• 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
MaggieD said:
That's not the law. Change it.
Click to expand...

Well, it's certain that the Mother is a lying bag of crap. Ergo, give custody of the child to the Father by Marriage and arrange child support payments to him from said Mother and assess child visitation rights to be granted to the Mother.
 
Winchester said:
Yes he should. I do think he should be able to get out of it if the bio father is found, but right now he's it.
Click to expand...

so we should never throw stone at the women
 
DaveFagan said:
Well, it's certain that the Mother is a lying bag of crap. Ergo, give custody of the child to the Father by Marriage and arrange child support payments to him from said Mother and assess child visitation rights to be granted to the Mother.
Click to expand...

Well, that could happen. But you're suggesting it to punish the mom with complete disregard for the best interests of the child. Why is that OK?
 
Should he morally? Probably not (I would like to here all sides to this before I decide that for certain - there is ALWAYS at least two sides to EVERY story).

But legally? He should. You cannot exempt people from the law whenever you feel like it...the law means nothing in that case.
Probably the law should be changed.
 
Henrin said:
Also, you really shouldn't compare the two subjects like that. When a man makes a choice to walk he is not acting on the child, but when makes a choice to abort she is killing the kid. Furthermore, a man has to get third party consent to get access to the kid(assuming he doesn't just kidnap the kid or something), while the woman has access to the kid by default. Trying to treat both situations as equal has a considerable amount of flaws.
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious that you just want every escape possible from living up to the same standard that you'd hold women to.
 
Medusa said:
so we should never throw stone at the women
Click to expand...

Her wrong doesn't make his wrong a right. He accepted the kid as a father and then wants to abandon the obligations he accepted, albeit under alleged false pretenses. It can't be proven in a court of law that he didn't know or couldn't have suspected it might not be his. What we do know is he accepted and played the role of father.

My focus is what's best for the kid, not either parent.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, that could happen. But you're suggesting it to punish the mom with complete disregard for the best interests of the child. Why is that OK?
Click to expand...

I was attempting to make obvious both sides of the coin. Punish the women? Hell no! She's demonstrated poor character and deceptive behavior. Not good qualities to be recommended for parenting. If child support punishes her, what does it do to him?
/p
 
Per the way the law is written, yes. But the law written in an absolutely insane way. There's no reason for him to be forced to pay and it's insane, it's completely unfair also because that only works in one direction also which points to other faults in the system.
 
DaveFagan said:
I was attempting to make obvious both sides of the coin. Punish the women? Hell no! She's demonstrated poor character and deceptive behavior. Not good qualities to be recommended for parenting. If child support punishes her, what does it do to him?
/p
Click to expand...

It's not the child support that punishes her, it's taking away her child.
 
X Factor said:
Right, you want to be able to walk away from any financial, emotional or moral obligation to a child you actually father but then you'd sure as **** condemn a woman who would opt for an abortion after you've walked away.
Click to expand...

Whatever moral obligation exists is purely in your mind and based on your views. If someone else shares these views of yours is entirely up to them and no law will ever be able to touch that. And freaking hell dude we have an entire system set up so people can walk away from children in this country. Hell, we even let women walk away from the child (figuratively of course) when still in the hospital. You're also pretty much making a case about nothing on top of that since the woman can just replace the guy at some point.


Sounds like most women have a good reason to sigh with relief.
Click to expand...

Being a piece of **** isn't something to sigh at relief over, but whatever.
 
Medusa said:
You already have to take care of your adopted kid :shrug:

nobody should be held responsible for another person's fault!
Click to expand...

"Fault", "burden", "mistake". The language used to describe children is sad sometimes.
 
X Factor said:
It's pretty obvious that you just want every escape possible from living up to the same standard that you'd hold women to.
Click to expand...

We already allow women certain escape hatches due to the realities of being a woman, but don't allow men any escape hatches due to the realities of being a man. Kind of interesting, ain't it? You know, for a society that is supposedly sexist against women.
 
MaggieD said:
It's not the child support that punishes her, it's taking away her child.
Click to expand...

If he has to pay support, it's already a given that he has as much right to the child as the women. After all, he has nurtured the child for several years.
 
DaveFagan said:
If he has to pay support, it's already a given that he has as much right to the child as the women. After all, he has nurtured the child for several years.
Click to expand...

He has already shown that he wishes to disconnect from the child, so how do you rationalize that taking the child from its mom would in any way be in the child's best interest?
 
MaggieD said:
That's not the law. Change it.
Click to expand...

