Dad wasn't dad after all, but still owes child support

[nimbus]

Paternity is established by the 'father' signing the birth certificate, or a court determining paternity.

In this case, I presume the husband signed the B/C based on the fraud that the mother committed. Judges in divorce or paternity suits can / will / do / have an obligation to change the B/C to reflect the real father when the issue is raised / proven.

I don't remember the details, but I beleive this guy accepted paternity based on the FRAUD commited by this woman and a year had passed (which was his window or statute of lmitaion on disputing paternity) but only because of said fraud.

What I am debating is that there shouldn't even be a limit on the window to dispute paternity, ESPECIALLY so in the case of fraud. That's like putting a limit on someone appealing a guilty verdict when new compeling evidnce, such as DNA, would proven them innocent.

What you are saying is that paternity is / should be automatic and the biologics of it should have no weight at all - that is unless the biological father can be found - then and only then can this poor innocent schmuck be let off the financial hook.

If i was this guy and you were the judge, I'd kill you.

i pulled this off wiki wiki wi, wiki wi, wiki wiki wi wi pedia:

In law, Paternity is the legal acknowledgment of the parental relationship between a father and his child usually based on biological factors, but sometimes based on social factors.

At common law, a child born to the wife during the marriage is presumed to be the husband's child, as determined by law. This concept is the "presumption of lawful paternity", and assigns to the husband complete rights, duties and obligations as to the child, regardless of whether he is the biological parent or not.


In law, Paternity is the legal acknowledgment of the parental relationship between a father and his child usually based on biological factors, but sometimes based on social factors.

At common law, a child born to the wife during the marriage is presumed to be the husband's child, as determined by law. This concept is the "presumption of lawful paternity", and assigns to the husband complete rights, duties and obligations as to the child, regardless of whether he is the biological parent or not.

 

[Bikini Mod]

you know, I've been thinking a little bit more about this situation........and my position now is "somewhat" different after some reflection.......basically I put myself in the position of a supreme court judge and how they would rule on it.........or more like how I would rule on it if I were a supreme court judge..... So, y'all ready for some King Solomon shit right here???

Ok, my original position still stands that the father should not/cannot be forced in anyway to accept responsibility for the child.......if the kid drops into poverty, it's on his stinking whore of a mother. Ok........but here is what I would do if I was king.........because I feel that there still is "some" connection between the father and the child......I'd call both of em in and put the mother to the fire. Basically, I'd first ask the father if he'd be apt to take care of the kid if sole custody resided with him.........and I'd kind push him that direction with not so uncertain threats.......ok, I get him to agree...........than I call in the whore and ask her just how much she loves her child........I'd tell her that the child get's taken care of by your ex, but that you relinquish sole custody and see your child basically on his whim, so it may be never. This way the guy raises the kid "basically" as his own and none of his money goes to her manolo blanik and gabana fetish............if she doesn't wish to relinquish custody, fine........she raises the kid on her own and the man is absolved of all responsibility.....................all hail king alexander the great!! and i'm off to my harem!...... peace bitches!

While this sounds good in theory, IRL it don't work that way.

IRL, I know of a NON-whore mother who did just that - and got the title dirty whore regardless.... doesn't get her kids at all ever, paid a ton of money, faces jail time and is forced to live with the knowledge that her children suffer abuse on a daily basis.

The bottom line is LIFE JUST ISN'T FAIR.

 

[jh1]

i pulled this off wiki wiki wi, wiki wi, wiki wiki wi wi pedia:

In law, Paternity is the legal acknowledgment of the parental relationship between a father and his child usually based on biological factors, but sometimes based on social factors.

At common law, a child born to the wife during the marriage is presumed to be the husband's child, as determined by law. This concept is the "presumption of lawful paternity", and assigns to the husband complete rights, duties and obligations as to the child, regardless of whether he is the biological parent or not.

And this presumption is regularly reversed by courts as it should be.

This guy simply let statute of limitations pass, because he was defrauded and thought he had no reason to question the biological paternity of the child(ren).

