Does he have to pay child support ?

[CanadaJohn]

I'd make two points, and I'd note I'm no bleeding heart liberal but I am a conservative who believes in personal responsibility:

1. I'm presuming that when the mother gave birth, this man had his name recorded on the hospital's birth records as the father of the child. Whether he did this mistakenly, foolishly, or responsibly is immaterial, in my view. He accepted parenthood at that time and he owes the child - not the mother - the support he/she requires until reaching the age of majority.

2. To me, this is no different from a man marrying a woman who has children prior to the marriage - these step children, under the law, then become his responsibility to care for and raise as if they were his own. Even if such a marriage should dissolve later, he would still be required to provide at least some support to the children since he assumed responsibility for them when entering into marriage with their biological mother.

As an aside, I presume it would be possible to track down the actual biological father and get him on the hook for child support if his paternity could be proven. I'd be all for that as well.

 

[jet57]

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

Sounds like an appeal to me. This guy is off the hook and the state will have to reimburse him for every penny he spent on that kid.

 

[woodsman]

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.

I very much agree with the paternity testing, sadly, in the communities and demographics that need this type of testing the most it goes undone. In the urban areas, and with the folks that know how to play the social benefit game fathers are not routinely named.

I found it curious you only named “our sons” It does take two and both parties should be responsible. Mandatory parenting classes should be the norm, Not only for fathers but for mothers that are ill equipped to handle these responsibility.

 

[Winchester]

not advocating but you used few references from holy books

No, no I didn't. I don't know who you're thinking of but I'm sure it ain't me. I never reference "holy" books, I don't think even inadvertently. :2razz: But if you can find what you think I said, I'm curious now.

 

[woodsman]

Sounds like an appeal to me. This guy is off the hook and the state will have to reimburse him for every penny he spent on that kid.

It’s extremely difficult to get any sitting judge to even consider overturning a family court ruling. Civil courts will just refuse to hear the case if brought. So, this young man has to fight within those family court perimeters that have already ruled against him. I’m sure his defeatist stance comes from his attorney that knows just how unjust this law may be and fruitless to fight.

If his only fight is to change the unjust law, he should put all effort into that. With that law shown to be unjust and predigest he may be able to petition the court in the future.

 

[Surrealistik]

No man should be forced to pay alimony for another man's child.

 

[jet57]

It’s extremely difficult to get any sitting judge to even consider overturning a family court ruling. Civil courts will just refuse to hear the case if brought. So, this young man has to fight within those family court perimeters that have already ruled against him. I’m sure his defeatist stance comes from his attorney that knows just how unjust this law may be and fruitless to fight.

If his only fight is to change the unjust law, he should put all effort into that. With that law shown to be unjust and predigest he may be able to petition the court in the future.

Nope: he can appeal outside family courts, because the child is not his. Therefore state rules really do not apply to him. The only way that they could apply is if he knew the child was not his and agreed to support, through marriage anyway. even then, he could get himself removed from support through appeal.

 

[Henrin]

No man should be forced to pay alimony for another man's child.

Alimony? We're not talking about alimony. As for that subject though, alimony is a large part of my problem with marriage laws. To me the whole idea of alimony is complete gibberish.

 

[Medusa]

No, no I didn't. I don't know who you're thinking of but I'm sure it ain't me. I never reference "holy" books, I don't think even inadvertently. :2razz: But if you can find what you think I said, I'm curious now.

Didnt you like a post that suggests such a rule come back?:2razz:

 

[woodsman]

Nope: he can appeal outside family courts, because the child is not his. Therefore state rules really do not apply to him. The only way that they could apply is if he knew the child was not his and agreed to support, through marriage anyway. even then, he could get himself removed from support through appeal.

You are wrong, he didn’t provide the paternity DNA evidence within the allowed two year window according to Oklahoma law and statutes. This is the whole point, this unjust window and letter of the law was followed when family court judges have wide discretion. In fact, at first the court ruled in his favor and then went back out under pressure form ether the mother or the state DHS.

As I pointed out, its darn near impossible to get a civil case heard with a family court ruling over shadowing it, and you are naive to think so.

 

[Surrealistik]

Alimony? We're not talking about alimony. As for that subject though, alimony is a large part of my problem with marriage laws. To me the whole idea of alimony is complete gibberish.

I was speaking informally; yes, I am obviously referring to the child support payments.

 

[Winchester]

Didnt you like a post that suggests such a rule come back?:2razz:

It's possible??? IDK, I'd have to look at it to see what I was liking. :lol: Was it in this thread?

 

[Medusa]

It's possible??? IDK, I'd have to look at it to see what I was liking. :lol: Was it in this thread?

:mrgreen:
No in my thread 'pro choice does not mean .......

 

[Winchester]

:mrgreen:
No in my thread 'pro choice does not mean .......

Lol, I was being facetious, nor was I quoting holy books, just stating the facts back in the "good ole days" :2razz: And I assume the response I liked was equally facetious, if not my like was.

I'm assuming this was it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...-you-abort-post1066692549.html#post1066692549

 

[randel]

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.

apparently he thought the child was his, hence, no reason to challenge paternity...the girlfriend/wife lied to him, why should he be stuck paying for a kid that is not his? make the mother give up the name of who else she slept with, and figure out who the father is from there.

 

[Medusa]

Lol, I was being facetious, nor was I quoting holy books, just stating the facts back in the "good ole days" :2razz: And I assume the response I liked was equally facetious, if not my like was.

I'm assuming this was it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...-you-abort-post1066692549.html#post1066692549

ok cant read mind :lol:

 

[jet57]

You are wrong, he didn’t provide the paternity DNA evidence within the allowed two year window according to Oklahoma law and statutes. This is the whole point, this unjust window and letter of the law was followed when family court judges have wide discretion. In fact, at first the court ruled in his favor and then went back out under pressure form ether the mother or the state DHS.

As I pointed out, its darn near impossible to get a civil case heard with a family court ruling over shadowing it, and you are naive to think so.

That's why he's going to successfully appeal

 

[cpwill]

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.

Uh. It's not his kid?

And if she was cheating on him then, what makes you think he's going into deadbeat dad status and "just walking out the door" now?

 

[cpwill]

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.

This is an excellent solution.

 

[Lutherf]

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

In the US it's pretty much a given that women have no legal responsibility whatsoever for the consequences of their sexual behavior. If they become pregnant then they are completely free to decide whether the baby lives or dies. The male participant in the pregnancy has no say whatsoever. If the woman chooses to keep the baby she has no legal requirement for providing for the welfare of the child beyond making some basic effort to see that the baby doesn't starve to death. The male participant in the pregnancy remains financially responsible for the child's needs whether he actually gets to participate in the child rearing or not. Furthermore, if the male participant can not be located then one will generally be selected from the female's acquaintances. Basically all she has to do is say "He's the father" and the guy is on the hook for child support whether he is the actual father or not.

Consider this, a year or two ago a lesbian couple decided to have a baby and secured the services of a male friend to provide a necessary biological component. After the baby was born the couple separated and it was the male friend who was determined to be financially responsible for the baby.

 

[Lutherf]

Complicated stuff. Is he disowning the child? Does he still want to be a part of his life? I can't imagine raising a child as your own for two years and then just severing that connection because it turns out you don't share DNA. My wife had a 1-year-old son when we started dating. That was 10 years ago and we have since had another child together. I love both equally. It is one reason a few years ago I adopted my oldest so my parental rights would be protected. You never know what might happen in a marriage but I know damn well I will always love my kids, and that love has nothing to do with DNA.

But then there are plenty of fathers who have no problem walking away from their own biological children so it shouldn't surprise me that someone like this guy could do the same.

I feel bad for the kid. Doesn't sound like he has any quality parents, father or mother, in his life.

I'd suggest that there is a HUGE difference between going into a relationship knowing that the person you're with has a child from a prior relationship and suddenly finding out that the child you thought was yours was actually fathered by someone else.

While I can completely understand an emotional and moral commitment to a child you helped raise as your own I fail to see why a court ordered financial commitment to that child is warranted. It's a case where the female in the partnership should be required to provide full financial support to the child if she chooses leave the relationship with you.

 

[trouble13]

The mother should go to jail and she should have her wages garnished until he is paid back in full

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

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

Whats the reason for the law your citing?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Whats the reason for the law your citing?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

So that you don't get to use the kid as a pawn years later against the mother after you had been considering him/her yours for years

Maybe partially to help family courts by not requiring them to hear a bunch of BS claims years after the fact, and allow them to tell you "tough" after a certain period of time

 

[trouble13]

So that you don't get to use the kid as a pawn years later against the mother after you had been considering him/her yours for years

Maybe partially to help family courts by not requiring them to hear a bunch of BS claims years after the fact, and allow them to tell you "tough" after a certain period of time

Your logic is bizarre and disturbing. By your way of thinking we should go ahead and execute convicted murders even of new evidence surfaced that exonerates them. Afterall they had their day in court

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk