Who Knew I Was Not the Father? How DNA testing is changing fatherhood

[Liberal_in_LA]

Who Knew I Was Not the Father?

Published: November 17, 2009

Mike L. has remained a father to a daughter that wasn't really "his."

What makes a father? How would you feel if you discovered your child was not really "yours"?

It was in July 2007 when Mike L. asked the Pennsylvania courts to declare that he was no longer the father of his daughter. For four years, Mike had known that the girl he had rocked to sleep and danced with across the living-room floor was not, as they say, “his.” The revelation from a DNA test was devastating and prompted him to leave his wife — but he had not renounced their child. He continued to feel that in all the ways that mattered, she was still his daughter, and he faithfully paid her child support. It was only when he learned that his ex-wife was about to marry the man who she said actually was the girl’s biological father that Mike flipped. Supporting another man’s child suddenly became unbearable.

Two years after filing the suit that sought to end his paternal rights, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. “I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”

Yet despite his indignation — and despite his court filings seeking to end his obligations as a father — Mike loves his daughter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

[MineralMan]

1. DNA testing does not always yield welcome results.

Every scientific breakthrough has its own drawbacks, it seems.

[leftofcool]

2. You took on that responsibility no matter who's "biological" child she is

so pay up and quit whining! You say she is your child, right?

[Vincent441]

4. I disagree

[NoNothing]

8. He had a fraud committed against him

He did not assume that responsibility voluntarily.

[leftofcool]

9. Yet he continued to pay support to a daughter he claims

to love...........until the ex remarried.

[NoNothing]

15. So what?

I drop money in the Salvation Army bucket every Christmas. Does that mean they can garnish my wages if I don't do it this year?

How does the fact that he wanted to help his daughter when times were tough for her mean he should be forced to continue doing so now that they aren't?

[leftofcool]

19. I guess it depends on whether or not you love the child enough to

see to the welfare of the child. What does DNA have to do with loving a child enough to provide for her if you were indeed providing for her while married to the mother?

[NoNothing]

26. The child now has two married, biological parents

If they cannot see to her welfare on their own, they are negligent and should lose custody.

It is offensive and degrading to insinuate as you do that "love" has a dollar value. Pay up, or you don't love your child? Disgusting.

[leftofcool]

29. Yep, she should just do as he wants.......just give her back

no fuss, no muss, no paying out any money etc...

[NoNothing]

35. What a strange concept of love you have

I love my parents, my siblings, but I don't send them wads of cash every month whether they need it or not.

Suppose for a moment this young woman was ambivalent about whether or not he was forced to pay child support to her biological parents, and that her relationship to this man was more important to her than money. Would that change your opinion at all?

[leftofcool]

37. As a former teacher and advocate for childrens rights

I will be on the side of the child every time. The mother may have been wrong, but which is more important, non-biological daddy's ego or the welfare of the child? As to your first question, I sent my mother money every month until she passed away. I would send my sisters my last dollar if they needed it, same with our 4 children and 2 grand daughters.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. So then why don't you pay the child support?

You're the child's father as much as this guy is.

[Dr. Strange]

83. She's not THAT much of an advocate.

An advocate in the sense of, "Hey, why don't we use YOUR money!"

[NoNothing]

It is not a matter of EGO but JUSTICE

There is absolutely nothing at all to suggest that the girl's welfare will be in jeopardy if she has only two parents supporting her, like virtually everyone else, instead of three. Against that, you have a clear injustice, a man deceived by fraud and now his wages stolen from him and given to an intact family that he has no biological connection to.

We abolished slavery despite the economic hardships it imposed on the former slaveowners - because at some point justice is more important than material welfare.

[SunnySong]

45. The child doesn't need his money she has two parents to support her. nt

[apocalypsehow]

54. By that logic, a person cleared of committing a crime by DNA evidence should remain in prison

because it would cost too much to find the real perpetrator, put him on trial, and then make him pay the consequences of his actions. Not to mention the trauma to the victim or the victim's family when they discover that the real assailant/perpetrator is still on the loose.

I mean, what's more important, the non-criminal prisoner's freedom, or the welfare of the criminal justice system to be right even when it's proven wrong? :shrug: By your logic above, the latter is.

Folks seem to go to incredible lengths to tie logic into knots to justify injustice.

[Hosnon]

57. Ego?!

This man has been put through the ringer financially and emotionally. I cannot you believe how dismissive of him you are.

[Silent3]

59. What the hell does this have to do with being on the "side" of the child?

It would be great if every kid had three parents worth of income and support. So what? What terrible dilemma would this kid suddenly be in if the extra support payments stopped and suddenly has to "suffer" through having only two parents for support? Plenty of kids get by with only one parent's presence and income.

[Yupster]

82. The best interest of the child is that he/she be supported

We can all agree on that.

Now supported by who (whom?) is the question.

In this case it seems pretty obvious since she lives with her biological mom and dad. That's kind of a "Duh" moment.

Now what if these two are unable to support the child?

Then the society (government) has an obligation to support the child just like any other child.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This unrelated man has been defrauded by an evil, unscrupulous woman. How she should be punished and he should be compensated is an entirely different issue from who will support the child.

[Lagomorph]

85. Then you pay the the child support...

Doesn't matter where the money comes from, right?

He's not the father, the child's parents are married and living together with the child. He wants financial relief and you want the family to get money. Send them some, yours, not his.

[rantormusing]

90. How about his standard of living?

Is it ok for him to be homeless or go to jail as long as that child gets the extra support? There's food stamps, welfare, section 8, wic, and god knows what else. I'm really wondering what your justification is for ruining this man, cause that's what would happen if he stood up for himself and stopped paying, to throw money at family that is likely self sufficient.

[Heywood J]

114. +1

With two biological parents living together, they're more than capable of supporting the child. He doesn't need to contribute financially when the girl is being provided for by two other functioning adults. Right now, he's being used to subsidize their lifestyle.

Emotionally, though, he deserves visitation rights because he helped raise her as his own. He'll probably get something like a grandparent receives for visitation.

[Riftaxe]

16. Heh, you make it sound like he had a choice...

instead of being forced to by law.

[Hosnon]

21. He is the victim of fraud here. The ex-wife is the defrauder.

The child is innocent like the "father".

Solution: "Father" gets all rights and benefits as a father but the ex and her husband must foot the bill. If there is ever a financial shortfall regarding care of the child, "father" compensates.

The deck is stacked against men in family law and it is wrong.

[harry_pothead]

96. Yep. Exhibit A on why I refuse to get married.

[rantormusing]

89. Nice,

Reach for that hatred, it only exposes yours. Why should he pay if the child is in a two parent home? WHy should he provide an extra cushion for a full family?

[appal_jack]

13. wtf?

If you're looking to throw money at un-related strangers, I can send you my address.

I accept personal checks, USPS money orders, and small-denomination bills.

-app

[leftofcool]

14. non-biological does not equal unrelated, especially when

said non-biological father claims to love said child.

[seabeyond]

18. bullshit, jsut fuckin bullshit and i hate this attitude. not you personally, smilin... nt

[leftofcool]

22. Yep, some people equate love with DNA

Now that mom is remarried, he just wants to give the child back.

[seabeyond]

27. no. it is betrayal, it is deceit, it is a lie. i dont see it as you do at all.

IF what we take from this story, IF it is as presented in story, that is not how the story goes.

i cant respect dishonest, deceit, lie. there is nothing in me that will allow me to honor that. i would have a hard time paying for the lie, yet a broken heart at the loss of the child.

placing self in that position, i dont know what i would conclude, or how i would resolve, but from how i see it, it is so beyond what you create it.

this man didn't do anything wrong. the woman did everything wrong. the daughter is the innocent.

[leftofcool]

31. I agree, unfortunately, the daughter suffers if he does not

continue to pay support. Which is more important? His ego, the welfare of the child?

[seabeyond]

34. yes she does suffer. and it is 100% ALL on the mothers shoulders for creating this situation

for her daughter. the mothers wrong created this. it is not this mans fault.

she is the guilty one. she is the one that hurt both. she is the one that creates the doing without for daughter.

[LanternWaste]

40. Preceisely how does the daughter suffer....?

Precisely how does the daughter financially suffer any more than any other daughter who is being raised by her two parents?

You seem to imply that without the faux-father's financial support, the biological family will no longer to able to support their daughter-- or to a much lesser degree than currently? Am I inferring your position correctly?

Granted, on an ethical level, it is indeed a sticky wicket all the way around; but I think we must force ourselves to realize that in many instances, ethics and the law are two wholly and separate concepts (as is love and money, too...)

[Chulanowa]

63. What you'll find on DU in topics like this...

Is that a lot of people hide behind children to justify their own misandry.

[Politicalboi]

50. What if mom and new dad move?

And old dad NEVER gets to see the child again? Does he still pay? Does he still pay if by chance new dad is a millionaire? He was wronged, and the mother and new dad should have to pay him back.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crystal Clarity]

112. The child now has her 2 bio parents supporting

It seems to me that the child may suffer if (he/she?) is denied the opportunity to see the non-bio father after having had a loving bond with him. Perhaps the non-bio dad should still be given some type of visitation. If he and the child wants it.

But I don't see any point in him having to pay child support.

[LoZoccolo]

32. That's why men should deny their children until a DNA test proves it they are the father.

It would be no good to accept that sort of obligation unless absolutely necessary.

[XemaSab]

61. I know that these cases are rare

but what about surrogate parents, adopted parents, parents where a sperm donor was used, gay parents, or even step parents?

Equating biology to parenting is overly simplifying the situation.

[Hosnon]

62. Haha.

"Sorry honey, I'm not claiming this sweet little newborn until you prove paternity."

Great way to destroy a marriage.

[SunnySong]

42. I couldn't disagree more... honestly the woman and her new husband owe him some money. nt

[SunnySong]

43. Dupe

[cliffordu]

44. Maybe someone else's children shouldn't be an ATM

The responsibility ended when the fraud was uncovered.

Perhaps the mother should go sue 'anonymous' for the rest of the child support.

[Lucian]

68. It's not his child.

It's bullshit. He shouldn't have to pay.

[Nordmadr]

110. Whether or not he wants to pay at this point is irrelevant.

Whether or not he should be compelled by law to pay is. He is not the child's bilogical father even if he is is emotionally attached to her.

This must have been devastating for him at first. I wonder how it has been for the daughter.

"Just because our relationship started because of someone else’s lie,” he said later, “doesn’t mean the bond that developed isn’t real.” Still, his love became entangled with humiliation and outrage, and each child-support payment stung so much that he felt compelled to take a stand on principle. In doing so, he also took the small but terrifying risk of losing his child."

[mnhtnbb]

3. Well, of course he loves his daughter. What a fix to be in, though.

Can you imagine how messed up the poor little girl is going to be?
The child support should go into a trust fund administered by someone who will
insure it is used for the welfare of the girl. The mother and biological father
shouldn't be able to touch a penny of it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

6. Further into the article there is a 20 year old who's non-bio father

walked away when he found out he wasn't the bio dad. She's really messed up.

The last time Smith saw his one-time daughter was nine years ago, when she was 11. His outrage at Chandria’s mother and the system remains close to the surface. “We’re penalized for trusting our wives or girlfriends!” Smith seethed to me. He has long since lost track of Chandria. It is as if she ceased to exist once their biological connection evaporated.

Chandria, however, has not forgotten Smith. Her memories of her 11 years with him are happy ones, which makes what happened afterward so hard for her to grasp. As Chandria, who is now 20, remembers it, Smith just disappeared from her life. “I was just a kid, so I didn’t really understand what happened or why,” she said. “He never did explain why he didn’t want anything to do with me anymore.” Chandria says he wouldn’t answer when she called him at home, or he would promise to call back but never did. Smith says he doesn’t recall Chandria calling him.

She stopped seeing friends and holed up in the bathroom, scratching and picking at her skin until it bled. The more it hurt, she told me, the calmer she felt. Her hair started to fall out, her grades slipped and she had trouble sleeping, details her mother and her mother’s lawyer at the time corroborated. Chandria received counseling at her school and privately for years.

[seabeyond]

41. details her mother and her mother’s lawyer ... i feel such a huge anger at this woman

her daughter is a mess and this woman acts like she is victim.

i cant express hwo angry this makes me.

i have known a few women like this. the mess up, hurt, screw up every person in their lives the cry.... what about me.

[harry_pothead]

97. This wouldn't have happened had there been testing at birth.

[ladjf]

99. I think that DNA matching should take place by law at all new

births. In the long run it would yield more benefits for everyone involved. In the event the DNA
didn't match the presumed father, that male could, and most often would, accept custody of the child anyway. Having done so legally, there would be no further litigation.

If, on the other hand, the presumed father, whose DNA didn't match, refused to accept the child that was born to his wife or sex partner, then their relationship would likely end at that point. It would be the mother's burden to locate and solicit support from the biological father.

Overall, the requirement for a DNA match at birth would likely prevent many such situations from happening at all. The mothers, knowing that the true paternity would show up at the birth of the child, would have been more careful about the possibilities of impregnation.

My views on this may seem to ignore the innocent child's interest. But what justice is there for the
presumed father, who turns out to have been deceived by the situation? Should that man be required to assume the parenting responsibilities of a newborn that was in no way his child. It is the child
of his wife/or sex partner. She is the one who has the true knowledge and therefore should be the one
who does her best to see that the child is raised.

[reggie the dog]

108. the male could and most often would

walk away from the lying woman

[msongs]

5. depends on whether it is just a shakedown or you have committed emotionally - this guy is getting

shafted in terms of child support tho. Nice work if another man and woman get a third party to pay for the kid. Good if he still wants to be involved with the child however.

Msongs

[The Wielding Truth]

7. The biological father should step up and pay.He should man-up.

[seabeyond]

20. absolutely. and the mother should not demand payment from X. and she shoudl do

all that she can to keep relationship between X and the daughter, if both want it.

[Warpy]

10. Sperm donors who leave are rarely decent fathers

while men who step up to the plate and do the work of fatherhood are. The best of all are the ones who do the work in the full knowledge it's not their DNA they're caring for.

Genetics should determine financial liability, only. A man's contribution to raising a child goes far beyond a DNA deposit and that has to be recognized, too, in cases where DNA proves that deposit wasn't his.

The law just has to start to recognize that DNA and parenting are two separate things.

[jody]

11. Solution: require every male provide a DNA sample so paternity can be determined & rapes solved.

That can be done with the new ID to prove citizenship and recorded on a tracking device implanted in every male.

[jp11]

24. So long as we are starting a national id system it is discriminatory to

track, tag and catalog every man and not every woman or anyone who doesn't identify as one or the other either.

[Hosnon]

25. You diminish your cause by being so childish.

Shame on you. Empathy...try it sometime.

[JonLP24]

74. I don't think the Fourth Amendment would allow that

I could be wrong as I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure you can't do that based on that because there have been attempts to get DNA like that. However I know for sure cops are perfectly allowed to offer a suspect a soda and collect DNA samples whenever he or she is done. However they can't demand it without a warrant.

[harry_pothead]

103. Behind the sarcasm is a good idea.

Everyone (men and women) should have a DNA ID card.

[jody]

109. DNA ID cards will be mandatory, just a question of how long before they are. n/t

[murray hill farm]

12. He should not have to pay child support.

He should legally be relieved of that debt by the courts...and at the same time, he should legally be given liberal visitation rights until she is 18 to maintain the father/daughter relationship and contact that has been and is emotionally important to them both.

[Nordmadr]

111. This. N/T

[seabeyond]

17. i rmember this story. it pisses me off so much. it is wrong wrong, that any woman

have the audacity to commit this kind of deception on a man and HER child. what an ugly person that is. i have no empathy for the woman, i dont really care what her situation is. it disgusts me.

and the trauma this man has to experience is wrong

but most.... i hope he can find it in himself to honor that daughter she always was to him.

[Vincent441]

23. I agree

[proteus_lives]

51. +1

[Radical Activist]

28. He should be able to sue his ex-wife for fraud

to get the child support money back.

[rantormusing]

92. Definitly,

though i wonder if the law is so twisted that restitution isn't allowed. If there is no father, or he made his choice not to have a child, there should be no force to make him participate or support that child. It's about choice, you can't give one individual power over another, and expect anything good to come of it. There are plenty of services to help single parents without destroying the other.

[seabeyond]

30. my husband and i are br hair, br eye. oldest son br hair br eye.

my youngest son, blonde hair and blue or green eye depending what he wears.

we waited and waited for sons eyes to change. finally after a year i told hubby, you know, if you want a dna test, wouldnt bother me a bit.

he didnt of course.

but i bet it assured him

woman have a responsibility in all this. we arent all innocent.

[mimitabby]

38. blue eyed blond hair -- recessive

If you were both blue eyed blondes and you had a brown haired brown eyed kid, THEN i would worry.
Both of you are carrying genes for Blue eyes and blonde hair.

[seabeyond]

46. i didnt know that. i thought the other way around. but you are right

off in a distant part of my family, and my brothers sibling there are different ones.

thanks for info

[Maine-ah]

33. shit, I didn't mean to un-rec that.

Sorry x(

[seabeyond]

36. dontcha hate when you do that. care enough to hit the button then hit the wrong one

i hear ya

[Liberal_in_LA]

48. no problem

[Kalyke]

47. In most states, the "father" is considered the person to whom

the mother is married at the time of birth, regardless of biology.

You can rail against the state law, but that is what it is.

In this case, both the mother and Mike are unmitigated assholes: the mother for cheating and lying to Mike and Mike for treating this girl as his daughter until the mother remarried and then dumping her like yesterday's trash because his ego is bruised.

[seabeyond]

49. a man is betrayed by a woman he loves and it is a bruised ego. a man though....

would be put thru the eat grinder.

i agree with you on almost all things. but i cant go here.

i would like mike to have everything done to make visitation and relationship with this daughter. the mother be forced, by court for her deeit.... with NO payment.

i cant go with the law. i cant go with deceit, deception, ugliness, being rewarded.

the pain the daughter is in.... ALL on mother.

[Kalyke]

55. Of course it's all on the mother, but Mike should not

dump the girl - financially or otherwise - after building a relationship with her. She would know and I think that would further hurt her (hopefully, you see what I'm saying) - even if he is just revoking financial support.

And, in nearly every state I've researched the husband is ASSUMED to be the father upon the birth of the child if the couple is legally married, thus his responsibilities were cast upon issuance of the birth certificate. Yes, it sucks - it really, really, really sucks and I wish married couples would stop cheating on one another, particularly when a child becomes the result of such adulterous affairs. This is but one of the problems associated with lying to your spouse: either agree to an open marriage, don't get married in the first place or request a divorce before you RUIN other peoples' lives.

I can't access the article, but, if you know, why was a DNA test in the first place? It would never occur to my husband to have one done.

[seabeyond]

69. it seems from the last story, wife said something to him at some point in a fight or something.

It was in July 2007 when Mike L. asked the Pennsylvania courts to declare that he was no longer the father of his daughter. For four years, Mike had known that the girl he had rocked to sleep and danced with across the living-room floor was not, as they say, “his.” The revelation from a DNA test was devastating and prompted him to leave his wife — but he had not renounced their child. He continued to feel that in all the ways that mattered, she was still his daughter, and he faithfully paid her child support. It was only when he learned that his ex-wife was about to marry the man who she said actually was the girl’s biological father that Mike flipped. Supporting another man’s child suddenly became unbearable.

Two years after filing the suit that sought to end his paternal rights, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. “I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”

Yet despite his indignation — and despite his court filings seeking to end his obligations as a father — Mike loves his daughter. Every other weekend, the 11-year-old girl, L., lives in Mike’s house in a quiet suburban neighborhood in Western Pennsylvania. Her bedroom there is decorated to reflect her current passion: there’s a soccer bedspread, soccer curtains and a soccer-ball night light. On her bed is an Everybody Loves Me pillow covered with transparent sleeves filled with photos of her and Mike, the man she calls “Daddy,” canoeing, fishing and sledding together.

As the two of them prepared breakfast together one Saturday in June, just after L. finished fifth grade, Mike sang a little ditty about how she was his favorite daughter. A few minutes later, when he noticed L. sneaking a piece of raw biscuit dough, he poked her. She looked at him impishly until they both giggled.

“Just because our relationship started because of someone else’s lie,” he said later, “doesn’t mean the bond that developed isn’t real.” Still, his love became entangled with humiliation and outrage, and each child-support payment stung so much that he felt compelled to take a stand on principle. In doing so, he also took the small but terrifying risk of losing his child.

[Gormy Cuss]

72. That excerpt makes it very clear that the issue is his bruised ego

is what is behind this. From the article it seems that he was willing to be the child's legal father long after it was established that he wasn't her biological father. It was only after the ex married the man that he took exception. It may make sense to him to draw the line in the sand that way but from an outsider's perspective it just looks like he's just trying to punish the ex.

How the law handles this situation should always start from a protection of the best interests of the child. The law can't both accept his claim that he wants to sever parental rights and his assertion that he still wants to be the child's father.

[seabeyond]

73. the issue does not seem bruised ego... to me. the father not a unit

why should he. he was willing, though not obligatory to pay when there was not another income. even though he knew he ahouldnt have to, still did because of connection with daughter and need of money. with a marriage, ... why should he.

[JonLP24]

75. That is messed up

I admit-I glanced through the article in the op so I missed the fact that the biological dad is now married to the mom! Wow! And he is paying child support to a daughter that has a mother and father in the household? Wow.

[Bo]

52. What Stupidity is this? His time to keep paying is OVER.

Let the real biological father support the little girl. Are nation is so bushwacked.

[Poll_Blind]

53. Paternity fraud is a great racket with little downside for the perpetrator.

I must say, even though I have followed these stories for the last few years I was surprised at the article's assertion that around 30% of those who suspect paternity fraud are proven correct if they go through the expense of paying for a paternity test.

This is maybe the only crime I can think of where the perpetrator of the fraud, even when caught, is still able to extract funds fraudulently and without fear of any real punishment.

That's amazing if you think about it. But more amazing yet is that the "best" thing defrauded fathers can do (to ensure winning their case against the fraud) is to immediately cut off all contact with their child (once the test comes back negative), something which most fathers are unwilling to do (having emotionally invested in and bonded with the children). And so they continue to be financially victimized for almost two decades until the child is 18.

If anyone knows of another kind of fraud which is as bad or worse on the victims (one of whom is an innocent child), and one in which the perpetrator has as little fear of punishment for the crime, I'd love to know what it is.

Most frauds are based on deceptions of some sort but this one is the nastiest, most manipulative, that I can think of at the moment.

PB

[Hosnon]

60. Exactly. The incentive here is atrocious.

1. Find a financially stable man.
2. Marry him.
3. Get impregnated by the man you actually want to be with.
4. Divorce financially stable man.
5. Marry man you actually want to be with.

Voila: Free money to support you and your true love's child.

[Chulanowa]

64. "If anyone knows of another kind of fraud..."

Professor of Economics
Clergy
Financial Advisor
Republican Politician
Stephen King (learn to END a story, you asshole!)

[Poll_Blind]

65. Ha! I didn't even think about those- good point!

IMO, some institutions are so corrupt as to reach a sort of perpetual rolling fraud.

PB

[JVS]

56. That's bullshit! Sue for custody!

[Chulanowa]

70. Won't work

Even in cases between biological parents, the court will favor the mother, unless she coems to the hearing with her eyes pointing in different directions and has a needle hanging out of her arm.

He could sue for custody... but there is simply no way that the court is going to favor him, a single non-related man, over a married pair of the child's biological parents. No way in hell will that work in the American system. They would prefer that this girl stay with her lying bitch of a mother, and Some Dude, than have anything beyond a fiscal relationship with the man she grew up calling "dad"

[knitter4democracy]

81. That depends a lot on the state.

In Michigan, dads have a decent chance at getting custody, and nationally, last I read, over 80% of fathers who go for custody get it. He really should consider going for custody--he's probably got a case.

[Hosnon]

58. I see a simple solution to all this: He gets all the rights and benefits of fatherhood.

But he is not financially responsible for one cent, unless and until the two con-artists cannot afford to fully care for the child. At that point, he makes up the difference.

And if the child wants to grow up blaming anyone, she has two easy and justifiable targets.

[Poll_Blind]

66. Yeah, something along those lines does seem like the answer.

PB

[seabeyond]

71. agreed. he was conned into an untruth. both bonded. both connected. he gets full right to her

without having to pay for it.

[Nay]

77. Yep. The best analogy I can come up with is the grandparents' law

some states have.Grandparents are never legally required to pay child support to a grandchild, but they have specific rights of visitation that parents cannot deny unless the grandparents are unfit. Of course, grandparents are related to the grandchild, unlike Mike and his daughter, but I think the analogy holds. Mike should have the full rights of a father and not have to pay one thin dime to his rotten ex and her lover.

[Spike89]

80. He isn't paying the rotten ex and her lover...

he is paying for support of his daughter, the child he has and continues to raise. The mother has nothing to do with it and the dude she married has even less.

[SunnySong]

86. No the money funds thier lifestyle, pays for thier cable, allows them to go on vacations.

Child support may be for the child in theroy but reality is a more sticky wicket.

[Nay]

88. Believe me, the money is going to the ex and her new hubby.

In fact, if they are like most assholes, they'll remind Mike every week about how they are screwing him over and are laughing all the way to the bank.

The law, which has always held that the father was the guy who was married to the mother, will soon have to be amended to recognize the reality of DNA testing. What the law will have to determine is how the relationships and support shall be divvied up in such cases, keeping the welfare of the child in mind. Now, I do NOT believe that the "welfare of the child" should automatically make some poor sap, like Mike, pay up for 18 years just because he married a cheater. After all, the law didn't tap the helpful neighbor man, or the favorite Girl Scout troop leader, for support money when the parents of the girl got divorced. There's a reason for that -- only parents or guardians are responsible! The catch is that Mike is the victim of an archaic law.

To me, adoption is different because both parents theoretically agree to adopt a child, knowing full well they and the child will not be biologically related. Mike, not knowing he was not related to his 'daughter,' proceeded as if he were her father because he was being deliberately misled.

When he found out she was not his biological child, he should not have been forced to pay child support. Period. Any money should be entirely voluntary. He may choose to keep paying, as he did, but I certainly can't fault him for saying "oh, hell, no!" when his ex married the biological father. That's just too much of a slap in the face. If I were the judge, I'd be setting his child support at $10 a month, and forcing Mom to allow generous visitation for "the welfare of the child." Let's see how that sits with good old mom.

[rantormusing]

93. Then he should pay when the child visits him.

Takes care of the situation right there.

[Lucian]

67. He's not the father, he shouldn't have to pay.

This is bullshit.

[ladjf]

100. I agree with your assertion IF the DNA mismatch is known

almost immediately. In other words, there is no period during which the "presumed" father was acting as though her were the biological parent. If a year or so passes, it's too late to
change the child's legal status in regard to lineage.

[Dawson Leery]

76. If he is not the father, then he must pay nothing.

[Spike89]

78. The judge's instinct was probably justice

However, Mike is the father in every way except biologically. He is no different than an adoptive father who gets a divorce. Him supporting his daughter has absolutely nothing to do with the mother and absolutely nothing to do with who she marries. All that stuff is beside the point.

I think cases where the "father" and children have and had no relationship are far different.

[Sgent]

79. IMHO

if child support must be paid (and I'm not sure how I feel in this case) by a non-biological parent, the biological parent should lose all parental rights, and the one paying support should receive them.

[notadmblnd]

84. It's unfortunate, but the man that was married to the woman at the time she gave birth is the father

in the states eyes. You can only get out of this if she goes back to court and admits that she lied about who the father was in her divorce papers. The court will then go after the real father. If you get along with her, she might be open to it.

[Book Lover]

87. DU hashed this out when the article was published

Why repost it today?

[rantormusing]

94. Because it's needed

The fraud and injustice done here is severe, and until these laws are fixed and accountability is evenly shared, you will still hear about them.

[Book Lover]

106. I see

Knock yourself out, son.

[harry_pothead]

95. The United States should have mandatory genetic testing for all babies at birth.

We need to do it anyway for medical reasons for the child. But genetic match cards replace the father's handwritten name and signature on all new birth certificates. That way we avoid these cases where people find they are not the father after however many years. And it takes the shame and guilt out of genetic testing - now your child is genetically tested because you have to because of medicine and regulations, not because your husband/boyfriend thinks you're a slut.

EDIT: With Testing free or reduced price for low income parents.

[ladjf]

101. That's it. In the long run such a law would save a lot of heartache

and distrust. Also, there would probably be fewer mis-matched DNA births.

[Book Lover]

107. Just the government

thinks you're a slut, I mean.

[harry_pothead]

98. Oh, and this thread is not complete without this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt2i0ts-uck&feature=related

[Poll_Blind]

102. LOL, OMG you are evil....(and I found a better one!)

HERE

Oh man...

PB

[harry_pothead]

105. I'll raise you one more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UenDYX26uN0&feature=related

The 2nd half of this made me fall out of my chair.

[dsc]

104. There is a very simple solution to this

Anytime a mother does this she should become presumitively unfit with the non biological parent getting first shot and the bio dad second shot at raising the kid. If neither want to or both are unfit then the mother should have to prove herself fit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. The answer to your question is "mom and dad knew".

They found it fulfilling and profitable to perpetrate fraud on Mike L.