• 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!

Does he have to pay child support ?

Does he have to pay child support ?

  • Total voters
    38
Medusa

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,861
Reaction score
7,852
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.

When Thomas’ high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.

Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.

“It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should’ve expected it but I didn’t and it hit me. I’m telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone,” he said.

The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child’s birth.





(from this thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...y-child-support-despite-not-being-father.html
 
Medusa said:
A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.

When Thomas’ high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.

Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.

“It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should’ve expected it but I didn’t and it hit me. I’m telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone,” he said.

The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child’s birth.





(from this thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...y-child-support-despite-not-being-father.html
Click to expand...


No he shouldn't. The child is not his.The fact he took care of the child for around 3 years is irrelevant. The only reason he was in that child's life is because the child's mother lied about who the father of that child is. The real father should be tracked down and made to pay.
 
Last edited:
Medusa said:
A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.

When Thomas’ high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.

Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.

“It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should’ve expected it but I didn’t and it hit me. I’m telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone,” he said.

The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child’s birth.

(from this thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...y-child-support-despite-not-being-father.html
Click to expand...

He wasn't married to her when she got pregnant. He wasn't concerned that the child might not be his until he was out the door. I can't think of any reason why he should be exempt from the law.

He should pay.
 
No, he should not be required to pay. A man shouldn't be required to support a child that isn't his. There should be no time limit.
 
MaggieD said:
He wasn't married to her when she got pregnant. He wasn't concerned that the child might not be his until he was out the door. I can't think of any reason why he should be exempt from the law.

He should pay.
Click to expand...

no he shouldnt ,maggie.nobody should have to pay anything for a lie
 
Medusa said:
no he shouldnt ,maggie.nobody should have to pay anything for a lie
Click to expand...

Why should he be exempt from the law?

I think the law should be changed, but until it is, there is no reason he should be exempt from it.

Stupid has consequences.
 
Legally probably not, but personally, I'd like to think that I wouldn't just turn my back on a kid like that.
 
MaggieD said:
Why should he be exempt from the law?

I think the law should be changed, but until it is, there is no reason he should be exempt from it.

Stupid has consequences.
Click to expand...

everybody should lie and the others should be held responsible ?this is not justice maggie
 
aKZo2R2.gif


Tell Ms Skank Britches to find get money from the real father.
 
X Factor said:
Legally probably not, but personally, I'd like to think that I wouldn't just turn my back on a kid like that.
Click to expand...

neither would I but this should not be an obligation
 
Medusa said:
A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.

When Thomas’ high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.

Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.

“It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should’ve expected it but I didn’t and it hit me. I’m telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone,” he said.

The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child’s birth.





(from this thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...y-child-support-despite-not-being-father.html
Click to expand...

Yes he should, because he did not file his challenge within the statute of limitations to file it.
 
Medusa said:
everybody should lie and the others should be held responsible ?this is not justice maggie
Click to expand...

Did anybody lie? This man was clearly sexually active with this woman, at most you can prove she was mistaken, but the man in this story chose to assume the obligation without verification he then filed his cause of action after the Statute of limitations had expired.

It's a crappy said of circumstances yes, but he had basically been this child's father and the only reason he even had the paternity test done was because of a breakdown in the relationship with the mother
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Did anybody lie? This man was clearly sexually active with this woman, at most you can prove she was mistaken, but the man in this story chose to assume the obligation without verification he then filed his cause of action after the Statute of limitations had expired.

It's a crappy said of circumstances yes, but he had basically been this child's father and the only reason he even had the paternity test done was because of a breakdown in the relationship with the mother
Click to expand...

obligation is not just here,do you see the difference ?I am a woman and find it dishonest and miserable
 
Some people confuse obligation with mercy
 
Medusa said:
obligation is not just here,do you see the difference ?
Click to expand...

Difference between what?

Obligation in a moral sense is not what's at issue, this is purely procedural. As a matter of law you get two years in this state to contest paternity, and if you do not you're legally obligated. Sucks but that's as simple as it has to be. We have laws in society for a reason
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Difference between what?

Obligation in a moral sense is not what's at issue, this is purely procedural. As a matter of law you get two years in this state to contest paternity, and if you do not you're legally obligated. Sucks but that's as simple as it has to be. We have laws in society for a reason
Click to expand...

this must be a law for biological fathers and liars ,it sucks
 
Medusa said:
A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.

When Thomas’ high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.

Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.

“It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should’ve expected it but I didn’t and it hit me. I’m telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone,” he said.

The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child’s birth.





(from this thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...y-child-support-despite-not-being-father.html
Click to expand...

The woman and her paramour should be required to pay actual financial damages plus costs plus mental damages to Thomas.
 
MaggieD said:
He wasn't married to her when she got pregnant. He wasn't concerned that the child might not be his until he was out the door. I can't think of any reason why he should be exempt from the law.

He should pay.
Click to expand...

Why do you think he wasn't concerned that the child was not his? Maybe because he didn't assume the woman he was with was a cheater? Do you want all men to think of their partners as cheaters? Do you want men to assume whenever their partner gets pregnant that she was cheating? Is that what you want? I guess in your mind every man should ask for a DNA test right away. I bet that won't send out the wrong message at all. It's not that I'm thinking you're a cheater or anything, but well, you might have cheated on me, you know.
 
Medusa said:
this must be a law for biological fathers and liars ,it sucks
Click to expand...

Well he never contested it until the divorce. Which occurred after statute of limitations.

Understand something, child support exists to insure that the child is taken care of, because what's in the best interests of society is not having starving children turning to crime/gangs/ etc and that they have a chance to get housing/education/food /support.

Obviously we want fathers to be responsible for this. However at some point a child has grown up knowing this man as his/her father and expecting this father to love snd provide for them, that's why a statute of limitations exists, after a certain amount of time has passed you can't just treat this child as a pawn in a dispute with the mother and two years or more later finding the actual father may become difficult etc. and it's simply irrelevant. He took on the obligation willingly, he didn't contest it using the legal mechanism to do so, buckle up buttercup, it's his kid now.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well he never contested it until the divorce. Which occurred after statute of limitations.

Understand something, child support exists to insure that the child is taken care of, because what's in the best interests of society is not having starving children turning to crime/gangs/ etc and that they have a chance to get housing/education/food /support.

Obviously we want fathers to be responsible for this. However at some point a child has grown up knowing this man as his/her father and expecting this father to love snd provide for them, that's why a statute of limitations exists, after a certain amount of time has passed you can't just treat this child as a pawn in a dispute with the mother and two years or more later finding the actual father may become difficult etc. and it's simply irrelevant. He took on the obligation willingly, he didn't contest it using the legal mechanism to do so, buckle up buttercup, it's his kid now.
Click to expand...

The state treats children as pawns in divorces all the time, so there goes that point of yours.
 
Henrin said:
The state treats children as pawns in divorces all the time, so there goes that point of yours.
Click to expand...

The resident meninist has entered the building with his usual non-sequitur arguments
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The resident meninist has entered the building with his usual non-sequitur arguments
Click to expand...

How is it a non-sequitur argument to point out that it's already happening? :lol: People using their children against the other party in divorce is common practice. Does that state really condemn this? Ahhh...no, they encourage the behavior.
 
Henrin said:
Why do you think he wasn't concerned that the child was not his? Maybe because he didn't assume the woman he was with was a cheater? Do you want all men to think of their partners as cheaters? Do you want men to assume whenever their partner gets pregnant that she was cheating? Is that what you want? I guess in your mind every man should ask for a DNA test right away. I bet that won't send out the wrong message at all. It's not that I'm thinking you're a cheater or anything, but well, you might have cheated on me, you know.
Click to expand...

I have listened to men on this website cry about child support for as long as I've been here. And read more than a few of these unfair stories about guys who found themselves in the same position this guy does. I think women who knowingly lie are the lowest of the low. I'm assuming when they DO lie it's because they've finally decided to pick the better man . . . Or, maybe, the real dad walked away. Neither option is pretty. The law should be changed. I think I said that.

In fact, now that I think about it, the woman is always lying because she is always unsure unless she was unconscious when she had sex. So let's call her what she is -- a liar.

Should a guy have a paternity test when he's not married to the mom? Yeah. Why not? If you're going to say he's in love and that wouldn't be nice, then why later should he have the right to change his mind and HAVE a DNA test that exonerates him from Child support?

Part of being an adult is taking care of business. Even when it makes you squirm. What would be more important to a man than making sure a child is his? IOW, there's a part of me that thinks, "Speak now or forever hold your peace."
 
Henrin said:
The state treats children as pawns in divorces all the time, so there goes that point of yours.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Spoken by a divorced dad who resents having to pay for his children, I'd guess.
 
MaggieD said:
No, they don't. Spoken by a divorced dad who resents having to pay for his children, I'd guess.
Click to expand...

I was never married nor will I ever be married. The whole institution of marriage doesn't interest me even slightly. Hell, living with a woman doesn't even interest me, so being married is unthinkable. I mean, really, why would I accept a woman in the home when all they will end up doing is ordering me around like a dog? I would would rather they stay where they are and I stay where I am. That arrangement still allows me freedom and I still get everything I want from the relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom