, skank, bitch, etc are used and broad negative generaliztions are made against an entire gender that I call misogyny. Replace the word women with blacks in some of the statements made here, seems really fucking unpleasant then, doesn't it?

Furthermore, it is bullshit that someone would not recognize how this would piss men off, after men have to take it on the chin for things other men do.

And do not think for one damn minute that this is the only woman who has done this. Also, I did not introduce race into this argument, so I suggest you check your reckless fire.

We'll just assume that any time a man is wronged by a woman, he should just take it like a man, and any time a woman is wronged by a man, he should be punished like a man. Otherwise, we'd all be misogynists.

But the cries of whore, skank, bitch, all women are cold hearted conniving scum, etc all through this thread are NOT cool.