• 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

clownboy said:
We've been able to determine paternity for a long, long time now and I don't believe that a child born in a marriage is legally the husband's child once it's been determined he is not in fact the biological father.
Click to expand...

Your own link is quite clear. In the 1970's, the test was 80% accurate (and sometimes worse than that) and could not differentiate at all between related fathers. It wasn't until the 1980's that the test was 99.99% accurate. And thus definitive.
 
clownboy said:
We've been able to determine paternity for a long, long time now and I don't believe that a child born in a marriage is legally the husband's child once it's been determined he is not in fact the biological father.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want, but several States have upheld child support-- and custody-- decisions on that very basis.
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

If she has kids from a previous relationship, a man is not the legal father unless he adopts them. If he is the legal father, as this person was, he should be responsible.
 
clownboy said:
We've been able to determine paternity for a long, long time now and I don't believe that a child born in a marriage is legally the husband's child once it's been determined he is not in fact the biological father.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently it's assumed that in THIS court case. Do you have others that shows this should not be the case?
 
Muddy Creek said:
I have to agree. His spite is directed at the wife, but the children are the ones caught in the crossfire. I agree with the law in that he continues to pay child support.
Click to expand...

What if its not about spite? What if its about continuing your lineage? If he is duped into paying for someone elses lineage and courts enforce it then how can he pay for his own blood kids if he chooses to have them? It is greedy to place the burden on the non-biological father. He was bait and switched with life itself. The desire to procreate is instinct. This man is shouldering the burden of someone elses procreation. In the wild a predator would simply eat the young. I think letting him walk away without having to pay for the kid until adulthood is reasonable. Just because he happened to be a good father for so long is irrelevant. The kids are lucky he was there as long as he was.

Stuff like this just empowers sluts to cherry pick throughout society. Cherry picking the resources of this man with the libido of this other man. Im sorry but the wife/mother is fully to blame here. It sucks. I know. But to shovel this on some innocent dude is double-travesty. Its his choice to be a hero or not. Not societies + courts choice to force him to be a hero.
 
Henrin said:
I would very much like to know the percentage of men that sign a birth certificate not thinking they are the father? I'm guessing right around 99% percent of them thought they were the father and consider it void if its found they are not.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. But ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they say.
 
MaggieD said:
Your own link is quite clear. In the 1970's, the test was 80% accurate (and sometimes worse than that) and could not differentiate at all between related fathers. It wasn't until the 1980's that the test was 99.99% accurate. And thus definitive.
Click to expand...

Well, that's almost true. What you are seeing is the exclusion rate. That's how the tests used to work, they didn't verify you as the biological parent, but rather excluded you if you weren't. However, the exclusion only worked in some cases. If they could not exclude you, you got an indeterminate result. So, in a percentage of cases we could absolutely exclude folks from being the biological parent.
 
MaggieD said:
You're probably right. But ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they say.
Click to expand...

Yes, well, you see if a man doesn't sign the birth certificate the relationship might not last. ;) It's not exactly one of those things you can look at her and say "I think we should have a DNA test done" to back up your assumption that she didn't cheat on you.

Eitherway, its pretty clear no man should ever sign that fraudulent contract again if the condition of biologically doesn't matter.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, well, you see if a man doesn't sign the birth certificate the relationship might not last. ;)

Eitherway, its pretty clear no man should ever sign that fraudulent contract again if the condition of biologically doesn't matter.
Click to expand...



a person should not sign something they believe to be untrue
where have i heard that before?
 
Henrin said:
Yes, well, you see if a man doesn't sign the birth certificate the relationship might not last. ;)

Eitherway, its pretty clear no man should ever sign that fraudulent contract again if the condition of biologically doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

You know, some men want to have children and want to be able to keep their children.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
You know, some men want to have children and want to be able to keep their children.
Click to expand...

Good point. That just means men will have to sign a contract that puts them in a bad situation if its found they are not the father. What a wonderful contract, eh?
 
justabubba said:
a person should not sign something they believe to be untrue
where have i heard that before?
Click to expand...

Sure thing. The thing is they believe it is TRUE, but it's not. If its not true, the contract should be void as its based on lies.
 
MaggieD said:
You're probably right. But ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they say.
Click to expand...