Under your policy, he'd never have the opportunity to be released from the financial paternitiy obligation - unless the biological father could be identified. That's even more ridiculous than what the court was saying...

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

You guys wouldn't believe how many men I personally know that pay $1000+ per month.

I understand the real victim is the child, it's not their fault, but heres a nice case for you:

One of my personal friend pays $1200/month for 2 kids to his X. His X is married to a business owner and they live in a 500k house. In this state you can't include the spouses income, so despite they have $ out the ass he still has to pay. And the real kicker: As soon as they put in a brand new inground swimming pool bitchX took him back to court and got the amount raised as it hadn't been adjusted in years and he earns more now.......and literally told him "the extra $ will pay for the pool".

Not only that............my friend has $400 month deducted from his gross for union dues and the judge won't consider that in his income level stating "well you're union, that's just part of it". That's outright bullshit, even if you're anti-union.

He's recourse.........his wife makes a lot $ so he got fired on purpose and hasn't worked in 9 months. LMAO.

 

[roadwarrior]

I think once I raised a child for 3 years and loved it, I wouldn't want the test. I wouldn't want to know the kid wasn't mine, if I loved it.

That's true HR... love is thicker than blood. The guy even said he would provide for the kid but did not like the whor.. ahem... mother touch the money. But I do agree with the earlier poster about taking it out of the hide of the guy.

 

[roadwarrior]

i'll work on #1, i've seen studies though

as for #2, the article states how much he is being asked to pay. i'm sure the amount was at least partially based off of how much the mother makes.

i'm not gonna delve into #3, those involve your own values and emotions and have nothing to do with me or the facts. i don't know who the fuck you think you are talking to me like this though, settle the fuck down

money makes for comfort not happiness. Happiness comes from within... one's love for one's self, family and country; pride in one's accomplishments, and a sense of "place" in the world, etc. All the money in the world can not replace those things... only mask them until they creep into one's dreams and one is a miserable 40 something wondering where life went after all the toys become boring.

 

[redsamurai]

you're in california aren't you?

You guys wouldn't believe how many men I personally know that pay $1000+ per month.

I understand the real victim is the child, it's not their fault, but heres a nice case for you:

One of my personal friend pays $1200/month for 2 kids to his X. His X is married to a business owner and they live in a 500k house. In this state you can't include the spouses income, so despite they have $ out the ass he still has to pay. And the real kicker: As soon as they put in a brand new inground swimming pool bitchX took him back to court and got the amount raised as it hadn't been adjusted in years and he earns more now.......and literally told him "the extra $ will pay for the pool".

Not only that............my friend has $400 month deducted from his gross for union dues and the judge won't consider that in his income level stating "well you're union, that's just part of it". That's outright bullshit, even if you're anti-union.

He's recourse.........his wife makes a lot $ so he got fired on purpose and hasn't worked in 9 months. LMAO.

 

[ballet gal]

Oh my god, this is such bullshit, and it's pissing me off. That man is not the sperm donor. Fine. He doesn't want to pay. Fine. Cut him and his connection and his obligation and his hope for a relationship with a lovely child off. He is missing out. I do; however, believe the man is the victim here and should have the choice once he is allowed to absorb all the fucking bullshit this insane, monetary, self-absorbed excuse for a woman is heaping upon him. That's just my HUMBLE opinion. what do I know?

 

[DannoMight]

I'd go beniot on that bitch.

 

[nimbus]

And this presumption is regularly reversed by courts as it should be.

This guy simply let statute of limitations pass, because he was defrauded and thought he had no reason to question the biological paternity of the child(ren).

Under your policy, he'd never have the opportunity to be released from the financial paternitiy obligation - unless the biological father could be identified. That's even more ridiculous than what the court was saying...

i guess i just don't think that the biological ties matter that much. he wanted kids, his wife had a kid, and he raised it for however many years. that isn't enough to love the child? he needs to just get over the fact that his wife cheated on him and stop taking it out on the kid