This young man absolutely should (not) have to pay child support. The relationship from the start was built on a lie and the ultimate deception in my opinion.

Let’s also consider why this woman hasn’t identified the real father, and what type of person is she even excepting child support from a non biological partner, knowing full well that he may not be the biological father.

Obviously this law is unjust, one has to wonder If this law works both ways, meaning, If a woman takes two years to find the biological father via DNA testing and the courts is that father then off the hook because the clock ran out?

To flatly stat, to bad for you, It’s the law, is unjust. Family courts routinely alter the letter of the law to fit different family dynamics. These judges do have discretion with how they rule. In fact, the majority of family court cases fall out of the letter of the written laws.

If I was this young man, I would absolutely fight this with everything I have. He probably can’t because he is being sucked dry each month with a $500 dollar payment he shouldn’t be making.
 
Medusa said:
I just remember one of his posts about it
Click to expand...

Me?!?! You must have me confused with someone else. Cause no way I'd ever have advocated something like that.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, that could happen. But you're suggesting it to punish the mom with complete disregard for the best interests of the child. Why is that OK?
Click to expand...


Well, maybe it should happen, It’s clear this mom was dishonest from the start and now wishes to burden and punish her short term husband for the next 18 years at $500+ per month.

As far as I can tell this young man stepped up and married this girl right out of high school to do the right thing thinking he was a biological father. You are now whiling to punish him financially for 18 years because he discovered the lies and deception of this girl.

Your fall back position is that It’s the law in that state, the two year time clock. As I stated in an early post the family courts almost never follow the letter of the law and judges have very wide discretion, this young man got screwed big time.
 
MaggieD said:
He has already shown that he wishes to disconnect from the child, so how do you rationalize that taking the child from its mom would in any way be in the child's best interest?
Click to expand...

We're at legal rights at this point and he has equal rights. He definitely wants to disconnect from the Mother. If he's raised the child for years, he undoubtedly loves him. The Mother and the DNA Father should be able to pay him enought to maintain a good life for he and the child. I'm sure he would be agreeable to reasonable visitation as common practice. The Mother's treachery created this difficult and traumatic burden for all. Punish her? No, treat her like a man is usually treated in Court.
 
woodsman said:
Well, maybe it should happen, It’s clear this mom was dishonest from the start and now wishes to burden and punish her short term husband for the next 18 years at $500+ per month.

As far as I can tell this young man stepped up and married this girl right out of high school to do the right thing thinking he was a biological father. You are now whiling to punish him financially for 18 years because he discovered the lies and deception of this girl.

Your fall back position is that It’s the law in that state, the two year time clock. As I stated in an early post the family courts almost never follow the letter of the law and judges have very wide discretion, this young man got screwed big time.
Click to expand...

I hope the guy gets out of that obligation. I'm so back and forth when I read good arguments here. If the judge has discretion, I hope he uses it to give this guy a break.

I do think guys have to get smarter. If a guy isn't married to a woman, maybe doesn't even live with her, a DNA test ought to be automatic, in my opinion. We ought to raise our sons that way. There's too much at stake.
 
Winchester said:
Me?!?! You must have me confused with someone else. Cause no way I'd ever have advocated something like that.
Click to expand...

not advocating but you used few references from holy books
 
Different cultures and different communities create different judicial standards. I have no experience with the judiciary in Oklahoma. I have firsthand experience with child support and family court in Florida... where, in theory and in law, the "best interests of the child" comes first. I would think even in the Oklahoma example, the judge relied on case precedents, statutes, community standards and reasonable discretion. Rights and responsibilities change as a result of entering into a binding and legal marriage. Parties to a marriage can modify their rights and responsibilities by pre-nuptial agreement. By not having a pre-nuptial agreement, divorced spouses leave themselves open to a wider range of rights and responsibilities. Given what I have read about this specific case, the judge's decision to require the legal father to pay back child support and continue future child support in spite of a lack of a biological link between the minor child and the legal father did not inherently seem unreasonable. I side with the judge. I doubt the legal father has exhausted all legal options. Unless and until a reversal in judicial decision occurs, the legal father must pay or face the consequences of not paying.... this most likely can include incarceration, levies against bank accounts, suspension of professional licenses and driving privilege. denial of passport, forfeiture of lottery winnings and tax refunds.
 
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...

I say, no. But, it could get gray though.

Since he waited 5 years or whatever, it could be argued that he admitted it was his by default. He should have had it tested on day 1 or let it go and accepted it was his. I am severely conflicted with the time lag. If not for the time lag, it would be clear cut. With the time lag, I almost voted, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom