• 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

rocket88 said:
If he thought his wife was having affairs, he should have done the paternity tests right away. He wasn't tricked, he was a full and willing participant until 16 years later.
Click to expand...

A willing participant based on what we can assume were his wife's lies. Just because he may have suspected his wife to be a cheater, doesn't mean the kids aren't his. Nor does it negate her of her responsibility to disclose her indiscretions.
 
rocket88 said:
Considering that he didn't know they weren't his until they were 12,14, and 16 according to the article, he is probably listed on the Birth Certificate as their father. In which case, that is legal paperwork that makes him the father.

It's interesting that some of you who are normally in the "Adoption not Abortion" side are so dismissive of any definition of fatherhood that doesn't begin with sperm. As an adoptive father, I take extreme umbrage with this attitude.
Click to expand...

Don't conflate, we don't need to go there. I bolded the part above that's significant to this issue. You ARE your children's father legally - you adopted them, you took legal responsibility.
 
rocket88 said:
And Rush Limbaugh conservatives will be after you for not believing in adoption.
Click to expand...

What a clown.

Where in Hell would your adopted child be if someone such as "Rush Limbaugh Conservatives" hadn't believed in adoption?
 
clownboy said:
Don't conflate, we don't need to go there. I bolded the part above that's significant to this issue. You ARE your children's father legally - you adopted them, you took legal responsibility.
Click to expand...

And this man consented to being on the birth certificate, and was their father legally. He consented to the charade that he was their dad. Really, how dumb is this guy? 16 years and he never thought his wife had multiple affairs? There were no signs of it or anything? How unfeeling must he be to suddenly disown girls that were his daughters for 16, 14 and 12 years?
 
Ray410 said:
What a clown.

Where in Hell would your adopted child be if someone such as "Rush Limbaugh Conservatives" hadn't believed in adoption?
Click to expand...

They'd be in Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation. Avtozavodsky district.

"Rush Limbaugh Conservatives" had ZERO to do with it.
 
rocket88 said:
They'd be in Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation. Avtozavodsky district.

"Rush Limbaugh Conservatives" had ZERO to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the difference is that viewing it like Rush, you along with Rush believe in adoption over abortion, and in this case, your child would either be with you, or fertilizer.

Tim-
 
Addressing the OP,

This isn't fair, and the whole family court system in Canada and the US is a freaking joke. Anyone who has experienced it in ANY capacity can well atest to this statement. I have for many years advocated for a jury system in family court matters. It's the only fair way to make sure justice is being served to all parties including and most importantly the children of marriage.

Tim-
 
rocket88 said:
And this man consented to being on the birth certificate, and was their father legally. He consented to the charade that he was their dad. Really, how dumb is this guy? 16 years and he never thought his wife had multiple affairs? There were no signs of it or anything? How unfeeling must he be to suddenly disown girls that were his daughters for 16, 14 and 12 years?
Click to expand...

Oh cmon, people are blind to all sorts of really obvious stuff that anyone outside the relationship can see. I agree, the guy is a first class nob for disowning these kids (IF that's what he's done). But we're not talking about that.

The court essentially set this guy adrift making him pay for kids he has no other legal responsibility to and who are now not legally connected to him in any other way. If the mother were to die tomorrow, would the court, knowing he's not the biological or adopted father, give him full custody?
 
clownboy said:
Oh cmon, people are blind to all sorts of really obvious stuff that anyone outside the relationship can see. I agree, the guy is a first class nob for disowning these kids (IF that's what he's done). But we're not talking about that.

The court essentially set this guy adrift making him pay for kids he has no other legal responsibility to and who are now not legally connected to him in any other way. If the mother were to die tomorrow, would the court, knowing he's not the biological or adopted father, give him full custody?
Click to expand...

Why doesn't he have a legal responsibility?

Because he's not the biological father? So - all that parenting and upbringing was . . . what - done by ghosts?

I don't understand the firm dismissal of his role as a parent, here -- knowledge has changed, things have shifted- but that doesn't end that he was and is their father figure.

He either never loved them - or just needs time to accept this turn of events.
 
clownboy said:
The court essentially set this guy adrift making him pay for kids he has no other legal responsibility to and who are now not legally connected to him in any other way. If the mother were to die tomorrow, would the court, knowing he's not the biological or adopted father, give him full custody?
Click to expand...

Yes, they would, because he is their father. The father may get screwed in custody disputes with the mother, but father trumps every other relative and certainly trumps putting the children into the system.
 
Henrin said:
I don't see the problem here. :shrug:

If the guy isn't the father of the kids, he just isn't the father of the kids. Acting in the role of a father doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Do you think bio parents should pay all expenses of the adoptive parents they give their child to?

If not, then yes, it does make a difference.

Combining gametes does not make someone a parent. It just makes them someone who had with sex without birth control.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Yes, they would, because he is their father. The father may get screwed in custody disputes with the mother, but father trumps every other relative and certainly trumps putting the children into the system.
Click to expand...


That's not true. That would only be true if there were no claims from any blood parent, and that included grandparents. If the mothers parents claimed the children in the event of her death they NOT the none biological father would have these rights.


Child support and custody are separate issues in the family court system.

Tim-
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Why doesn't he have a legal responsibility?

Because he's not the biological father? So - all that parenting and upbringing was . . . what - done by ghosts?

I don't understand the firm dismissal of his role as a parent, here -- knowledge has changed, things have shifted- but that doesn't end that he was and is their father figure.

He either never loved them - or just needs time to accept this turn of events.
Click to expand...

Once again, take the weepy emotion out of it. Yes, he's a ****heel if he's now disowning the kids. But being a "father figure" does not put one on the hook for child support, no matter how long you serve in that role. Outside of this court's odd action he now has no legal responsibility or ties to them. He's simply in limbo where it comes to a legal relationship with them. He can't sue for custody because he's neither the biological nor the adopted parent. Heck, I'm not even sure he can get visitation.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Do you think bio parents should pay all expenses of the adoptive parents they give their child to?

If not, then yes, it does make a difference.

Combining gametes does not make someone a parent. It just makes them someone who had with sex without birth control.
Click to expand...

But why should someone who isn't a parent be forced to be financially responsible for someone who isn't their kid? If you married someone who had kids, does that automatically make you responsible for those kids for the rest of your life?
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Yes, they would, because he is their father. The father may get screwed in custody disputes with the mother, but father trumps every other relative and certainly trumps putting the children into the system.
Click to expand...

And once again, he is NOT their father. Not legally, biologically or adoptive. I've seen it happen first hand, he's not entitled to custody unless the biologicals sign off or have their parental rights terminated.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, take the weepy emotion out of it. Yes, he's a ****heel if he's now disowning the kids. But being a "father figure" does not put one on the hook for child support, no matter how long you serve in that role. Outside of this court's odd action he now has no legal responsibility or ties to them. He's simply in limbo where it comes to a legal relationship with them. He can't sue for custody because he's neither the biological nor the adopted parent. Heck, I'm not even sure he can get visitation.
Click to expand...

He supported them all this time - what are you going to argue, next, that they owe him for all his investments? :roll:
 
RabidAlpaca said:
But why should someone who isn't a parent be forced to be financially responsible for someone who isn't their kid? If you married someone who had kids, does that automatically make you responsible for those kids for the rest of your life?
Click to expand...

Because he is the parent. He has been raising them for their entire lives. It doesn't matter if their DNA matches; he's the parent.

It's pretty evil that the woman didn't tell him she was screwing around and getting up the duff by other guys, but he is the only co-parent in this situation. The sperm providers are simply that.

He didn't simply marry her. He raised them with her for years.

If he had concerns about paternity, that should have been raised early on, not a decade and a half later. It's not about her and what she did to him. It's about those kids who need two parents. He is the only father they have.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
He supported them all this time - what are you going to argue, next, that they owe him for all his investments? :roll:
Click to expand...

No, and you keep trying to make this about morality. It's not. I agree with you on the moral side of the issue (I bolded it because you seem to keep missing that).

IF anyone owes him for what he's paid in over the years it'd be the biological parents (his ex and whomever are the bio fathers of these kids). But in practicality, that just won't happen. However, that is passed, dinging him into the future is the issue.
 
clownboy said:
No, and you keep trying to make this about morality. It's not. I agree with you on the moral side of the issue (I bolded it because you seem to keep missing that).

IF anyone owes him for what he's paid in over the years it'd be the biological parents (his ex and whomever are the bio fathers of these kids). But in practicality, that just won't happen. However, that is passed, dinging him into the future is the issue.
Click to expand...

You are making it about morality by reverting back to their biological fathers on a moral obligation they have to their offspring.

At some point it's just too late for that **** - after over a decade I call that a dead end and an offensive suggestion.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Do you think bio parents should pay all expenses of the adoptive parents they give their child to?

If not, then yes, it does make a difference.

Combining gametes does not make someone a parent. It just makes them someone who had with sex without birth control.
Click to expand...

No, it makes no difference at all when thinking about the question. Taking up the role of fatherhood is not the same as actually being the father of a child. As for your question, no, I don't.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Because he is the parent. He has been raising them for their entire lives. It doesn't matter if their DNA matches; he's the parent.

It's pretty evil that the woman didn't tell him she was screwing around and getting up the duff by other guys, but he is the only co-parent in this situation. The sperm providers are simply that.

He didn't simply marry her. He raised them with her for years.

If he had concerns about paternity, that should have been raised early on, not a decade and a half later. It's not about her and what she did to him. It's about those kids who need two parents. He is the only father they have.
Click to expand...

Well, he's NOT the parent now is he? Not legally. So he shouldn't have to (again legally) continue with the financial support. And he might not have had concerns over paternity until they were embroiled in the divorce. This wouldn't be the first time some party was surprised in a divorce.

As to that last, legally speaking he is not the "only father they have", he's not even one of the fathers they have. He's nothing (legally) but the guy who has been mandated to pay.
 
Hicup said:
Addressing the OP,

This isn't fair, and the whole family court system in Canada and the US is a freaking joke. Anyone who has experienced it in ANY capacity can well atest to this statement. I have for many years advocated for a jury system in family court matters. It's the only fair way to make sure justice is being served to all parties including and most importantly the children of marriage.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Women are far better actors than men and could easily fool a jury more so than a seasoned jurist. That said, some decisions of family court are beyond what normal people consider reasonable.
 
Henrin said:
No, it makes no difference at all when thinking about the question. Taking up the role of fatherhood is not the same as actually being the father of a child. As for your question, no, I don't.
Click to expand...

It makes all the difference in the world. That's why "bio father" is a common term and "adoptive father" isn't. We usually just call the latter "father."

This isn't much different than the question I posed. Yes, he didn't walk into it knowingly, and the woman is obviously a pretty crappy person for not saying anything, but if he had doubt that should have been brought up right away, not a decade later.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Because he is the parent. He has been raising them for their entire lives. It doesn't matter if their DNA matches; he's the parent.

It's pretty evil that the woman didn't tell him she was screwing around and getting up the duff by other guys, but he is the only co-parent in this situation. The sperm providers are simply that.

He didn't simply marry her. He raised them with her for years.

If he had concerns about paternity, that should have been raised early on, not a decade and a half later. It's not about her and what she did to him. It's about those kids who need two parents. He is the only father they have.
Click to expand...

At exactly what month is the cutoff where you become permanently financially liable for the children of someone you were with?

1 month? 6 months? 6 years?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You are making it about morality by reverting back to their biological fathers on a moral obligation they have to their offspring.

At some point it's just too late for that **** - after over a decade I call that a dead end and an offensive suggestion.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. The obligation I've been taking about is the LEGAL obligation of the biological parents and you know it. Not to mention it's you who made the offensive suggestion in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom