• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

It absolutely does matter. If he acted as the parent then he is legally liable. Courts and the law always put the welfare of the children ahead of the adults. Men who obviously weren't the child's parent but allowed the woman and child to live with for some time have been liable for child support.

Sorry, that's just not true, at least here in the US. Canada, maybe so.
 
No, caring for a child as a father is taking the role of father while being the father of the child is a biological question. The bio father can take up the role of fatherhood, but some random boyfriend later on can not just become the father by some completely socially created event as living together.

No, it isn't. A person who raises a child is a parent.

He can become the father for all practical purposes if he raises the child, and he can become the legal father if he goes through some legal hoops. But in the this case, the man in question is both the practical and the legal father.

Perhaps he shouldn't have waited, but why should he be punished for that?

Because, at this point, there are 4 children between the ages of 9 and driving age who all think of him as their father, and who can be substantially harmed by his sudden absence.

Because he is legally the father.

Because he already MADE a decision to be the father, and once you have made that decision, you can't simply walk away from it.
 
So to you, it is absolutely irrelevant whether he's the biological father or not? The only thing that matters is that he married a whore?

Pretty much, yeah. He should have had the option to refuse the children when they were born... but even if he had been given the option, it's pretty clear that he wouldn't have exercised it at the time.

What does the fact that he married a whore have to do with the fact that years later, he's turning his back on his own children?
 
First of all, a court can direct the DA to open a case. They do it all the time with deadbeat dads, which is what the court should have done here for the biological fathers of the three.

We're not sure of how or why this court ruled as it did. Could be Canadian law, but I doubt it, otherwise we'd be hearing about a lot of Canadian ex-boyfriends paying for children that weren't theirs by biology or adoption.

Ah - well apparently they had the option (I'm assuming it's the same in Canada - seems like it's pretty standard, then) and they decided that was not in the best interest of the children.

Because that's what it's about in the end - isn't it?

Explains it all, then . . . why - just exactly HOW - is conjuring up 3 fathers from their mother's unknown past a benefit to the kids, here? Unless they WANT it - it shouldn't be forced on them. . . all over finacial 'obligations' ? Well are you also supporting the now divorced man to be able to sue all 3 for his 'investment' in said children?
 
That would be impossible to do in this case since even the mother didn't know her husband wasn't the father of the three other children until the father had the paternity tests done during the divorce proceedings.

That's why I said "prefer."

Although, in such a case, I think the man should make his intention to paternity test clear during the pregnancy.

If he does not do this, then it is akin to a woman who just had a baby asking for an abortion. You should have done that a long time ago.

I am as flagrantly pro-choice as it's possible to get, but some decisions have a time limit simply because they exist within a window. This is one such case. You can't miss the window by a decade and then ask for a do-over.
 
It absolutely does matter. If he acted as the parent then he is legally liable. Courts and the law always put the welfare of the children ahead of the adults. Men who obviously weren't the child's parent but allowed the woman and child to live with for some time have been liable for child support.

Yes, well, I'm not for however harsh that might sound. Just because you live with a woman for X amount of time shouldn't mean anything towards financial support of children you didn't help create. If I break up with a woman and she has kids from some prior relationship that shouldn't effect me just because I lived with this woman for a year, a decade, or however long it might of been. If I had any responsibly towards those kids it just responsibly I decided to have when with her, but when that is gone, so is the responsibility, since its not my kids.
 
here is the salient excerpt from that article:
there is a thread on this situation in the forum
every unmarried father obligated to pay child support for the child resulting from their sperm would insist they were merely non-medically assisted sperm donors and therefor not obligated to incur child support had this case been decided in the opposite direction

I appreciate what you're saying, but the argument here by some has been that the person who has been acting as the parent is the one legally responsible for the child irrespective of where the sperm came from - I was simply trying to point out that courts don't necessarily agree.
 
So to you, it is absolutely irrelevant whether he's the biological father or not? The only thing that matters is that he married a whore?

It is irrelevant to me whether or not he is the bio father. It is relevant to me that he raised these children for many years, and is legally the father.
 
Pretty much, yeah. He should have had the option to refuse the children when they were born... but even if he had been given the option, it's pretty clear that he wouldn't have exercised it at the time.

What does the fact that he married a whore have to do with the fact that years later, he's turning his back on his own children?
Because they're not his children.

It is irrelevant to me whether or not he is the bio father. It is relevant to me that he raised these children for many years, and is legally the father.
Pretty much, yeah. He should have had the option to refuse the children when they were born... but even if he had been given the option, it's pretty clear that he wouldn't have exercised it at the time.

What does the fact that he married a whore have to do with the fact that years later, he's turning his back on his own children?

I find it clinically insane that you want to take money from a victim to give to a whore because she couldn't keep it in her pants. Not only are there zero consequences for her actions, you want to incentivize her by giving her money for it.
 
here is the salient excerpt from that article:

The state says that because he did not work through a clinic or doctor, as state law requires, he can be held responsible ...

there is a thread on this situation in the forum
every unmarried father obligated to pay child support for the child resulting from their sperm would insist they were merely non-medically assisted sperm donors and therefor not obligated to incur child support had this case been decided in the opposite direction

There we go. I'd be willing to bet that the proper clinic or doctor as the state law requires has the doner sign a whole bunch of parental right release paperwork that is missing in this case - leaving the donor legally on the hook.
 
Don't know where you were born, but a signature on a birth certificate of both parents is not a requirement in every state (or any I'm aware of). The father box, that's filled out by the nurse in charge and they ASK whomever is there for the info.

