• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

What if the kid is NOT yours?

What if the kid is NOT yours? Should you still be obligated to pay child support?

  • Yes, always.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, but only if he was married to the mother at the time of conception and/or birth.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, after the limited time frame to contest paternity has expired.

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • No, never... ever. It's not his, simple as that.

    Votes: 40 78.4%

  • Other.

    Votes: 9 17.6%
  • Total voters
    51
If they bear his name and he has been raising them as his own, they are his kids in every meaningful way-- he should be obligated to continue paying child support, but more importantly, his parental rights should be held inviolable against claims by the "biological" father. The problem is that one, biological fathers are not given the choice to accept or deny paternity, and two, the courts favor biological fathers' rights over the rights of actual fathers.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Which is why people shouldn't marry if their full heart isn't into what that even means.
Click to expand...

This. Absolutely. let the law use words like 'step'...but if a married couple are going to stay married and the family is going to thrive, there is no 'step'...not for the well being of the child. All in or stay out.
 
radcen said:
What if the kid is NOT yours? Should you still be obligated to pay child support?

This question is prompted by the other poll & thread ( http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/234988-hypocritical.html ) regarding the question of hypocrisy in birth decisions.

- Historically, in the last half century to century roughly, pretty much any man named as the father by the unwed mother was legally obligated and/or expected to pay child support.

- As paternity tests such as DNA (and others) became more available, some states (not all) have relaxed that a bit, and allow a limited window, usually 6 months or a year, for the named presumed father to contest paternity and get out of the obligation if it is determined he is not the father.

- Unless there have been recent changes that I am unaware, pretty much all states still presume a married man IS the father if his wife has a child, even if proven that the child is not his.

The question: Should a man be legally obligated to pay child support if he is named as the after, but it is proven that the child is not his?

Please note that the key phrase here is "legally obligated". Morally and/or ethically is another question.

If 'yes', why? If 'no', why not?

1) Yes, always.
2) Yes, but only if he was married to the mother at the time of conception and/or birth.
3) Yes, after the limited time frame to contest paternity has expired.
4) No, never... ever. It's not his, simple as that.
5) Other.
Click to expand...

If a man knows or reasonably should know that his wife's child is not his, and fails to take action on that within a set period of time, he should be bound to support the child. If he institutes proceedings within that time to officially declare that said child is not his, he should be absolved.

For an unmarried man, no.
 
radcen said:
How about an unmarried live-in relationship that splits?
Click to expand...


Then it's not the same thing as marriage. Marriage is a new legal and social state in which you agree to take on new responsibilities and a new identity.
Living together (unmarried live-in relationship) is just - well - a roommate with benefits for the mom or dad.

when you marry a parent - you are thereby the step parent. You have guardianship and legal responsibilities AND authority - recognized by law, not just within the relationship.
 
Deleted. Misunderstood a response.
 
Duplicate
 
Viv said:
What kind of person would live with a child as his own and love it and know it regards him as the father, trusts him completely, depends on him for every measure of life, bases all decisions and judgement on what he has taught, a child whose whole world is based on the existence of that person who has always been the father...what kind of person would for ANY reason turn that child's life upside down, break the trust, evidence that nothing and no one can be trusted and the father he always loved is a git and doesn't care what happens to him?
Click to expand...

The same kind of person who would encourage her own flesh and blood to call her new husband "daddy", then one day after several years file for divorce for whatever reason, keep the kid away from the step and demand child support on top of it. Yep, it happens.
 
it's just me said:
The same kind of person who would encourage her own flesh and blood to call her new husband "daddy", then one day after several years file for divorce for whatever reason, keep the kid away from the step and demand child support on top of it. Yep, it happens.
Click to expand...

The law allows a custodial parent to take child support but deny visitation? Please provide examples (that dont involved abuse or criminal reasons).
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, that's kinda like victim shaming.
Their entire relationship is built on a fraud, one where the perpetrator of said fraud, becomes entitles to the victims income for a period of time.

It's rather unfair to both the child and the guy.
Click to expand...

Sighs....

(Firstly, I don't accept the premise that the woman is to blame. Now then...)

Their entire relationship is built on a fraud? Someone defrauded someone, shocking stuff (is fraud even recognised in marriage)?

You mean some guy too thick to see what was in front of his face, is now suddenly outraged to be faced with what he has know all along to be true character of his wife?

Those two are allegedly adults. It is between them.

