"Any child a woman has while she's married to a man, the law considers to be his child."

[raccoon]

I heard this decades ago from a college instructor. (We were studying THE SCARLET LETTER.)

Is that true?

I think it's still true in my state, because I know of a woman in her 20's getting divorced from a man she hasn't lived with for several years. Her two youngest couldn't possibly be his, but in getting a divorce she had to have him sign some document saying he had no rights nor responsibilities toward them.

I would imagine with DNA, things would be changing in regard to this.

[Warpy]

1. Yes, ex husbands have successfully gotten out of paying support

when the DNA says the kids aren't his. However, the bills are only part of the picture and the English common law that said any children during a marriage belonged to that marriage was a more sensible one since parenting involves so much more than writing a check every month.

Sadly, some men find it easy to cut off all emotional support to children they've raised from infancy once they leave the mother. DNA testing just reinforces that.

[ejpoeta]

4. really!! that is sad. because to a child he IS the father. and that bond should be worth more

than anything!! you are right that it does make sense that the law should see him as the father as he has raised the kid. Some men just want an excuse. they are probably mad at the woman and so take it out on the kid. kids always end up being the ones that get hurt.

[Codeine]

8. Insanity to assume anyone should be financially enslaved to a child

that isn't their own regardless of marital status.

[Rage for Order]

22. "Some men just want an excuse" Really?

Would these be the same men who pick up their monthly welfare checks in their brand new Cadillacs?

:eyes:

[ejpoeta]

43. no they would be the one who are probably mad at the mother and want to get back at her

by taking it out on a kid who had nothing to do with whatever it is that caused them to break up in the first place.

[houstonintc]

45. In cases of Paternity fraud...

The mother should not be rewarded with some mans money... why reward deception and lying?

[ejpoeta]

46. i am sorry, but i am thinking of the kid. i think it should depend though.

i mean, if you were the kid's parent for 10 years and then find out s/he isn't yours, is it then ok to just NOT be the parent of that kid anymore? i don't understand how one could just shut that off. DNA is DNA, but there is a bond that you have that has nothing to do with DNA. should the woman be rewarded? no. but should the kid be penalized? no. it's a tricky situation because I think it's abhorrent to deceive someone like that. I mean, if a guy knows that the baby isn't his and enters into that anyway with the full understanding and acceptance, then YES.... that should be fine. But to lie to someone and let them think they are the biological father of a baby is unfair and fraudulent. My fear is the child being punished for this. Should a man be finanically held responsible for a child not biologically his? legally, no. but to me it is tough to think that you could just stop being someones father with the snap of your fingers. Money not withstanding... taking that whole issue out of the equation.

Legally, I think it is reasonable for the assumption to be made that a child born to a married couple is theirs. But if a man finds out he has been lied to he should be able to have legal recourse to be free of financial responsibility. But the idea of just stopping being a parent.... just seems so... i don't know.

I mean, there was a time in our history where women would get pregnant and they were shunned if they weren't married. So I could see how they would feel the need to find some guy and get married so they didn't have to be treated like outcasts. But there really is no reason to do this today. I don't understand it. I mean, first of all, the idea of sleeping around is against everything I believe as a person. The idea that if I were in that position I would not give the man that choice to make for himself is just wrong. I just can't help thinking about those poor kids. Always the ones who get screwed no matter what.

[houstonintc]

48. I get what you say but..

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

The child that isn't his is not the man's concern. I am not required to pay for the millions or billions of kids that are not mine am I?

I mean, if you were the kid's parent for 10 years and then find out s/he isn't yours, is it then ok to just NOT be the parent of that kid anymore?

That is your decision to make, or mine, or anyone else's. You can't legislate being a parent. Also forced child support payment for this kid that isn't yours isn't exactly parenting. Unless you consider a father to be a mobile ATM machine/sperm bank... or in paternity fraud cases ATM machine.

DNA is DNA, but there is a bond that you have that has nothing to do with DNA. should the woman be rewarded? no. but should the kid be penalized? no. it's a tricky situation because I think it's abhorrent to deceive someone like that. I mean, if a guy knows that the baby isn't his and enters into that anyway with the full understanding and acceptance, then YES.... that should be fine.

Yet this "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" Though ending debate tactic is used to that end... to reward mothers who lied, cheated and defrauded someone. Heck the man may not even know the woman in some cases or the child... or have never met either of them but man... those children... gotta have some schmuck enslaved somewhere right?

The kid was penalized the moment the mother did her dirty deed. She should bare the cross of that crime. Not the duped man in this situation.

Heck in cases of Paternity fraud if the father still wants involvement maybe he should get full custody... after all between him, the mother and the child only he and the child are innocent in all this.

However if he wishes to not spend his resources on a child that isn't his then he shouldn't be obligated to. Much like I am not required to give my neighbor money to help raise their kids. Sure it might be in their interest to be able to but I don't wish to be forced into that.

But to lie to someone and let them think they are the biological father of a baby is unfair and fraudulent. My fear is the child being punished for this. Should a man be finanically held responsible for a child not biologically his? legally, no. but to me it is tough to think that you could just stop being someones father with the snap of your fingers. Money not withstanding... taking that whole issue out of the equation.

Might be tough but that can happen. In any case in divorce, if the mother gets the custody, he has a good chance of not seeing them and being a father to them anyway, even if they are his kids or not.

Also an ATM machine is hardly a father. The State shouldn't be forcing a cheated man to be an ATM machine to be sucked dry by a liar. That is just torment for some innocent person.

I mean, there was a time in our history where women would get pregnant and they were shunned if they weren't married. So I could see how they would feel the need to find some guy and get married so they didn't have to be treated like outcasts. But there really is no reason to do this today. I don't understand it. I mean, first of all, the idea of sleeping around is against everything I believe as a person. The idea that if I were in that position I would not give the man that choice to make for himself is just wrong. I just can't help thinking about those poor kids. Always the ones who get screwed no matter what.

What webs of one weaves when the start to deceive.

Why do such a thing? I don't know, I don't grasp half the evil actions people do to one another seems almost insane... From the Koch brothers attacks on labor to even the vicious things an individual does to another.

In this case maybe it is a need for financial support. Single Motherhood is a tough road to walk. And children are not cheap things to produce.

[ejpoeta]

55. hmm

Yet this "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" Though ending debate tactic is used to that end... to reward mothers who lied, cheated and defrauded someone. Heck the man may not even know the woman in some cases or the child... or have never met either of them but man... those children... gotta have some schmuck enslaved somewhere right?

i do not say this to be a 'debate ending tactic'. I honestly am concerned about the welfare of the child. I am truly not interested in rewarding the mother. Sorry, you sound kind of bitter.

Might be tough but that can happen. In any case in divorce, if the mother gets the custody, he has a good chance of not seeing them and being a father to them anyway, even if they are his kids or not.

I happen to agree with you on this. I think it's awful whenever I see this. Unless the father is abusive then he should be able to see his kids. Access to kids should not be linked to child support.

[houstonintc]

59. True, it's close to home, Friend got nearly F'd by this stuff...

Yeah close friend ended up in a similar situation but was able to fight it off more easily.

Totally guilty of being a bit bitter or at least to close to the topic.

Pretty much I think we see eye to eye on most of this though. It is a just plain horrible situation for a lot of people.

[ProfessorGAC]

128. Despite The Innocent Child. . .

. . .aren't you really encouraging the law to punish the VICTIM of fraud? In the hypothetical being bandied about, the man would be the victim of deceit and fraud perpetrated by the mother.

Do you really want to punish the victim, because there's another victim?

GAC

[WatsonT]

25. Not being the father is a pretty good excuse for not paying for a kid

I use that one pretty much every day to avoid paying for around 1 billion children worldwide.

[walldude]

78. While I agree up to a point...

you are blanket judging here and I can't fully agree. "they are probably mad at the woman and so take it out on the kid". You ever think for a minute it might be the woman who is using the kids? This is something that has to be judged case by case, as not all situations are the same.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. I would think that pro-choice heads would explode

Not only must men raise children they don't want, they shall raise children that aren't theirs.

[Warpy]

86. Excuse me? These are children born within a marriage.

These men have been the only daddies the kids have ever known.

I don't get how men can just shut that off when they don't "own" the wife any more.

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. The person in question didn't "own" the wife ever.

If the "dad" in question doesn't want someone else's kids, that's his business.

The kid has an actual biological dad somewhere. I suggest mom introduce them.

[AngryAmish]

2. This is true in Illinois

THe law would rather a man have to pay unfair child support (in case of divorce) than have a child without support (and therefore a drain on the state).

[minavasht]

6. And this is fair how?

The father gets stuck paying for his exs fun.

[AngryAmish]

7. Better that than a child do without

That is the theory. And to be honest the law may have changed.

[Hugabear]

82. How about going after the actual father?

Does he bear any responsibility at all? Or does he simply get to fool around, deposit his seed, break up a marriage, then walk away scot free?

[blueamy66]

108. agreed

The mother should go after the guy she slept with who created the child.

[seabeyond]

9. this is one of the ones i think is so wrong, that i get in trouble for.

it pisses me off, a woman fucks around on, lies to and .... is rewarded. everything about it is wrong as far as i am concerned.

[WatsonT]

15. How do you get in trouble for it?

Who could argue that this isn't unfair?

Better for the kid perhaps, necessary maybe. But fair? Absolutely not.

[seabeyond]

19. Better for the kid perhaps, necessary maybe.

that is the argument.

i say it goes on moms shoulders for being dishonest at the very least and behooves her to figure out how to take care of the kid that she got thru cheating or lying....

and that is how i get in trouble

i have those on the board that say i am a man hater
i have those on the board that say i am a self hating misogynist.

depending on what i argue.

i argue what i see as right and wrong

not gender

so i go back and forth....

[WatsonT]

24. Maybe you just hate people

:P

I think the best solution if it can be shown that the 'father' is not the father would be to give the woman a chance to produce a list of men who might be the actual father, subpoena them and any who either A) are proven to be the dad or B) refuse to take the test can be on the hook. I suppose if multiple men all refuse they can all be hit with some portion of the costs. If the mom declines she can forgo child support. Anyone named who declines can be assumed to be the parent assuming no one else tests positive.

And of course some guarantee would have to be in place to assure DNA evidence is used only for paternity then destroyed rather than saved and used for other cases.

Not ideal but I think it makes the best compromise.

[seabeyond]

26. nope. the father gets to pay. he plays, he pays. dna will tell

who the daddy is. and if the woman cannot come up witht he mans name, well, then, it is on her shoulders for lack of responsibility. a woman has to own some part of her own sexuality. she cannot be a victim in all things.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. You clearly have never seen a man falsely accused of paternity try to recover $$$ taken fraudulently

Your approach of having to prove ones innocence and submit to DNA analysis is counter to Western law and fair play in general.

[WatsonT]

100. And the system of assumed guilt that we have now is better?

At least it offers a chance to find the "guilty" party. Saying "no matter who did it you're to blame" is the preferable system?

Although this isn't really about punishment technically. It's about the father providing for a kid.

And my comment had nothing to do with recovering fraudulently acquired money. That's separate discussion.

But since you chimed in: there are at least two options put forth here: one assume the husband is the father even if he is proven not. Two, my proposal. You apparently find mine objectionable. Does that mean you support the status quo, or do you have a different option?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

105. The assumtion of paternity is current contestable, espcially if it is done early

Under your proposal, refusal to take a test presumes paternity.

The right answer is clearly DNA first and only. The desire of the state not to have to support unacknowledged children does not outweigh justice.

[WatsonT]

113. It is only contestable to a point

after which you are the dad even if you can prove you aren't.

"The right answer is clearly DNA first and only"

DNA can prove the dad isn't the dad, and that's great for him. Now how do you convince others to take a paternity test to prove they are the father knowing it will cost them a lot of money?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. Civil Subpoena would be the obvious route

[WatsonT]

118. And if they refuse the test?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

120. If a judge issues the subpoena, its contempt of court

The issues would be having enough evidence to justify the subpoena. Would the word of the mother be enough? Who should bear the cost of the testing (it is not cheap). Also remember that blood typing alone can rule out paternity as well.

[WatsonT]

127. Let's see: contempt of court may earn you a small fine right?

So 500 bucks up front or child support for 18 years . . . hm. . . I wonder what the prospective father will choose.

"Would the word of the mother be enough?"

What else is there in this case? Unless she had a government representative documenting all of her affairs up until that point.

"Who should bear the cost of the testing (it is not cheap)."

It's not that expensive. 500 bucks maybe. If found to be the father it can be added to the child support payments. If not then I guess the state gets the bill.


"Also remember that blood typing alone can rule out paternity as well."

Could. But you have to get their blood, which again, if they refuse becomes an issue.

So you have a system whereby someone who knows they are the father could simply refuse, pay a small fine and get off the hook entirely.


Tell me how that isn't destined to fail?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

129. No, contempt of court get you put in jail until you comply with the court's orders

You may recall the divorce case of Dr. Elizabeth Morgan where she was claiming child abuse and refused to divulge the location of her child. She was in jail for years. So the court can jail you indefinitely for civil contempt. The court may also fine you on top of that. While in jail, they can compel the taking of a sample.

The problem with the mother's word only is that she could name Donald Trump or Barack Obama...there needs to be something beyond just her word. Locality or something that would provide opportunity should also be required.

Child support is a civil matter, the claimant should bear the initial cost, but if she is indigent and Social Services is doing the claim, then perhaps they would have instead.

Children are blood typed at birth (at least mine were). Those documents are available to the court. No testing required in most cases.

I am old fashioned when it comes to the legal system. I believe in "better 10 guilty go free than one innocent man be convicted" and I do not believe that the good of the child trumps justice and due process. Using the civil process, it is easy enough get the testing done. Never should support be assessed without it.

[WatsonT]

131. So you would arrest people who may not even be the father

indefinitely? And then force them to give up their DNA for sampling with zero guarantees it won't be later used against them for some other reason?

Yes, that is clearly preferable to my solution.

"Locality or something that would provide opportunity should also be required."

Because people don't move around? Seems like this would protect celebrities.

"Children are blood typed at birth (at least mine were). Those documents are available to the court. No testing required in most cases."

It also doesn't positively rule out a parent the majority of the time (and that's assuming the parents even know their bloods types).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. You claimed that civil contempt is just a minor fine...I corrected you

Actual time in custody would be minimal, just long enough to collect a sample. The court could also fine the person if it decided to.

Currently civil DNA tests results do not go in the state or national data banks. Do you want to change that?

If the mother wants to force testing, she would need to show some reasonable justification that they had sex and allow for rebuttal prior to having the court order testing. That seems a reasonable approach to protect the rights of the men being named as fathers. For example if a woman names Rock Star X as the father, but it turns out he was out of the country on tour at the time, the request for testing should be discard as false. Same thing if the named individual was a solider in Iraq. Another viable rebuttal would be proof of sterility, such as a vasectomy. Requiring more than just her word is a reasonable thing to do. If the circumstances are embarrassing to either party, they can ask the court to seal the record.

Indeed, blood typing is not definitive for paternity, but it can eliminate some claims immediately, which is a good thing. Just about everyone is typed at birth. Not to use that data would be silly.

[WatsonT]

136. So bring people in based on the mothers word and a well concieved

connection drawn up by a lawyer. Arrest them, forcibly extract DNA from them and then force them to pay childsupport.

That is preferable to my voluntary approach?

"Currently civil DNA tests results do not go in the state or national data banks. Do you want to change that?"

There is little guarantee of that.

"she would need to show some reasonable justification that they had sex and allow for rebuttal prior to having the court order testing"

How do you prove she did or did not have sex with someone?

[ejpoeta]

3. yes. if you are married when you give birth, then your husband is the father.

it doesn't matter if he is biologically. if he finds out later he isn't. he is financially responsible for that child. you could leave him and go live with the actual biological father and your husband would have to pay child support.

[Lance_Boyle]

10. Do you find that to be just?

That one partner in a marriage can deceive the other in such a way as to financially enslave him for 18 years to pay for a child that's not his? I find it morally reprehensible, and I would hope most other people would, as well.

[ejpoeta]

42. no, i actually do not like the idea of anyone being able to trick another person into

being a parent. however, there is more to parenting than money. so in the sense that a woman would trick a guy no, i do not like that. but then there is a kid who didn't do anything to anyone who had this person as their father. the idea that he all of a sudden isn't a father is against everything i believe because anyone can make a baby, but that doesn't necessarily make them a parent. a father. a mother.

when my oldest daughter was born, my then boyfriend had to sign a paper taking responsibility for Emily. When we had Ashley he did not have to do that because we were married.

[seabeyond]

49. i would hope that in these situations the adults would be able to work it out

in the best interest of the child and that the father would continue on with the bond. but it is such a betrayal, and so horribly deceptive and wrong. but i hope it does ensure that a father that later finds out not his biological, gives him the right to still be the dad, instead of a woman deciding, nope not dad, divorced, you are out of here and cant see child.

i jsut cannot say how offensive this type of betrayal is to me.... at expense of child, but even the adult parent.

[ejpoeta]

51. i couldn't imagine, but you are right. i hate when parents use the kids as pawns basically.

i mean, the idea that any parent could try to hurt the other one with the kid.... no matter what you think about the other parent, they ARE the parent. and frankly, money should have nothing to do with whether you see the kid or not. I have heard of mothers making visitation contingent on getting child support money. and I have seen guys who refuse to take any extra hours because they don't want to have to pay more towards child support. It makes me sick. Granted, I am not divorced. But I have seen the effects on kids of their parents fighting. And truly if one could try to think of the kids, then maybe you could at least act like an adult in front of them!!

I so think that a father should have access to that child. I think any father should have access to his child unless he is abusive and it is detrimental to the kid. I also despise lying about a parent in order to gain custody or to hurt that parent. I watched a show where a mother fled to another country after the father won custody in a US court and he has been fighting to get his kid for several years. It is disgusting how people use kids like that. It is disgusting how people can hurt others like that and somehow think it is ok.

[seabeyond]

54. i hear ya.... nt

[msanthrope]

52. Yes. That is just.

Children born of a marriage are just that. If you choose to live in a married state with someone, then that is the bargain you made.

[houstonintc]

53. What of the liar?

So marriage is a free ticket to lie, cheat, abuse, ect...? Better repeal those DV laws and VAWA since apparently your allowed to do whatever in the marriage... after all "That is the bargain you made".

[msanthrope]

56. Who says there is a liar?

Look, having done my share of domestic work, if there's anything I learned, it's that you and I have NO IDEA what went on in someone else's marriage...and you aren't going to get truth from either party in that marriage.

There are all sorts of reasons for couples to have non-biological children. Don't presume anyone lied.

[houstonintc]

60. Well, lets see if the dad is duped then...

Obviously he was deceived... As in lied to... If he is aware the child isn't his from the get go then that is a different matter but a deceived man is one who has been lied to.

What are some other explanations for this phenomena?

[msanthrope]

65. So what if he's 'duped?'

Explain to me how this changes his obligations to a child born of his marriage.

[houstonintc]

66. For the legal system... not much...

Though in many states he can fight it and not be obligated to care for another mans spawn.

In terms of justice to the one deceived, he should not be coerced to be the ATM machine for a lying mother or made a debt slave for a child that isn't his.

That is horribly unjust.

[msanthrope]

69. Well, you seem to think semen placement is very important. How phallocentric of you.

It's not where your dick went--it's where you made commitments.

If you made the commitment to marriage, then you are obligated to fulfill it. It's not terribly complicated.

[houstonintc]

70. Lol, Phallocentric?

She as well is obligated to fulfill it. Adultery and cheating is breaking that contract.

In the case of paternity fraud it is very much whose dick was in who, in this case some stranger in a mans wife making a baby and her lying about it.

Save your "phallocentrist" mumbo jumbo for someone who is swayed. The mother is the one breaking the contract.

[msanthrope]

71. Nope--nothing breaks your contract with children born of your marriage.

(that is, presuming you don't take advantage of the ability to rebut paternity.)

And that's the thing that most deadbeat dads can't seem to grasp.

[houstonintc]

72. Again, you ignore #10 question...

Is the whole system just.

Children born to another man would constitute adultery. Which is grounds for divorce or ending the contract, it is a violation of the agreement.

Rebutting paternity is what the conversation has become. If the child is not yours is it just you be made to pay for it? If she cheated and deceived why should someone else bare that burden?

[msanthrope]

91. I've answered your question repeatedly.

Yes. The system is just.

The system is concerned with the support of children and isn't interested in being a sexual traffic cop. That your putative wife cheated on you is unfortunate, but your remedy against her has nothing to do with your relationship with the children you have.

You are focusing on the 'sins' of your putative wife. The law doesn't really care, and isn't interested in affording you a remedy that undercuts support of minor children. It's that simple.

[houstonintc]

97. Ain't my kids, they wouldn't or shouldn't be my problem...

The law shouldn't force someone to support children that aren't theres. If it's about the interest of the child why not just send a bill to the wealthiest people in the area at random?

[Hugabear]

83. What about the actual biological father, does he have any responsibility?

Let's say a woman is married, goes out and has an affair with another man, and has a child as a result of that affair. The husband finds out about the affair and divorces her. Does the man with whom she had the affair with bear no responsibility at all? Or does he simply get to say "Hey pal, you're the one who was married to her, so you get to pay for my child"

And why would you automatically label the husband who doesn't want to pay for a child that isn't his a "deadbeat dad"? What about the guy who is the actual father? He's the good guy in all of this?

[houstonintc]

84. I think some believe responsibility falls..

... only to the unlucky, the sucker, and the sap.

[msanthrope]

90. Well, it depends.

Most states have a certain time period where you can disavow a child of a marriage. In the hypo you suggest, custody of the child would be resolved during the time period, and the genetic father (if known) named for support reasons--because all children are owned support. After the time period, though, that's it. You cannot disavow a child of your marriage.

You write 'actual father.' Under the law, the state is highly reluctant to delve into the marital relationship to disturb the presumption that the family presented is the 'actual' family. It's not about good or bad--it's about state interest. The state has limited interest in determining genetic relationships, and great interest in making sure children born are supported.

[Lance_Boyle]

94. NOT 'born of his marriage' - born of HER AFFAIR!

You are incredibly thick.

[TorchTheWitch]

74. how does the woman no for certain the child is not biologically her husband's?

You're assuming for some reason that the married couple are not having any sex with each other around the time she would have conceived the child, and in such a case, the husband would know already that the child was not his biologically, so there's no deception there.

In most every case, the woman doesn't have any idea who is the father of the child because at the time of conception she was having sex with her husband and at least one other man. The only lying going on would be in not informing her husband of the POSSIBILITY of the child not being biologicallly his.

I don't understand how you believe that women mysteriously just KNOW who is biologically the father of their child when at the time of conception she was having sex with her husband and at least one other man. Unless there is something striking and obvious about the baby's appearance, she isn't going to know who biologically fathered the child, and if there IS something striking and obvious about the baby's appearance, her husband is certainly going to know it as well as her. There simply isn't any way for a woman to know for certain whether or not her husband is the father, so there is no deliberate deception that the child is not his... only that there may be a POSSIBILITY that the child is not his. I would imagine that most women delude themselves into believing the child is biologically their husband's in order to avoid having to tell him she had cheated on him and risk the marriage falling apart and facing raising the child alone especially when there is the possibility that the child IS biologically her husband's.

[houstonintc]

75. A lie is a lie, in your description she is still lying.

You're assuming for some reason that the married couple are not having any sex with each other around the time she would have conceived the child, and in such a case, the husband would know already that the child was not his biologically, so there's no deception there.

Then the this wouldn't fall under the category of "duped dads", if the couple was not having sex and she became pregnant then it would be a clear cut case of adultery... if she tried to lie she would be caught or married to a painfully ignorant partner.

In most every case, the woman doesn't have any idea who is the father of the child because at the time of conception she was having sex with her husband and at least one other man. The only lying going on would be in not informing her husband of the POSSIBILITY of the child not being biologicallly his.

A lie is a lie, she would still be telling him it is his baby on top of the cheating. That is still a deception and she is still a liar.

I don't understand how you believe that women mysteriously just KNOW who is biologically the father of their child when at the time of conception she was having sex with her husband and at least one other man.

She shouldn't be having sex with another man besides her husband. Again the husband should not be liable for another mans spawn or her terrible betrayal.

Unless there is something striking and obvious about the baby's appearance, she isn't going to know who biologically fathered the child, and if there IS something striking and obvious about the baby's appearance, her husband is certainly going to know it as well as her. There simply isn't any way for a woman to know for certain whether or not her husband is the father, so there is no deliberate deception that the child is not his... only that there may be a POSSIBILITY that the child is not his.

Not informing him of the other man is deception... you know a lie? Again she shouldn't be cheating, if she is sleeping with someone else the husband should be aware of that, if not she is guilty of lying. And yes it is DELIBERATE if she is not forth coming with that information.

I would imagine that most women delude themselves into believing the child is biologically their husband's in order to avoid having to tell him she had cheated on him and risk the marriage falling apart and facing raising the child alone especially when there is the possibility that the child IS biologically her husband's.

You can imagine all you like, they still are deceptive and lying to innocent people. If she was afraid of the marriage finding out said hypothetical woman shouldn't be committing adultery and deceiving her husband. I don't know whats worse in your attempted justification... that it's not a lie if she is unsure but still cheating or that she might be justified in fooling him and herself so she can use her husband as an ATM machine.

[TorchTheWitch]

89. Sorry, doesn't cut it

A woman can't lie to her husband and deliberately deceive him into believing a child that she DOESN'T KNOW whether or not he supplied the sperm to create it. The deception is in cheating on him which is not the same thing as the deception you have been claiming that she deliberately deceived him into believing a child was not biologically his that she KNEW wasn't. THAT is what you have been claiming throughout this thread... that the women deliberately deceived their husbands into believing they supplied the sperm that contributed to the creation of the child when they somehow magically KNEW it wasn't. It isn't possible to deceive someone about a specific thing when you don't even know yourself what that specific thing is.

It is absolutely repugnant that any man would reject a child they had believed they biologically fathered when they had already BEEN that child's father in every way. What is it that you don't seem to get about fatherhood having fuck all to do with sperm and EVERYTHING to do with accepting and acting as a child's father???? How the hell do you explain that to the kid? "Sorry, I know longer give a shit about you much less love you because I found out it wasn't my sperm that contributed to creating you, so go fuck off now."???? I notice you didn't address this part of my reply... why is that? Didn't want to have to actually come right out and say that a child you accepted and acted as the father to is morally acceptable to reject if you find out it wasn't your sperm that contributed to said child's creation? That the ONLY reason to love and care for the child is that it was your sperm that contributed to creating them? Didn't want to try to explain how you would tell said child you had accepted and cared for as the father why they are no longer acceptable to you and that you no longer love them?

What if a woman had to be artificially implanted in order to conceive and at some time in the future discovered there was some kind of mistake and the egg that was used was not actually hers? Would you be so forgiving of that woman who accepted and acted as the child's mother until this discovery if she suddenly rejected the resulting child? FAT FUCKING CHANCE.

Done with you. {{{CLICK}}}

[houstonintc]

95. liars are liars...

She deceived by not telling and cheated... In that case I might even say throw her out completely.

And I am sure your infinite support for the liar and deceiver can not see another perspective in it. That being the perspective of the deceived. Fatherhood is the domain of fathers to define, not the domain of some individual. If I or others don't want to raise the bastard offspring of some random man and a lying woman then that is mine and every other mans prerogative.

Considering in cases of divorce, the man likely will not be acting as father anymore, why should he pay for children that are not his own?

[LisaL]

101. This has in fact happened recently, when a woman was implanted with

an embryo that was not biologically hers by mistake in a fertility clinic. And she had to give the child up to the bio parents when the child was born. Under the law, she had no right to keep this child because it's not biologically hers and thus belonged to the child's bio parents. So please don't pretend that biology of where the child came from isn't important.

[TorchTheWitch]

111. she was forced to give the child up

She didn't decide she no longer wanted to be the mother of the child when she found out it wasn't biologically hers. Totally different situation than what we're talking about.

The laws that govern parenthood by adoption, surrogate child bearing and artificial means concerning conception that make biology more important than anything else are also repugnant and they are contrary to the laws and the reasons for the laws which govern the children conceived naturally and born of the marriage. I'm sure you can agree that tearing a child away from the person/people who accepted, cared for and loved as their own biological child and giving said child to the biological "parent" who is a stranger to that child is horrible for the child and selfish of the biological "parent" as well as being horrible for the person/people who accepted, cared for and loved that child as their own biological child. However, I'm sure you can also agree that it would be even more horrible for said child to discover that the person/people giving them up were giving them up because of contrary and immoral laws forced them to but because they voluntarily no longer considered the child to be "theirs" just because it wasn't their sperm or their egg that contributed to the child's creation.

Is there something you aren't getting about a parent's acceptance, love and care of a child being solely contingent upon whether or not it was their sperm or their egg that contributed to the creation of said child being repugnant and morally unacceptable regardless of whether or not the child was conceived naturally and born of the marriage?

[LisaL]

126. She was forced to give the child up because it was not her

bio child. The child had bio parents. If two people are married, but the husband is not the father, that child has the bio father out there. Why shouldn't the bio father pay up?

[msanthrope]

93. And? So she lied. How is that the state's interest?

Seriously, what do you expect the state to do for you?

You have a remedy against this evil woman. It's called divorce.

But you seem to think it is in the state's interest to punish adultery. It's not.

Further, you seem to think there's some equity in denial of support to minor children for the 'sins' of their parents. There's not.

Finally, you seem to think the cuckolded man's plight is of any interest to the state. It's really not.

[houstonintc]

96. The State?

Besides the fact that this chain of thought in this part of the thread is about the morality and justice of it...

The State should leave the man alone, the child born of that lying woman should be the sole problem of the liar and deceiver, not the deceived. He should never be compelled to pay for her misdeeds. Let her bare the burden alone.

The State doesn't have to do shit... it can just let the chips fall where they may.

[msanthrope]

112. Yes--you are asking for state action.

The state has made a decision of priorities--its number one priority is not your indignation, or your morality.

Its number one priority is the support of children.

So the mother may be the Whore of Babylon---but that has nothing to do with the support of the child.

[houstonintc]

119. Lol, Saying do nothing is not a demand to act...

Literally the state not be involved.

As in they have no say and no decision involved. If the marriage fails the two parties go their separate ways without a string left.

[msanthrope]

121. You want a divorce, right? That's state action.

Otherwise, you aren't going different ways 'without a string left.'

And guess what?? You want a marriage or a divorce, you obey the state rules. Children must be cared for.

[houstonintc]

123. Doesn't have to be...

The State shouldn't be involved in marriage,

And I'm all for caring for children... THE CHILDREN I MADE!

[blueamy66]

137. If she's gonna go out and sleep around on her husband

and have someone else's baby, then she can very well go out and get a job and support the kid on her own and go after the biological Dad for support.

When one gets married, one signs a contract stating that all kids born while they are married are automatically his biological kids?? Really?

[seabeyond]

80. she KNOWS she is fooling around and there is a possibility it is not his. IMO

at the point of betrayal, then there is an obligation and responsibility to inform that husband of the possibility not to mention the man that might be the father. she made these choices. live up to her part in it. the woman has the ultimate power in having the baby knowing that it is hers. we have to understand the man is not afforded that same privilege ergo we have a huge responsibility in playing fair here.

my youngest, blue/green eyes, blonde hair in a family of three others, brown hair, brown eyes.

we kept waiting for the youngest eyes to change. they didnt. after a year i told hubby, you want a dna, more than welcome, no feelings hurt.

there was no reason for him to think i screwed around on him, but i understood the position he could feel he was in.

he wasnt concerned. he was pretty sure.

but i allowed him.

as a female, we have a that role

[LisaL]

99. No deliberate deception? So, in your view, if a woman is

cheating, and she has a child that might be not her husband's, that is no big deal and she isn't being deliberately deceptive? O'key.
:eyes:

[Lance_Boyle]

57. What about the other parts of the bargain, like the "forsaking all others" bit?

Why should one party be given a line-item veto on that marriage contract? Taking your viewpoint (as presented) to its logical conclusion it would appear just for a jilted spouse to kill his/her cheating partner on the grounds that they "bargained" for exclusivity. After all the remedy is even spelled out in the contract - "'til death do us part."

Nope - you have an extremely warped sense of justice if you think this passes the most cursory sniff test.

[msanthrope]

61. Actually, my 'warped sense of justice' is the prevailing legal view.

Children born of the marriage are considered just that. Born of the marriage. The state doesn't have an interest in figuring out how children of a particular marriage came upon the planet.

[houstonintc]

63. The question was "is it just" not is it legal

Many things are legal but unjust.

[msanthrope]

67. Yes. It is just that children born of a marriage are presumed to issue of their parents. . n/t

[houstonintc]

68. Did you read post #10...

The one asking "Is it Just"... not "Is it legal" which is the original post.

[TorchTheWitch]

76. it's perfectly just when the man agreed to it when he entered the contract

Marriage is a contract in which there is the obligation that both the husband AND THE WIFE accept as their own any children born "of the marriage" which means born to them during the time they are married. When a man marries he is accepting the conditions of that contract including this one. Should he not want to accept those conditions, then he shouldn't have entered into the marriage contract.

Fatherhood is both legally and morally a state of being, not whether or not it was your sperm that contributed to the life of a child. When a man accepts that he has fathered a child and acts as said father's child both legally and morally he IS that child's father whether or not he discovers at some time in the future that the child is not biologically his. As it should be.

It's absolutely repugnant to me that any man who believed he was the father of a child and acted as said father's child could turn away and no longer accept that child as theirs just because they find out someone else's sperm contributed to the creation of said child. It's obvious that any man who could do such a thing doesn't love the child for themself and ONLY cares that it was his sperm that contributed to said child's creation... that their love and care is solely contingent on whose sperm contributed to the creation of the child. Pity any child for having such an asshole as a father.

[houstonintc]

77. So, what of her cheating?

Marriage is a contract in which there is the obligation that both the husband AND THE WIFE accept as their own any children born "of the marriage" which means born to them during the time they are married. When a man marries he is accepting the conditions of that contract including this one. Should he not want to accept those conditions, then he shouldn't have entered into the marriage contract.

Adultery is grounds for divorce. Faithfulness is also part of that contract. Her cheating in the marriage and the resulting child is proof of her violating this contract.

Should she have not wished to be faithful she shouldn't have entered. What punishment exists for fraud? Or is marriage now nothing more then legal slavery?

Also legally one can contest paternity even in a marriage so legally, no one is not absolutely bound to whatever babies born.

Fatherhood is both legally and morally a state of being, not whether or not it was your sperm that contributed to the life of a child. When a man accepts that he has fathered a child and acts as said father's child both legally and morally he IS that child's father whether or not he discovers at some time in the future that the child is not biologically his. As it should be.

No it should not. If she violated his trust he should not bare the weight of her crimes against him. By and by fatherhood does not imply marriage anyway, or anymore so your previous paragraph is moot on this point. If this is the case then why not just mandate the wealthiest men be press ganged into fatherhood for all the local children... since it is in their interest and they would have material support?

Morally she shouldn't cheat, morally a cheated individual shouldn't be enslaved because someone else did a crime. If she commits fraud she should not go unpunished nor should an innocent man bare such a burden by coercion.

What moral is there in this?

It's absolutely repugnant to me that any man who believed he was the father of a child and acted as said father's child could turn away and no longer accept that child as theirs just because they find out someone else's sperm contributed to the creation of said child.

It's absolutely repugnant to me to find anyone practically establishing that women have a right to cheat and cuckold innocent men. Let alone drain them so they may not be able to afford to have their own flesh and blood descendent's.

It's obvious that any man who could do such a thing doesn't love the child for themself and ONLY cares that it was his sperm that contributed to said child's creation... that their love and care is solely contingent on whose sperm contributed to the creation of the child. Pity any child for having such an asshole as a father.

It's obvious any woman who would defraud a man that way is a stone cold horrible person without a conscious. I pity the child who has that for a mother.

Call it biological determinism, or simple instinct, a man should not have to spend his life's work and resources on another mans child. Denying him the resources for having his own children. Nor should any woman be able to usurp his life to raise another persons kids by force.

[Hugabear]

85. Apparently in this case it's a one-way contract, heavily weighted in favor of one person

Apparently to some, being faithful isn't a "condition" of marriage. The woman can do whatever the hell she wants, go out and fuck whomever she wants, have children by other men, then divorce her husband, then stick him with the child support payments. Meanwhile the actual father, the person who caused the breakup of the marriage, has absolutely no responsibility at all for his child?

Sounds like a valid contract to me. :sarcasm:

[Lance_Boyle]

98. It is clear that some people responsing on this thread are doing so from

a position of unacknowledged privilege - the kind of unacknowledged privilege that a feminist will fight tooth and nail to retain while shouting "equality!" from the other face.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. The parts of the patriarchy which are convenient are perfectly okay. n/t

[WatsonT]

102. Marriage also generally comes with the assumption of sexual exclusivity

one person must have violated that.

And what about following a divorce?

[Mimosa]

116. That's just not right.

I've read of those cases where DNA proved the husband is not a child's bio father. IMO it is not right to make him pay to support a child he did not father.

[Bake]

5. Can't speak for every state, but I know it's true in KY and MS.

It may however be a rebuttable presumption.

Bake

[GKirk]

11. I understand in Michigan

the husband's name goes on the birth certificate as the father even if divorced from the mother.
As long as that divorce happened within the last 9 months.

I can see that could cause some real hard feelings.

You leave your wife and file for divorce because of infidelity.
She moves in with the boyfriend who impregnates her.
The actual divorce could be quite a long ways down the road
before the husband is no longer liable for the wife's bad decisions.

[aquart]

12. Yes. Because family matters more than paternity.

It is in the interest of the state to ensure that all the children are treated equally in the marriage. The CHILDREN are what's important, not Daddy's ego or Mommy's libido.

[WatsonT]

14. And for single mothers?

I guess they could do a lottery. Select some poor schmuck and random and force him to pay child support.

Afterall, it's not about fairness, it's about the kid.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. That has been known to happen

[FiveGoodMen]

20. "It is in the interest of the state" ,,, "The CHILDREN are what's important"

Make up your mind.

[seabeyond]

21. the woman fucks around, lies to all including her children and then rewarded.

cant stomach it.

[Codeine]

47. No. I wouldn't be coerced into paying a dime for a child not my own.

Not a single dime.

[msanthrope]

92. Yes. This.

You have pithily expressed the law.

[WatsonT]

13. If so it's a horrible system

no need for it anymore. A man shouldn't be stuck paying for someone else's kid.

[WolverineDG]

16. That's what we call "presumed father" in legalese nt

[mn9driver]

17. First hand knowledge: It is true in Minnesota

I found out that I am not the biological father of two of my three children while my wife was divorcing me. And yes, I pay child support for them.

Here's the funny thing though:

I will never forgive her for behaving in this way. Never. But those children are MINE even though I am not biologically related to them. They KNOW I am their father and that they are my children. I love them, and they love me; I would never dream of not doing all I could to support them. I spent a fortune to get as much custody of them as possible, and I would do it again.

The man who donated half of their genes is completely irrelevant to them and as far they they are concerned, he is irrelevant to me as well. They don't know him, and they never will. Some folks may see it differently, but I would do this even if it were not the law.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. This should be YOUR choice. n/t

[slackmaster]

18. Yes. My stepbrother got hosed by that one.

California rules of evidence give husbands two years after the birth of a child to demand a paternity test. If a man waits until after two years have gone by, any paternity test becomes inadmissible as evidence in court for determining liability for child support.

My stepbrother's first wife's third child was so obviously not his that not even Rodney Dangerfield could express it adequately. But he loved her and procrastinated in getting a test until it was too late. He was stuck for about 14 years paying child support for a boy that was biologically not his.

[dsc]

23. what bothers me most about this

as a gay man looking in, is that when we talk about gay parent's rights as adoptive parents we hear about the primacy of genetics and natural parents but in this instance all of the sudden genetics don't matter.

[flvegan]

27. It's true in Florida.

[customerserviceguy]

28. This might have made some sense in the pre-DNA testing age

but it doesn't anymore. However, the law is slow to catch up to science, and depending on the courts to use common sense or science is a risky proposition for a man stuck paying child support for a kid that was the product of his cheating wife's affair.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. It is the legal presumption, but can be fought in court

The issue comes if he had previously accepted them as his own and supported them he can be required by the court to support them. In rarer cases 2nd husbands who have no biological relationship and were not married to the mother when the child was born have been required to pay child support.

The "best interests of the child" trump just about everything else in family court.

[JVS]

32. This kind of shit is why deadbeat dads are cool.

They fight the system.

[Lex]

33. The law PRESUMES that, and a husband can ask for a blood test

to disprove paternity, if he wants.

Not crazy to presume that if two people are married, then a child born during that time is the husband's. But the husband can overcome that legal presumption, if he wishes.

[LisaL]

36. I believe he will still be required to pay child support, even

if the child isn't biologically his.

[LisaL]

34. Our laws are lagging behind, since DNA testing can now

reveal paternity.

[Horse with no Name]

35. One of my former colleagues shared a story with me

Her son and his girlfriend split up.

They were split for a few months.

They started dating each other again (as well as other people).

They got back together.

She ends up pregnant almost immediately.

What to do?? The young man talks about this to his father.

His Dad gave him the best advice that I have ever seen given.

He said (paraphrased).."Son, if you love this girl and you want to marry her, then I advise you to do that. She didn't cheat on you because you were not together. BUT, if this is what you decide to do, then you have to accept that child as yours and raise it as such. I would be very disappointed if you asked her for a DNA test on that child because as far as your Mom and I are concerned, if this is your decision then THAT is our grandbaby. If you love that child and you love that girl...then you will be its Daddy. That should be enough for you."

Anyway, the boy loved the girl and they got married. The baby ended up being his--they knew this not because of a DNA test, but because the baby looks just like him. They have been married a few years and just have had their second child.

I don't know my former colleague's husband personally...but I love the advice he gave to his son.

[LisaL]

38. Well if he wanted to raise this child even if the child was not his,

more power to him. But there are plenty of men who do not want to raise somebody else's bio child.
Why shouldn't the actual bio-dad be responsible?

[houstonintc]

37. "Think of the CHILDREN!!!" is primarily why it's still the law.

Presumed paternity and efforts to prevent paternity fraud are stymied mostly by that idea.

Personally, if requiring a guy to pay money for kids that are not his own against his will are in the best interests of the child why not just send the bill to the richest males in the country? Or pick some random schmuck off the street and make him or her pay?

[Yo_Mama]

41. In some cases random schmucks are made to pay

In CA, especially, for a while that was the rule.

In 1996 a federal law was passed allowing an unmarried woman to cite the father of her child. A notice was then sent to the "father". If he did not contest, a default judgment against the "father" was entered, and then the "father" could be tracked down and forced to pay child support, even if he had never met the mother, the child was proven not to be his, and he never received the notice.

In 2005 things changed somewhat:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/15/20050115-115942-7925r/?page=2

In various states there have been law changes to protect men somewhat. Still, it is possible for a man to be named a father of a child by a woman he never met, and to have to pay money to prove that he is not the father.

[houstonintc]

44. Yeah California is a bad state for this, or was...

I think they reformed the law somewhat. Thankfully I am young and was never named the father of anyones kid. * phew *

AB 252 I believe it was called. But even that is a pittance. I still can't stomach how these blatant scams are seemingly legal other then emotional appeals of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!1!1!!!!"

[WatsonT]

104. Well hey, if he didn't want to pay for the kid he should keep it in his pants

oh right . . .

well he shouldn't have been born with a Y chromosome.

[Yo_Mama]

39. That's the common law tradition

It is changing though, as a result of abuses.

I am a woman, and I don't think that a woman who sleeps around on her husband and ends up with some other man's child should have the legal right to make her husband support her child.

A married man should have rights too. I am quite sure that those who defend this presumption of law would never agree that a man who sleeps around on his wife and gets another woman pregnant should then have the right to get her to kick in for child support for that baby after they get divorced. If he gets dinged for child support while they are married, of course it will affect their joint finances.

The issue of harm to the child is irrelevant, because it is the woman who got pregnant who is responsible for the harm, not the man.

Also we should consider the reality that if a man is forced to pay child support for children that are not his, he may never be able to support children of his own. This is a great abuse.

IMO if a man wishes to affirm such children as his own (once he finds out), then he should have the right to do so and he should keep all parental rights. Sometimes this does occur with the man's consent. But if he wishes to repudiate parental rights, he should also be exempt from parental duties.

Life is very cruel sometimes, but two wrongs don't make a right out of it.

There is also the growing problem of men who were never married to women, who were named by those women as the fathers of their children, and who are forced to pay child support for children who are not theirs. Here is one recent case in CA:
http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/211794

In CA, for a while you could just name the dad, and the authorities would pursue the man for child support. In this case, the man was not the father and was never even notified in time to contest, but now has money being confiscated.

[cynannmarie]

40. it's true--have first hand experience with this

Ex and I were separated for a couple years before initiating divorce amicable process. Later in that period I got pregnant with new boyfriend (who I later married and still with after 23 yrs) and the child was born a couple months before the divorce was final. Even though I put the biological father's name on the birth certificate, it was removed by the state vital statistics dept when they discovered that I was still technically married. So for awhile there was no father's name on the birth certificate.

Some years later the child's real father and I had to go to family court to file an order of paternity and have judge review evidence which included a statement by my ex husband as to when the last time he and I had sex, and a statement by the biological father claiming to be be the real father and vowing to support the child (which he had been doing all along). My ex husband (with whom I still have a cordial friendship) never paid any support--I would have thought that to be absurd and wholly unfair to expect it--but I guess the law would have required it from him if I had pressed the issue. When the order of paternity was finalized, a new birth certificate was issued with the biological father's name inserted.

Seems the state's interest is to make sure someone is designated as the supporter of the child, regardless of the actuality of paternity. But the mother has a lot of control in the situation and obviously can exploit it with great injustice. Men who are separating/divorcing need to be aware of the potential problems that can happen in these circumstances.

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. +1 and welcome to DU. n/t

[blueamy66]

138. Welcome to DU

I'm with ya.

There is too much vindictiveness out there today.

[treestar]

50. Traditionally true under common law

It was called the Presumption of Legitimacy. Now that we have DNA tests, it could fade.

[Liberal_in_LA]

58. I've heard it to be true also. Law adopted before DNA testing

[Book Lover]

73. Well, gentlmen, if this really strikes you as unfair, don't get married (nm)

[msanthrope]

122. Ahem. You know, I don't think that's gonna be an issue... n/t

[Book Lover]

124. No kidding. Because why use birth control yourself when you can just blame the woman

for everything?

[Nevernose]

79. Yes, and it's a reasonable assumption to make

However, more and more states are getting with the times, i.e. DNA testing to establish paternity.

Here's what my Family Law attorney told me, though. In Nevada, at least, once a father -- married or not is irrelevant -- signs an acknowladgement of paternity, he's "on the hook" so to speak for child support for the entire 18 years. Reasonable so far, right?

But what happens if the man never got a DNA test and was just a stand-up guy who wanted to take care of the kid who thought of him as Daddy later decides, for whatever reason, to have a DNA test? Say for something benign, even altruistic, like organ donation. Turns out the kid isn't his.

The actual, biological father could then get the other guy's visitation rights or even full custody, while the "adopted" father still has to pay the child support. All of the financial obligations, none of the actual parenting. It's a loophole, and totally expoitive, but my lawyer swears he has seen it happen more than once.

I can't even imagine: to find out the kid wasn't mine, then to have the kid taken away for no good reason, and then to get a bill a few months later?

(For the record, I knew all of this and still didn't get the DNA test. I know the kid's mine and no test or court can take her away from me. Although now that she's 15, some days I wish there was a place I could send her sometimes :) )

[seabeyond]

81. never mind. nt

[Lyric]

88. It's true. I was long-term separated (but not divorced) when my son was born.

My ex-husband was NOT the father, but the State of Virginia tried to force him into paying child support (without my knowledge or consent; I was getting Medicaid at the time, and this was something they did automatically because I was receiving public assistance). I went with my ex to the family court and testified that my ex was not my son's father; then we did a DNA test to prove it. The judge actually had the nerve to tell me that I "should have kept my mouth shut", because I could have gotten child support. I was flabbergasted. Why on earth would anyone want child support from a man who isn't the child's father?

Of course, my son's REAL father skipped the country and never gave me a dime to help out. But at least my ex wasn't stuck paying for someone else's kid--and *I* wasn't stuck having to share custody and visitation with an alcoholic spouse abuser. He went his way, and Rhythm and I went ours, and that was that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. A conscientious thing to do. n/t

[seabeyond]

110. that is how i see it. i cannot see it any other way.

the flip side, no matter how much i listen and think, i cannot even kinda see it as ok.

lack of integrity. so damn tired, of lack of integrity.

[Mimosa]

117. You are a decent person, Lyric

I can't imagine making somebody work for 18 years to support a child which isn't his. Unjust servitude like that would really make a man hate the woman.

[Lyric]

125. It was the right thing to do.

I'd never deliberately lie about my child's paternity. I think that kind of behavior is about the most reprehensible thing you can do. It's like emotional rape. And worse, it hurts the kids the most. My son's father has been doing it for years, telling people that our son ISN'T his. I know the kind of emotional trauma that sort of thing can cause to the kids involved; I have to deal with it all the time.

I honestly don't know how anyone who'd tell such a terrible lie (from either standpoint--the mother's or the father's) can live with themselves. It's just monstrous.

[RegieRocker]

103. A nation of stupid shit piles. No wonder they sell a $ 6900.00 toilet.

So much shit.

[supernova]

114. It's right that things are changing

In the days when proving parentage was iffy, it made sense that the legal spouse was responsible for the child.

But with DNA testing that allows everyone to know the truth and to be honest about it. Hopefully our body of law will catch up with science in this regard.

[opihimoimoi]

130. Good, let him raise the kids.....

[seabeyond]

132. that would be the other point. since the mom is willing to have so little character, father must be

the better parent (after research) and he can be the primary parent

[Manifestor_of_Light]

134. I had to pay child support to my ex husband for years,

for the child that I wanted and loved. But he got custody. It was his child.

And the minute I told him I was pregnant, AFTER we were married, which I was thrilled about, the first words out of his mouth were, "Why don't you get an abortion?".

So I went on a two hour crying fit because I was absolutely shocked that he felt that way. He spent FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS on his divorce lawyer, going after me and also trying to get my elderly father's law license revoked.

He told people I "trapped him" into marriage. I did no such thing. We were married almost a year before I got pregnant.

He had to persecute me for having a beautiful, healthy child. I told him that millions of couples would give everything they owned for a healthy child.


Some people don't know when they have it good.

I think he's a sociopath. :shrug:

[Blue_In_AK]

135. I don't know about divorce,

but here in Alaska, I was required to show the court that I had attempted to contact both my ex-husband -- whom I hadn't seen in five years but had neglected to divorce (and who actually was dead by this time, unbeknownst to me) -- and my daughter's biological father when my second husband wanted to adopt her at age three.

I imagine anything involving children would mandate notice to all relevant parties.