But even if he did sign, that is invalidated by the fact that it is not true. It's not a contract.

No, it isn't required, but IF HE SIGNS IT, it is his child regardless of the child's DNA.

If he did not sign it, this case would be over.

And yes, legally, it is a contract.
 
I find it clinically insane that you want to take money from a victim to give to a whore because she couldn't keep it in her pants. Not only are there zero consequences for her actions, you want to incentivize her by giving her money for it.

It has nothing to do with her fidelity. It has to do with the best interests of the children.

I'm not incentivising anything. Any man who doubts paternity should feel empowered to get a test done and walk away if he doesn't want to parent non-biological children. But not after you've been raising children halfway to adulthood. THAT is clinically insane.
 
Pretty much, yeah. He should have had the option to refuse the children when they were born... but even if he had been given the option, it's pretty clear that he wouldn't have exercised it at the time.

What does the fact that he married a whore have to do with the fact that years later, he's turning his back on his own children?

Your first statement is correct, but we don't know that your second statement is. The fact that he is challenging court ordered child support only means that he objects to providing money "through his ex-wife" to children he didn't biologically father. As I said before, he may very well still want to support the children directly without the ex-wife and the court as middlemen.
 
It is irrelevant to me whether or not he is the bio father. It is relevant to me that he raised these children for many years, and is legally the father.

We keep coming back to that main bone of contention - he is NOT legally the father. Not anymore. He's not married to the mother, doesn't have custody, isn't the biological or legal father (no adoption) and has zero parental rights under the law (US law, Canada may be different).
 
It has nothing to do with her fidelity. It has to do with the best interests of the children.

I'm not incentivising anything. Any man who doubts paternity should feel empowered to get a test done and walk away if he doesn't want to parent non-biological children. But not after you've been raising children halfway to adulthood. THAT is clinically insane.

So by your logic, taking initial responsibility for a child at the hospital is the absolute only thing that matters, right? If biology isn't a factor, we shouldn't be able to make any man take responsibility for his offspring, seeing as how we can't force him to sign anything, right? Men should be able to impregnate as many women as they want without responsibility, as long as they don't sign paperwork.
 
We keep coming back to that main bone of contention - he is NOT legally the father. Not anymore. He's not married to the mother, doesn't have custody, isn't the biological or legal father (no adoption) and has zero parental rights under the law (US law, Canada may be different).

Are you sure? I'm not at all sure. The courts consider him the legal father of the children. How does this change when they are divorced or when she dies? You'll have to cite something for many of us to believe that. I myself do not.
 
That's why I said "prefer."

Although, in such a case, I think the man should make his intention to paternity test clear during the pregnancy.
If he does not do this, then it is akin to a woman who just had a baby asking for an abortion. You should have done that a long time ago.

I am as flagrantly pro-choice as it's possible to get, but some decisions have a time limit simply because they exist within a window. This is one such case. You can't miss the window by a decade and then ask for a do-over.

Do most married couples routinely have paternity tests done when they're expecting a baby?
 
We keep coming back to that main bone of contention - he is NOT legally the father. Not anymore. He's not married to the mother, doesn't have custody, isn't the biological or legal father (no adoption) and has zero parental rights under the law (US law, Canada may be different).

None of those things determine legal parentage. He did not have to adopt the children, as they were assumed his at birth. And at least in the US, the childcare responsibility brought on by marriage doesn't just go away after divorce.
 
He was legally their father if he was listed on the Birth Certificate as such. He is their father in every sense except for sperm.

No, any name can be put in that box. I've seen one with Mickey Mouse listed. I've seen many with "unknown" listed. We would generally just ask the mother what, if anything, she wanted listed there.
 
Do most married couples routinely have paternity tests done when they're expecting a baby?

Ha, tell your wife that you want a paternity test and see how well that works out for you. It's a bull**** excuse. If the state wants to make someone permanently responsible for someone who isn't even remotely related to them, they should make paternity tests a requirement.
 
Do most married couples routinely have paternity tests done when they're expecting a baby?

No, but that doesn't negate that it's wrong to walk away from a child you raised from birth and took responsibility for after 10-15 years.
 
No, any name can be put in that box. I've seen one with Mickey Mouse listed. I've seen many with "unknown" listed. We would generally just ask the mother what, if anything, she wanted listed there.

Yes, and the woman can do that without a man present, but that does not make it legally binding. It is only binding if HE signs it.
 
Yes, and the woman can do that without a man present, but that does not make it legally binding. It is only binding if HE signs it.

Just an aside. If a man signs the birth certificate as the father, he becomes the legal father. UNLESS the legal father comes forward, goes to court and is awarded a paternity test. Then all bets are off. At least I THINK that's the case.
 
There we go. I'd be willing to bet that the proper clinic or doctor as the state law requires has the doner sign a whole bunch of parental right release paperwork that is missing in this case - leaving the donor legally on the hook.

You'd be wrong - the donor and the lesbian couple have a legal contract between the two parties that removes the donor from any legal or financial responsibility for the child - both the donor and the lesbian couple wish to honor that contract but the state is challenging it because the lesbian couple now appear to need state social assistance.
 
None of those things determine legal parentage. He did not have to adopt the children, as they were assumed his at birth. And at least in the US, the childcare responsibility brought on by marriage doesn't just go away after divorce.

All of that is wrong. Biology does indeed determine legal parentage. The assumption that they were his at birth was a false one. And as for that last, if you marry someone with children from another and then divorce them, you have zero responsibility for them after the divorce (legally as long as you didn't adopt them in the meantime).
 
Back
Top Bottom