But there's no law to ignore here. You're registering your child, or a child you believe to be yours, with the state. Just as with your car. If you get material facts wrong on the registration the state will withdraw the registration once the error is noticed. It's a little different with the birth certificate info because there are assumptions made that are not verified by the state (or anyone really). They ASK who the father is, and the state does not care what you answer, they are just looking for someone who will take responsibility.

Now, if that person took responsibility, or it was assigned them in absentia (happens a lot) and it was done fraudulently or with false info, that gives the person listed on the birth cert an out later when the correct info is discovered (provided they didn't know).
 
Henrin said:
Sure thing. The thing is they believe it is TRUE, but it's not. If its not true, the contract should be void as its based on lies.
Click to expand...
he signed it as a valid document
the signatory's failure to perform due diligence prior to executing said document falls on him
 
justabubba said:
he signed it as a valid document
the signatory's failure to perform due diligence prior to executing said document falls on him
Click to expand...

Interestingly, that is the same logic used in fraud cases. In this case, the woman is the person that put forward the fraud and the contract in question upholds her fraud.
 
clownboy said:
But there's no law to ignore here. You're registering your child, or a child you believe to be yours, with the state. Just as with your car. If you get material facts wrong on the registration the state will withdraw the registration once the error is noticed. It's a little different with the birth certificate info because there are assumptions made that are not verified by the state (or anyone really). They ASK who the father is, and the state does not care what you answer, they are just looking for someone who will take responsibility.

Now, if that person took responsibility, or it was assigned them in absentia (happens a lot) and it was done fraudulently or with false info, that gives the person listed on the birth cert an out later when the correct info is discovered (provided they didn't know).
Click to expand...

We are arguing complicated legalities here. Laws differ from state to state. Unless a poster is an attorney, they don't know the definitive answer. They have opinions. If a poster is an attorney? They still might not know without some research. And, in any case, an attorney should be answering "in MY state".
 
Lot of presumption going on here. There is no reason to presume that he had any idea that these kids weren't biologically his before the marriage began to break down. Demanding he should have paternity tested them earlier is like claiming he should have divorced the woman earlier.

Biology doesn't determine parenthood, but an informed choice does. This man didn't have that.
 
Henrin said:
Good point. That just means men will have to sign a contract that puts them in a bad situation if its found they are not the father. What a wonderful contract, eh?
Click to expand...

Two points.

One, once the man signs that contract, he is the father, legally and morally.

Two, he's more than welcome to have the paternity test performed before he signs it. If he isn't willing to do that because he's afraid of pissing off the mother, then it's his own stupid fault.
 
Henrin said:
Interestingly, that is the same logic used in fraud cases. In this case, the woman is the person that put forward the fraud and the contract in question upholds her fraud.
Click to expand...

and the estranged spouse should have his day in court, at his own time and expense. nothing has deprived him of that opportunity to evidence fraud
 
I do not think he should have to pay anything.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Do most married couples routinely have paternity tests done when they're expecting a baby?
Click to expand...

Now you've done it...put doubt in peoples' minds..... :lamo

Enjoy your sense of humor!
 
MaggieD said:
We are arguing complicated legalities here. Laws differ from state to state. Unless a poster is an attorney, they don't know the definitive answer. They have opinions. If a poster is an attorney? They still might not know without some research. And, in any case, an attorney should be answering "in MY state".
Click to expand...

Agreed, and to further complicate this it's NOT an American case but a Canadian one.

However, there are some elements of the discussion I can speak upon authoritatively. I did quite a lot of work in PEDS and OB/GYN when I was a nurse in California and Oregon. I know for a fact we did not verfiy any of the info given us by the mother for inclusion on the birth cert. I know for a fact the father section is filled out to be whatever the mother chooses to put there. I know for a fact the father's signature is not required and we only ask for it to make them feel included. I know for a fact it's ONLY to register the child with the state and now, the feds.
 
polgara said:
Now you've done it...put doubt in peoples' minds..... :lamo

Enjoy your sense of humor!
Click to expand...

I'm just a naive seeker of knowledge - perhaps Americans are all just auditioning for a spot on Jerry Springer or Maury
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm just a naive seeker of knowledge - perhaps Americans are all just auditioning for a spot on Jerry Springer or Maury
Click to expand...

it would seem this fellow had at least THREE occasions for doubt ... and a subsequent test
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom