Support NeoGAF

[norinrad21]

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd060299e.html

Appeals courts in many states are refusing to allow genetic evidence in suits brought by husbands arguing they shouldn't pay child support. Instead, judges are falling back on an ancient doctrine known as "presumption of paternity."

* That rule -- which dates as far back as the Romans and then in English common law usage -- says that unless a man can prove he is sterile, impotent or had been away on the high seas -- he is the legal father of any child born to his wife during their marriage.

* The rule was intended to prevent husbands from attacking their wives' fidelity in court.

* The refusal to allow DNA evidence in such cases reportedly has the support of women's groups, but raises the ire of many men.

* Last December, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling saying "family interests" outweigh the ordering of blood tests which might prove the contention of a Philadelphia man that he was not the father of his ex-wife's son.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. In fact, it had rejected in 1989 a California man's effort to obtain DNA evidence that he was the biological father of a child born to his former lover and would therefore be entitled to visitation and other legal rights. Overturning California's presumption of paternity "would be destructive of family integrity and privacy," wrote Justice Scalia.

But men's groups have started lobbying legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and other states to change paternity laws. They argue that in this age of jet travel and in vitro fertilization, the presumption of paternity is antiquated.

Ironically, courts do allow states to use DNA evidence to establish paternity in cases where the man denies it.

Your wife can cheat on you and squeeze your balls for money to take care of some bastards kid :lol

 

[Smiles and Cries]

now thats some bullshit there


This Just In: Wives Getting Bitch-Slapped increases in the U.S.

 

[Deku Tree]

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd060299e.html



Your wife can cheat on you and squeeze your balls for money to take care of some bastards kid :lol

Even if the kid don't look like you? I don't believe it.

 

[Guzim]

"What will become of my show?"

 

[ShadowRed]

Dude this shit has been going on for a while. I remember starting a thread about a guy in Texas who was a train engineer, and was out of town a lot. Turns out the wife was having company. They "had" three kids and one had a genetic disease. When the doctors tested the parents to find out who carried the gene neither one of them had it. So the Mom had to come clean. They do a DNA test and only one of the kids are his. The father gets pissed and leaves but still pays child support for all the kids. He ends up getting married again and has a kid with his new wife. They start struggling to make ends meet, so the father says, "Fuck this shit. I should only be paying for one of those kids." He goes to court and the judge tells him, "No dice homes. You gotta pay for tyhem all. Even though you didn't know they were not yours. " The kicker is, if that wasn't enough is that the Mom refuses to tell anyone who the real father to the two kids are.

 

[levious]

I'm not sure, but I believe the main "good" thing about this principal is that it prevents a man from divorcing his wife, then challenging paternity for a child that he has already commiting time to raising. But I'm sure there's more to it than that as well.

ShadowRed,

That's the sort of situation I was referring to. Most state courts agree that once you've spent years raising a child you cannot question paternity later, even if you got fucked over... basically just protects the child's interest above all else. It's a tough situation to sort through.

 

[Dan]

I'm not sure, but I believe the main "good" thing about this principal is that it prevents a man from divorcing his wife, then challenging paternity for a child that he has already commiting time to raising. But I'm sure there's more to it than that as well.

ShadowRed,

That's the sort of situation I was referring to. Most state courts agree that once you've spent years raising a child you cannot question paternity later, even if you got fucked over... basically just protects the child's interest above all else. It's a tough situation to sort through.

Right, but so... the real father has no legal obligation to provide support? That's the part that confused me here. I can understand protecting the children, but the real father should be forced to provide support as well.

 

[mrmyth]

This ain't new. Also applies to non-married guys who allow their names to end up on birth certificates. During my own custody battle I watched the judge dismiss four claims with DNA testing that proved the guy wasn't the father. Paternity is established, its permanent.
No court is going to take away child support. Its bad press.


edit- the biological father has no legal obligation in Illinois, and no legal rights either. He isn't the father of the child to the courts.

 

[Luscious LeftFoot]

http://www.wchstv.com/synd_prog/maury/maurypovich.jpg

"What will become of my show?"

:lol

 

[ShadowRed]

I'm not sure, but I believe the main "good" thing about this principal is that it prevents a man from divorcing his wife, then challenging paternity for a child that he has already commiting time to raising. But I'm sure there's more to it than that as well.

ShadowRed,

That's the sort of situation I was referring to. Most state courts agree that once you've spent years raising a child you cannot question paternity later, even if you got fucked over... basically just protects the child's interest above all else. It's a tough situation to sort through.

I disagree it isn't tough at all. If the kid is your you pay if it isn't you don't. You're basicly giving a pass to all the under handed women out their that screw around and don't want to lose their meal ticket by telling their husband that she's knocked up by someone else. This should be on the head of the mother and the real father not the guy that's oblivious to what is going on behind his back.

 

[Doth Togo]

Dude this shit has been going on for a while. I remember starting a thread about a guy in Texas who was a train engineer, and was out of town a lot. Turns out the wife was having company. They "had" three kids and one had a genetic disease. When the doctors tested the parents to find out who carried the gene neither one of them had it. So the Mom had to come clean. They do a DNA test and only one of the kids are his. The father gets pissed and leaves but still pays child support for all the kids. He ends up getting married again and has a kid with his new wife. They start struggling to make ends meet, so the father says, "Fuck this shit. I should only be paying for one of those kids." He goes to court and the judge tells him, "No dice homes. You gotta pay for tyhem all. Even though you didn't know they were not yours. " The kicker is, if that wasn't enough is that the Mom refuses to tell anyone who the real father to the two kids are.

A good beatdown would put some sense in her.

 

[ShadowRed]

A good beatdown would put some sense in her.

And put his ass in jail, and after he gets released he'll have back child support to pay.

 

[Chopin Trusty Balls]

And what if the kid has other skin color then Father/Mother? Mutant?

 

[Smiles and Cries]

since you can't beat them


SELL YOUR WIVES ITS ALL OVER!!!

 

[bishoptl]

Ironically, courts do allow states to use DNA evidence to establish paternity in cases where the man denies it.

So it's alright in one instance to use DNA for establishing paternity, and not another?

"Lock 'n load, gentlemen."

 

[Gek54]

Man impregnates two women. Both children are born at the same time, but the wife's baby dies right after birth but wife does not know about it. Man takes dead baby and switches it with the other baby and gives the wife the good baby. He was a stay at home dad and she makes more money. She divorces him, does SHE have to pay him child support?

 

[levious]

I disagree it isn't tough at all. If the kid is your you pay if it isn't you don't. You're basicly giving a pass to all the under handed women out their that screw around and don't want to lose their meal ticket by telling their husband that she's knocked up by someone else. This should be on the head of the mother and the real father not the guy that's oblivious to what is going on behind his back.

I'm not sure if you're missing what I was getting at. What you say is true and fine... IF this is something brought up early in a child's life. But if we're talking about a situation where a child has already been living in a family situation, then this presumption kicks in. I don't know if this has ever applied to a situation where paternity was questioned before or shortly after birth, and I don't think the situations are treated the same.

As for the situations I was referring to, as well as the original one you mentioned, the courts have established rules to protect the child since they have no way of knowing or avoiding the situation. The "father" may have been wronged, but parent's commitment to his or her family is not seen as tied to biological connections. This is related to cases involving one or more adopted parents. There is a certain time when you become a child's parent and nothing can change that relationship - I'm speaking of legal obligations, not moral or something emotional.

Is this giving a free pass to some underhanded spouses in some situations? Yes, but for the sake of protecting the interests of children. But again, unless the father is completely oblivious, I do believe that paternity can still be contested early.

 

[RevenantKioku]

I was fortunate not to have separated parents, but if the father is just paying money, he has no other legal obligations right? As in he doesn't have to see the kids if the mother has full custody, right?
So his money is good enough to force to them, but not his presence?

 

[Cimarron]

unforyunately I think this is bullshit. Its almost enough for me to want to demand a paternity test on all my children when I get married. Luckily though in this day and age you don't need the mother's dna to help establish paternity. So even if she is the type to bitch about it you could always do it behind her back. Pay 600 bucks for a test sure beats 18+ years of child support for some other mans bastard. This would probably be one of the few things I can imagine myself beating/murdering a woman for. No lie.

 

[open_mouth_]

STAY AWAY FROM THE 2-BIT HOES AND YOU SHOULD BE FINE!

 

[DCX]

now thats some bullshit there


This Just In: Wives Getting Bitch-Slapped increases in the U.S.

:lol

DCX

 

[mrklaw]

what about if I go round squirting in hundreds of women? Is my wife then their children's moms?

 

[mrmyth]

Doesn't work the opposite way. You'd be liable for child support, she could leave you and the marriage and be clean and easy. The worst case scenario for a woman in a marriage where the husband gets sued for child support is that the court will take into account her income to the household and therefore declare that her husband is able to pay more than if he were alone. Even that happening is rare.


And while everyone is bitching about how unfair this all is, and it is unfair, think about who wrote these laws. There were no women judges and lawyers when these laws were written. And they were created at a time when the woman was expected to get the kids and still not work after a divorce. Rather than make men accept parental responsibility as a societal whole, the laws were written to give women extra protection against becoming destitute after a divorce. We all still suffer for it.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

.....Man takes dead baby and switches it with the other baby and gives the wife the good baby. .....

 

[Pimpwerx]

Yet more justification for never getting married. This law (old or not) make marriage even more of a prison IMO. Especially since more marriages end up in divorce anyway, why force this on people? PEACE.

 

[Cool]

WTF MEN HAV BEEN 0WN3D

 

[Archaix]

Fuck! I think I'm going to have to go gay to avoid this bullshit, just get married to a ma...


FUCK. It's a conspiracy by the womenfolk, I tells ya!

 

[Loki]

I'll keep it short and sweet:


Anybody defending this for WHATEVER reasons is an idiot. This is a friggin' joke imo, and I don't care who wrote the law; this is also not some ancient statute that's been on the books for decades, since genetic testing is relatively new. What BS.

 

[levious]

Presumption of Paternity is old... this is applied only to children who have been brought up for a certain amount of time by parents. DNA testing doesn't matter at that point, a family relationship has already been established.

It's a tough issue, the courts have decided to protect the interests of the children at all costs... why not research some historical cases and learn some more about it before declaring all those that disagree with you an idiot?

I somewhat agree with how this has been handled over the years. I just cannot think of a better solution.

I think the quoted article is causing confusion... saying that originally any child born of a wife would be presumed to be the father's child. That's not how it is applied today... paternity tests can be used early on or around birth to contest paternity... but when a father tries to question paternity later on in a child's life it is not allowed. The modern use or application of this principal is to protect the established family relationship.

 

[mrmyth]

I'll keep it short and sweet:


Anybody defending this for WHATEVER reasons is an idiot. This is a friggin' joke imo, and I don't care who wrote the law; this is also not some ancient statute that's been on the books for decades, since genetic testing is relatively new. What BS.

I think you misunderstand. All this law has been on the books forever. DNA testing had nothing to do with it, the perception that women are automatically the better parent did. This has led to decades of dogma that even men have bought into. Only now are more men starting to sue for custody upon divorce. Just the other day one of the stupid reality shows switched two families around where one had a working mom/stay-at-home dad and a working dad/stepford wife. The stepford wife kept referring to the stay-at-home dad as not being a real man. Her husband had to do housework and spend time with his kids for the first time in his marriage. This is what middle America lives, and this is why laws like this stand.

I'm not defending this garbage. But the only way to defeat it is to stand up for your rights. Why should the woman automatically get the kids?

I know a woman who has to pay child support because she lost a custody battle. You'd think they took her ovaries she's so offended. All her girlfriends are offended. They just can't fathom that the man is raising the children and derserves to be raising them. That the court okayed it. That's the attitude that needs to be destroyed. Then you won't have women pinning pregnancies on the wealthiest candidate when they aren't assured of winning. During my custody battle I couldn't get by just proving that I was the better parent. I also had to prove that she was a bad parent, cause all things considered, the woman is still the default parent. That just isn't fair.

 

[levious]

yeah, things are changing as far as male custody though, slowly.

 

[sc0la]

Gay Marriage +1


As if men didn't already have shit position in regards to most child custody law

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

It is fucked up, but in a fucked up situation, how else could it work? Initially I was mildly outraged reading this, but have since been swayed by Levious' arguments. You would hope that having loved and raised a child for a number of years, despite the admittedly hellish emotions in his own mind, the aggrieved husband would be able to feel some sympathy for the position of the child? The woman fucked them both over.

Of course no-one ever solved nature vs. nurture, so I'm not saying I'm speaking a necessary truth here. I would just hope that any man would still find love for the child, for the fruits of his own childcare, if not of his own loins. Cuckoos are nasty things, but surely the child does not deserve the sudden hate of its father? Finish what you start, sortalike, applied to perhaps the most important thing a man can start?

Or to put it another way, it would follow the highest principle, to absorb this heartache, and to not pass it on.

 

[Loki]

I think the quoted article is causing confusion... saying that originally any child born of a wife would be presumed to be the father's child. That's not how it is applied today... paternity tests can be used early on or around birth to contest paternity... but when a father tries to question paternity later on in a child's life it is not allowed.

Ah, ok. That's different, then. Though I would still say that if a paternity test later on in life proves that the "assumed father" is not the father, then the mother should be forced to testify as to the actual identity of the real father, who should then be compelled by law to kick in 50% of the child support, with the other 50% coming from the "assumed" father.


There's no reason for a man to escape the consequences of his actions. Such a ruling is, in essence, encouraging it. Granted, most fathers who've raised a child for, say, 10-13 years would not gripe about the level of child support they're paying, because they'd feel that that was their child, even if it was later proven that they weren't. But, if for whatever reasons the father decides "hey, you know-- I shouldn't have to be paying more than 50% of this child support since it's not my kid", then I believe it should be his right to do that. Would most guys do that after a divorce? No. But it shouldn't be disallowed. Further, like I said, it allows a person to avoid the consequences of their actions. The woman should be forced to testify under oath as to the identity of the real father, and DNA tests would then confirm that.


I don't believe in a man (or anyone) having to support another man's child, particularly if paternity can be established. Now, if a man WANTS to support them, because he has raised them for years, then that's great. But under no circumstance should the father be forced to provide more than 50% of the child support if he doesn't want to, unless the biological father is dead, can't be located, or is incarcerated or something. If that's the case, then the father will just have to suck it up, because I do agree that the child's interests must be protected. But they can be protected 50-50 rather than by the father who raised a child who he did not actually sire contributing 100% of the support, if paternity can be proven and the actual father located.


That's how I see it. Besides, what kind of message is the current situation sending to cheating women? "Hey, if you can manage to conceal this from your husband for long enough, he'll be on the hook for life! But if he finds out that the kid's not his too soon, you'll actually, oh I dunno, have to GET SUPPORT FROM THE MAN WHO FATHERED THE CHILD" It encourages deceit and doesn't punish in any way either the woman (who should be punished in some way NOT because she cheated, but because that cheating then led to a material obligation/expense incurred by the husband), or the man who fathered the child, who obviously realizes on some level that he should be supporting the child (if he's aware of his paternity, which may not be likely since the wife wouldn't want to expose the relationship).


It's just broken logic to assert that a father should be OBLIGATED to pay 100% of the child support AFTER A DIVORCE for a child who is not actually his when the actual father can be located and paternity established. It should be 50-50 imo. I'd say the same thing if (somehow) the roles were reversed, and a woman was being FORCED to provide support for a child who wasn't theirs.


Yeah, fine-- I understand about the needs of the child coming first, and a child should NEVER be left without support just because a divorced father finds out that a child isn't his. But if the biological father can be located and is able to pay (and I believe that if a paternity test shows the biological father to be someone other than the husband, that the wife should be legally obligated to testify as to the identity of the father, whose paternity can then be tested), he should be made to. Expecting otherwise is wrong imo.

 

[Loki]

It is fucked up, but in a fucked up situation, how else could it work? Initially I was mildly outraged reading this, but have since been swayed by Levious' arguments. You would hope that having loved and raised a child for a number of years, despite the admittedly hellish emotions in his own mind, the aggrieved husband would be able to feel some sympathy for the position of the child? The woman fucked them both over.

I agree, and I agree that MOST men would not hesitate to provide financial support for that child after raising them for many years as their own. My point is that they should be in no way legally bound to provide more than 50% of that support if paternity can be established and the actual father located. If they want to (and most would), then great. If they don't, then 50% it should be.

 

[levious]

I think that once two people assume parental roles whether through mistake or adoption, then any legal obligation for the biological parent is destroyed. I think that courts have been hesitant to go with Loki's overall idea (which does make sense, but unfortunatly most ideas that make sense also end up costing a lot of money and time in court) mainly for fear of adverse affects on adoptive parents rights.

 

[ShadowRed]

I think that once two people assume parental roles whether through mistake or adoption, then any legal obligation for the biological parent is destroyed. I think that courts have been hesitant to go with Loki's overall idea (which does make sense, but unfortunatly most ideas that make sense also end up costing a lot of money and time in court) mainly for fear of adverse affects on adoptive parents rights.

All you people claiming that a man should have to be a parent even if he was unaware that he wasn't the father is out of your freaking minds. Why does this work here but not in any other relm of law. Say I go to Ferrie dealership and puchase a car. The dealer never tells me it's not a Ferrei but one would assum that since it's in a dealership and it looks like on, has the symbols and body style and all that. Well I drive it for a month then go to put oil in it and I see a Pontiac engine in it. I take it to a mechanic and he looks at the steering wheel and notices that the Ferrie symbol on it is a fake pops it off and its a Ferio. Now if i brought this to court I would get my money back and then some with no problem, and no one would be screaming this insanity about having bonded with this car. Back to the original case, I'm sorry to say but the kid has no baring in this for me. If the kid isgoing to have problems dealing with not having the man he or she thought was their father for 5,10 18 years, then that should have to rest on the shoulders of the unfaithful wife and not the unsuspecting man.

I agree, and I agree that MOST men would not hesitate to provide financial support for that child after raising them for many years as their own. My point is that they should be in no way legally bound to provide more than 50% of that support if paternity can be established and the actual father located. If they want to (and most would), then great. If they don't, then 50% it should be.

I have to totaly disagree. If you think most men after finding out that their wife has not only cheated, but became empregnated by this other man and has neglected to tell him for again 5,10,16 years and he is just going to go, "Oh honey it's ok we are still a family." then you have been watching too much TGIF and the Disney channel.

 

[borghe]

ok, I wasn't getting this at first.. now I am...

paternity is pretty damn near permanent. It's as simple as that. As has been pointed out, it is in the protection of the children. Can you imagine how devastating it would be to a child to be shown with scientific proof that the guy he's been calling dad all of these years is anything but?

The bottom line is, if there is any question that the kid is yours, call for DNA testing BEFORE your name goes on the birth certificate. Also remember that the father's name doesn't HAVE TO go on at birth. It can be added later either through DNA or a voluntary paternity form.

It sounds like it sucks, but frankly I have to question some dude who calls the kids his own for 3-5 years and then finds out his wife cheated on them and they aren't his only to say "Fuck you kids, you ain't mine." That is a pretty crappy individual that can back out of the paternal bond that forms when "your" kids are born, even if you don't know they really aren't.

 

[borghe]

All you people claiming that a man should have to be a parent even if he was unaware that he wasn't the father is out of your freaking minds.

But you are forgetting that for 5, 10 years whatever that this guy has formed a relationship with these kids just like every other parent. So how do you say "see ya" to your kids. at that point dna has little to do with the bond you've formed with them (and more importantly them with you).

Why does this work here but not in any other relm of law. Say I go to Ferrie dealership and puchase a car. The dealer never tells me it's not a Ferrei but one would assum that since it's in a dealership and it looks like on, has the symbols and body style and all that. Well I drive it for a month then go to put oil in it and I see a Pontiac engine in it. I take it to a mechanic and he looks at the steering wheel and notices that the Ferrie symbol on it is a fake pops it off and its a Ferio. Now if i brought this to court I would get my money back and then some with no problem, and no one would be screaming this insanity about having bonded with this car.

you did not just compare parternity and children to buying a car... you do know that umm.. well, that is really fucked up. you are obviously not a parent nor have any immediate plans to be.

Back to the original case, I'm sorry to say but the kid has no baring in this for me.

If this is true (which if you had kids it wouldn't be) you are a shallow souless individual who should avoid breeding at all costs.

If the kid isgoing to have problems dealing with not having the man he or she thought was their father for 5,10 18 years, then that should have to rest on the shoulders of the unfaithful wife and not the unsuspecting man.

and that is supposed to make the kid feel better how?

I have to totaly disagree. If you think most men after finding out that their wife has not only cheated, but became empregnated by this other man and has neglected to tell him for again 5,10,16 years and he is just going to go, "Oh honey it's ok we are still a family." then you have been watching too much TGIF and the Disney channel.

no, you say "fuck you honey get the fuck out" but be the fucking man you need to be to be a father to YOUR kids.

fuck. so adopted kids or foster kids are somehow less of children because they don't have your DNA? Some people have no concept of what family means.

 

[bishoptl]

The major difference you're ignoring is that a man actually makes the choice to adopt a child, or bring a foster kid into his home. There's no choice when he's deceived into thinking a child that's his, isn't.

Frankly, if you're unsure about the pregnancy, insist on a DNA test immediately after the child's birth - before your name goes on the certificate. No test, no name.

 

[borghe]

The major difference you're ignoring is that a man actually makes the choice to adopt a child, or bring a foster kid into his home. There's no choice when he's deceived into thinking a child that's his, isn't.

Frankly, if you're unsure about the pregnancy, insist on a DNA test immediately after the child's birth - before your name goes on the certificate. No test, no name.

I agree with your second statement completely...

As for the difference that I'm ignoring, I'm not.. I understand the difference. But we aren't talking about a car here (horrible freaking analogy). We are talking about YOUR kid (as far as you ever knew). Your kid that you changed diapers on, helped, walk, helped ride a bike, stayed up with when he was sick, went to father son/daughter picnics, etc.

I am not ignoring the fact that they were deceived and without a choice, I am just not underestimating the paternal bond that grows stronger every day with YOUR kid (even though you don't know they aren'). It is one thing after like 2-6 months to do so. But after 1,5,10 years? I mean really, at that point they ARE your kids, DNA or otherwise. What kind of a person could backout on that?

My daughter.. I slept with her mom like once before she was conceived.. for a while I questioned if she could be mine (though it would pretty much be impossible for her not to be). Her mom and I never ended up together but things were already bad enough between us for me to decide not to permanently damage things even worse by demanding a paternity test when I was 99.99% sure the kid was mine anyway. Anyway, my point was that at this point, even if her mom came at me and said she wasn't mine and had the blood test to prove it, it wouldn't change anything. I love MY daughter immensely and no test results would change that, nor do I have any belief at all that it would change things with her between either her and I or her and her step mother (who has no bilogoical relation).

that is all I am saying. It is easy to claim you would throw the kids to the curb outside the situation and not a parent, but once you become a parent you realize exactly how deep the meaning of family goes.

 

[bishoptl]

Easy there - I'm a father of a 2 year old and know exactly what sort of bond you're talking about. Frankly, if I found out that he wasn't mine, I'd still love him to death, despite the emotional shakeup. I'd still pay for his school, and clothes, and food, because I love him for what he is. Period.

HOWEVER

If I wanted to be a fucking prick about the situation and insist that I'm not financially liable for this child because he isn't mine, there is no argument you can make that will convince that the law isn't completely biased and incorrect here.

If DNA can be used to prove paternity in order to enforce payment, there is absolutely NO REASON why it should not be used to ensure that men aren't being screwed twice - once by the mother, and once by the system.

 

[ShadowRed]

The major difference you're ignoring is that a man actually makes the choice to adopt a child, or bring a foster kid into his home. There's no choice when he's deceived into thinking a child that's his, isn't.

Frankly, if you're unsure about the pregnancy, insist on a DNA test immediately after the child's birth - before your name goes on the certificate. No test, no name.

But what if you are not unsure? If your wife tells you that she is pregnant are you going to automatically run down to the clinic and get tested? I assume nit because you wouldn't think your wife is a cheat. Why should you or any man be penalized for believing his wife? Why is it in this case you have to be responsible for not knowing or being mislead about a situation, but in any other instance the second you prove that you were unaware of the circumstances and or was mislead you are absolved of any liability.



"and that is supposed to make the kid feel better how?"



It's not the supposed fathers responsibilty to man the kid feel better. it's the mothers to A) Not cheat, and B) if she knows that the kid could be someone else fess up immiedatly and take the repricutions so that 5,10,18 years down the line they don't get screwed over when the father finds out the truth.

 

[bishoptl]

Pull a Nip/Tuck and run the test without your partner knowing, then! Gotta test 'em all!

 

[borghe]

first, it is a moot point because you said yourself that it wouldn't change anything with you. you would still love your kid unconditionally because that is what they are, your kid.

and yes, someone could be a dick and say "Too bad, I'm not all mushy and stupid like that." but really... does that make it right? I mean I can legally shout names at my kid all night long as verbal abuse, does that make it right?

the fact is that the majority of parents out there would never try such things, as tragic as the situation would be, and the law is there to protect the few kids whose dads decided to be selfish and screw over their children in an attempt to get back at the mother.

IMHO

It's not the supposed fathers responsibilty to man the kid feel better. it's the mothers to A) Not cheat, and B) if she knows that the kid could be someone else fess up immiedatly and take the repricutions so that 5,10,18 years down the line they don't get screwed over when the father finds out the truth.

so your kid already suffers the tragedy of finding out that their mom lied to them and that the man they have been calling dad for the last 15 years is not their biological father, and to add insult to injury you tell your kid "Well, nice knowing you, too bad you mom sucks.. have a good life."

 

[ShadowRed]

Also on another note let’s flip this around. Say a wife screws around and gets pregnant and doesn't tell her husband that it might not be his. Then say 10 years down the road she turns on the TV and sees the guy she slept with say on Jeopardy winning 2 million plus. She says screw this shit why am I sitting here in a 2 bedroom apartment when my babies daddy might be a millionaire. She goes to court and forces the Jeopardy guy to get a paternity test and discovers that indeed he is the father. Guess what fucking happens. She dumps her husband and immediately claims the kids are the rich guys and now she can deny the man who was their father for 10 and get paid like a hooker from the real father. Notice the double standard. A woman can choose her babies daddy at will if she chooses to. Yet a man can't choose to not be a father to a kid, who isn't his,





"My daughter.. I slept with her mom like once before she was conceived.. for a while I questioned if she could be mine (though it would pretty much be impossible for her not to be). Her mom and I never ended up together but things were already bad enough between us for me to decide not to permanently damage things even worse by demanding a paternity test when I was 99.99% sure the kid was mine anyway. Anyway, my point was that at this point, even if her mom came at me and said she wasn't mine and had the blood test to prove it, it wouldn't change anything. I love MY daughter immensely and no test results would change that, nor do I have any belief at all that it would change things with her between either her and I or her and her step mother (who has no bilogoical relation)."



Hey that's great and fine and dandy and all but you chose to stay in regardless of if the child was your or not. I'm saying I don't believe the courts should force a guy to do what you did if the guy doesn't want too. My next door neighbor picks up homeless people and lets them sleep over at night on really cold nights. While I think that's cool and all and he's a special person, I shouldn't be forced to do it.

 

[borghe]

no, it would never work. the law does apply in reverse. once paternity is claimed it cannot be reversed, by either party. further more the only way parental rights can be taken from a father are either a) consensually or b) by a court of law. a court would never approve such a thing.

I'm saying I don't believe the courts should force a guy to do what you did if the guy doesn't want too.

so the courts shouldn't force a father to be a father.

you seriously underestimate what your life would be like for those 5, 10, or 15 years. Frankly you are talking through your ass right now. Ask any parent of at least a couple years what they would do if they found out their kid wasn;t theirs and 99% of them would answer "Kick the mom's ass and sue for custody." Yeah, that's right. Sue for custody of a kid that isn't biologically related to them. If you were a parent you would understand that.

 

[Loki]

I think that once two people assume parental roles whether through mistake or adoption, then any legal obligation for the biological parent is destroyed. I think that courts have been hesitant to go with Loki's overall idea (which does make sense, but unfortunatly most ideas that make sense also end up costing a lot of money and time in court) mainly for fear of adverse affects on adoptive parents rights.

It very well may be that way under current law; all I'm saying is that it shouldn't be that way. And honestly, at this point, an increase in "cost" for the courts would be negligible given the size of the system. Shouldn't we be concerned with doing what's "just" even if it costs a bit more? Especially since that's the justification given for the extreme costs of our judicial system in other spheres (see: tort). At least for once it'd be a correct justification.


As for adoptive parents' rights, I don't think it's relevant really, due to the nature of the act (giving a child up for adoption). Would it somehow, somewhere attempt to be spun in such a way if ideas such as those I'm suggesting were implemented? Possibly-- but then that's why we're supposed to have judges-- to smack down the crackhead lawyers who would argue that the biological parents of a legally adopted child should be held financially responsible for their children (if such a scenario is what you were alluding to). Unfortunately, we live in a crazy world, and I fear that your concerns would end up playing themselves out somehow.


Eh, still think it should be done, though.

I have to totaly disagree. If you think most men after finding out that their wife has not only cheated, but became empregnated by this other man and has neglected to tell him for again 5,10,16 years and he is just going to go, "Oh honey it's ok we are still a family." then you have been watching too much TGIF and the Disney channel.

No, I don't think that most husbands would be ok with it in terms of how they feel towards their WIFE (who they ideally should never speak to again, but I digress), but I don't think that they'd bear any malice towards the child they've helped raise for many years, nor would they necessarily want to stop supporting that child even though they may be divorced. My point is that IF paternity can be proven, I think the best thing would be to have the biological father pay the child support. The father who actually raised the child could still be considered the "father" and have that father-child relationship, and the dirty impregnator can be stuck with merely shouldering the financial costs while enjoying none of the father-child bond. That's justice right there.


The 50-50 thing was just a compromise, and also because I find it hard to believe that most fathers would want to TOTALLY not support a child they've raised as their own even if they found out that it wasn't theirs. I feel that most such fathers would be fine with a 50-50 split; however, if we are speaking just out of principle, I don't feel that they should be legally obligated to pay at all. Most fathers would still pay, but they should not be legally obligated to-- the law should have no say in such a situation.

paternity is pretty damn near permanent. It's as simple as that. As has been pointed out, it is in the protection of the children. Can you imagine how devastating it would be to a child to be shown with scientific proof that the guy he's been calling dad all of these years is anything but?

They don't have to find out. Financial support would be given by the biological father, and that's all. Unless all of a sudden the biological father had this yearning to be an ACTUAL father now that he's paying for it, in which case it would be up to the custodial parent to decide whether the child could handle such a revelation (a kid who's 7 years old might not be able to, but a 13-15 year old might be able to).

I also find it amusing that you think that the "devastating consequences" of such a disclosure (again, I don't think it'd have to be disclosed to the child, but just for argument's sake...) should argue against such measures being implemented, yet you probably (I'm assuming, so if I'm mistaken, I apologize; I'm just going by prevailing social sentiment) have no qualms with divorce itself, which has been empirically proven to have harmful consequences for the child in numerous areas. Where is the "protection of the child" then? If I'm mistaken, and you have a problem with BOTH of these issues, then you're at least consistent.

It sounds like it sucks, but frankly I have to question some dude who calls the kids his own for 3-5 years and then finds out his wife cheated on them and they aren't his only to say "Fuck you kids, you ain't mine." That is a pretty crappy individual that can back out of the paternal bond that forms when "your" kids are born, even if you don't know they really aren't.

I agree-- such an individual WOULD be a pretty shitty person, with the degree of shittiness varying based on how old the child is (i.e., how long they were the "father" for). However, though I would think such a person is heartless, I don't think that anyone should be legally obligated to pay for that which is not of their own doing so long as the biological parent can be located and has the means to pay (in other words, a child should never be left without support, regardless of the circumstances).


This is an issue of what I feel the scope and responsibilities of the law should be, NOT with what I feel would be "proper" or morally "right" to do in such a situation.



EDIT: Refreshed this topic as I was making this reply and saw that Bishop had made many of the points I wanted to, so just see his posts for clarification.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

Yeah, I thought it only right to register the fact that I've changed my mind again following Bishoptls post. This is a fucking fuck of a situation, one whose central issues I have no grounding in at all. I think I was confusing the way I hope I would react, with the kind of thing you can enshrine in law. Law isn't moral, I don't think ... it's just divisive. In these cases I think the dividing line probably isn't squared right.

 

[Loki]

Yeah, I thought it only right to register the fact that I've changed my mind again following Bishoptls post. This is a fucking fuck of a situation, one whose central issues I have no grounding in at all. I think I was confusing the way I hope I would react, with the kind of thing you can enshrine in law. Law isn't moral, I don't think ... it's just divisive. In these cases I think the dividing line probably isn't squared right.

Exactly; I alluded to this distinction in my above post(s), as did Bishop.