Now which part of anything that happened, is the fault of the child?

None of it. He is just a child, who loves his parents.

Man up. You made your mistakes and you are an adult. You married someone who is a tool, you misjudged her. It is your mistake and your fault, you have no one to blame. Pay until the child is able to support himself. You're an idiot, but at least you will know you did the decent thing. If the mother can or can't live with her mistake, you can live with doing the right thing by an innocent child. If you can live with destroying the entire emotional stability of an innocent child who loves you, perhaps you deserved the mother in the first place...you're two of a kind.

it's just me said:
The same kind of person who would encourage her own flesh and blood to call her new husband "daddy", then one day after several years file for divorce for whatever reason, keep the kid away from the step and demand child support on top of it. Yep, it happens.
Click to expand...

Yes, the reason doesn't matter. It's all about you and the reason was nothing to do with you of course :shock:
 
radcen said:
What if the kid is NOT yours? Should you still be obligated to pay child support?
Click to expand...

I say other. If the guy did not know that the kid was his regardless of how long he was in the kid's life then sure he should not have to pay.Because he was under the false impression that the kid was his but really wasn't. But if he knew the kid was not his and stepped in as that kid's father then yes he should have to pay.
 
Yes, the reason doesn't matter. It's all about you and the reason was nothing to do with you of course
Click to expand...

Whatever that's supposed to mean...
 
it's just me said:
Whatever that's supposed to mean...
Click to expand...

It means there are two sides to a relationship.

You may not notice any of the factors contributing to a break up started with you. I don't know anything about you obviously. But if you are in a relationship, you are half of what happens.

You may feel you are a victim in a situation like that and maybe she is the world's worst person, I don't know.

But even a worst case scenario where the person is a calculating, selfish gold digger who just wanted a meal ticket and then found a better one (how lucky to get out of that and have a chance to find someone genuine, btw), when you meet someone like that, are they able to completely conceal who they are? Are there no little waitaminute signals that cause you to think twice about whether it's a good idea to tie your wagon to them?

If she is a rat and she still gets into your head and into your life, you did that. Really you potentially knew what kind of person that was and (why?) you let it happen.
 
Viv said:
It means there are two sides to a relationship.

You may not notice any of the factors contributing to a break up started with you. I don't know anything about you obviously. But if you are in a relationship, you are half of what happens.

You may feel you are a victim in a situation like that and maybe she is the world's worst person, I don't know.

But even a worst case scenario where the person is a calculating, selfish gold digger who just wanted a meal ticket and then found a better one (how lucky to get out of that and have a chance to find someone genuine, btw), when you meet someone like that, are they able to completely conceal who they are? Are there no little waitaminute signals that cause you to think twice about whether it's a good idea to tie your wagon to them?

If she is a rat and she still gets into your head and into your life, you did that. Really you potentially knew what kind of person that was and (why?) you let it happen.
Click to expand...

The point was, if you are a step-parent and you have no legal rights, you should have no legal responsibilities. Don't take it so personally.
 
it's just me said:
The point was, if you are a step-parent and you have no legal rights, you should have no legal responsibilities. Don't take it so personally.
Click to expand...

No, the point is that you have responsibilities regardless of your personal irresponsibility and selfishness.

I am not taking it at all. It looked like you were taking it personally, so the response was in kind.
 
Viv said:
Sighs....

(Firstly, I don't accept the premise that the woman is to blame. Now then...)
Click to expand...

If she cheated and got pregnant, then passed off the pregnancy/infant/child as that of her husbands, then yes it would be her fault.

Viv said:
Their entire relationship is built on a fraud? Someone defrauded someone, shocking stuff (is fraud even recognised in marriage)?
Click to expand...

Fraud is not just a legal term.
Fraud can cause harm, yet you dismiss it.

Viv said:
You mean some guy too thick to see what was in front of his face, is now suddenly outraged to be faced with what he has know all along to be true character of his wife?

Those two are allegedly adults. It is between them.
Click to expand...

Victim blaming.

Viv said:
Now which part of anything that happened, is the fault of the child?

None of it. He is just a child, who loves his parents.
Click to expand...

So what, it shouldn't be his responsibility to continue the actions that were brought on by deception.
That should be his choice.

Viv said:
Man up. You made your mistakes and you are an adult. You married someone who is a tool, you misjudged her. It is your mistake and your fault, you have no one to blame. Pay until the child is able to support himself. You're an idiot, but at least you will know you did the decent thing. If the mother can or can't live with her mistake, you can live with doing the right thing by an innocent child. If you can live with destroying the entire emotional stability of an innocent child who loves you, perhaps you deserved the mother in the first place...you're two of a kind.
Click to expand...

"Man up" is just sexism.
I hear people who otherwise believe in supposed gender equality say this.
If the shoe were on the other foot, there would be outrage.

It also funny to note how you've robbed agency from women in your post.
 
radcen said:
~ The question: Should a man be legally obligated to pay child support if he is named as the after, but it is proven that the child is not his?
Click to expand...

Answer, no never and if he is found not to be the biological father he should get all money paid refunded. That's one good thing the CSA / CMEC here in the UK does.
If a man legally adopts the child(ren) then he has taken a legal decision to take those children on and that same legal decision absolves the biological father of his financial responsibility. If he then separates or divorces then he is liable for child support.
If a man marries and does not adopt the children, he should not be liable to pay for those children if he divorces or separates from the mother because the bio-father would still be paying maintenance.

What I don't like is how our CSA / CMEC may even chase the parents and or family of the bio-dad if he cannot pay.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Answer, no never and if he is found not to be the biological father he should get all money paid refunded. That's one good thing the CSA / CMEC here in the UK does.
If a man legally adopts the child(ren) then he has taken a legal decision to take those children on and that same legal decision absolves the biological father of his financial responsibility. If he then separates or divorces then he is liable for child support.
If a man marries and does not adopt the children, he should not be liable to pay for those children if he divorces or separates from the mother because the bio-father would still be paying maintenance.

What I don't like is how our CSA / CMEC may even chase the parents and or family of the bio-dad if he cannot pay.
Click to expand...

In response to the bold.
Are they required to make up for it or do they just harass them for the whereabouts, etc?
 
Case by case, can't decide without more information.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
In response to the bold.
Are they required to make up for it or do they just harass them for the whereabouts, etc?
Click to expand...

It's making up for payments if the father can't. My personal situation has changed since my kids came to live with me so I'm not sure how it works but I've been damned strict with my elder boy regarding his girlfriend as I don't fancy paying for his misdemeanours for the next 18 years.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
It's making up for payments if the father can't. My personal situation has changed since my kids came to live with me so I'm not sure how it works but I've been damned strict with my elder boy regarding his girlfriend as I don't fancy paying for his misdemeanours for the next 18 years.
Click to expand...

Yea that's rather messed up.
It shouldn't extend beyond the parties directly involved.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea that's rather messed up.
It shouldn't extend beyond the parties directly involved.
Click to expand...

Checked for the last 5 minutes: they didn't go through with that idea but I remember it being touted 8-10 years ago.

One thing that did happen and still does is that if the paying person moves in with someone else who also has a job, the paying parent has more taken from them. The argument was that the paying parent effectively had more money to live on but it really meant the partner was making a contribution for someone else's child.

So if I had moved in with someone earning a million a year and I had carried on with my job ~ I would have lost all my salary to my ex wife.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Checked for the last 5 minutes: they didn't go through with that idea but I remember it being touted 8-10 years ago.

One thing that did happen and still does is that if the paying person moves in with someone else who also has a job, the paying parent has more taken from them. The argument was that the paying parent effectively had more money to live on but it really meant the partner was making a contribution for someone else's child.

So if I had moved in with someone earning a million a year and I had carried on with my job ~ I would have lost all my salary to my ex wife.
Click to expand...

That's clearly stupid.
I'm not sure if that's applicable here.

The problems here and likely there are that custodial parents have a lot of latitude with regards to money and meeting their obligations.
Non custodial don't get as much leeway.

Sudden loss of employment, you better get your lawyer to file papers asap, otherwise you'll be in arrears and that comes with interest, which is usually unforgivable.
 
Viv said:
No, the point is that you have responsibilities regardless of your personal irresponsibility and selfishness.
Click to expand...

What "irresponsibility and selfishness"? Getting suckered by someone who already has kids? Hey, it can happen to anybody, guys sometimes fool around and fall in love. I would even go so far as to say there are a lot of women who are looking for a patsy to support their kids for them - I have met a few.
 
Why the hell is this even a question?

Clearly the answer is no.
That said, individual situations vary, and a man might decide to help with expenses for a kid that isn't his. But that's up to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom