Why do men have to continue to pay child support?
Many courts across the land are making men continue to pay child support even after DNA tests have excluded them as the father. Why is the court supporting the lying mother? They are sending a message to SOME women that if they lie long enough, the "father" (usually ex-husband) will get stuck with the bill. Aside from possible medical reasons why the biological father may need to be identified or additional sibblings and extended family, the court has assumed that he does not want to know his child. The court assumes that these women are sluts and have no idea where the man is they slept with. They put no responsibility on the woman at all. What about the other man's rights? What about the rights of his biological children? That money probably would put them through college. The court has made them all victims. This is not blind justice. This is irresponsible. It is never too late for the truth. The court cannot protect one person's rights while violating someone else's.
Answers:
didn't you know, it's not what/who is right or wrong...
it's who has the best attorney. hence the reason why most death row criminals had court appointed attorneys (they couldn't afford their own).
It is such an unfair world.
Because women can't do anything themselves, and America's Judicial system is flawed
Because you are half of the team which made the baby/babies.
I think it's wrong for a man to have to pay child support for a child not his if the mother lied about paternity. She should get the support from the biological father. However, that said, why do so many men not pay child support for the children they HAVE fathered? I guess there's some symmetry somewhere.
==========
Kudos to Sparkles below. Well said, Lady.
You want the true and honest answer to your question? Men need to stop jumping into bed with every willing female. If men took responsibility for their bodies and respect themselves, they would stop this from happening. Unfortunately there are women out there that jump into bed with every guy who comes along. The woman ends up not knowing who the father is to her child so she will blame the last guy she was with. For self preservation keep your pants zipped and stay away from women unless you are in a loving relationship and are married. I promise that if you do this, you will never have to worry about having to pay child support for some other guy's child. You are right, it is not fair.
Spleenwater this comment is for you since you are too f*cking ignorant to understand what I wrote. I was NOT excusing women in anyway for their deplorable actions. It is not right for any woman to trap a man into paying for children who are not his. I did not say it was alright for women to do this, and I did not say this is the man's fault completely. I was saying, and I am so sorry you are too ignorant to know how to read what I was saying, that men have take care of themselves so that they are not put into such a compromising situation. Unfortunate as it is, there are women who find themselves pregnant and the guy took off. Guess what? She finds another guy and has sex with him and tries to pass the baby off as his. You need to re-read what I said. I think women can do despicable things to unsuspecting men. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own actions.
If you don' t take responsiblity, then you have no right to complain about the outcome. This goes for women as well as men. Now do you understand me? Women who are choosing to have children this way are either making innocent men take care of children who are not their's or going on welfare and being a burden on the taxpayer.
If DNA proves Mr. X is not the father, he should not have to pay anything.
He should get all money refunded.
If he is the father, yeah, he should have to pay, so i don't.
Whoever the woman was married to at the time of birth and has their name on the birth certificate becomes the legal father, especially if at any time the man was a father figure to the child.
I don't necessariy think all non biological fathers are made to pay but maybe it has to do with the fact that you or other non bio's accepted the responsibility for the kid at some point in time during the relationship and if the kid knows you as "daddy" then for all intents and purposes YOU are dad. Therefore you pay.. I don't know...just a thought.
If that happened to me I would sue the mother for slander/liable. Claiming that the false statements she made about me being the father led to financial loss on my part. The damages would be all the money I had paid her plus the money I would have to continue paying. that would even things out.
Interesting (however not really true) tirade. Many courts? Show more than one source.
Court assumes nothing, did the father ask for visitation or just to end support. The rest of you question is junk.
I don't know which state you are in, but in some states, if it is proven that the man paying the child support is NOT the biological father, he can sue the mother for a refund.
It does, however, get a little more complicated if the baby is born while they are still married. Unfortunately, the husband is seen as the child's legal parent.
If the man found out when the child was two years or younger then I agree with you, child support should be severed.
But if the child was 10 or 14?
DNA is not all a Father is. If you bonded with the child then you should pay for the support of it if you have been raising it for a decade.
If Fathers have ANY question on paternity, get a DNA test in the beginning. they are relatively cheap.
Never take a Woman's word for it.
My guess would be because the children aren't old enough to take care of themselves!
Because the child needs support?
Any cases of this?
Where does this happen?
Around here not only does it become a non-issue after a negative paternity test, but the money charged for the test is then refunded to the man.
_______
Who cares how long he's been with the kid? He should have the option, most will chose to pay and have the child in their life still if they want to be a father--they shouldnt be forced to spend time with the child or to pay for the child if that is not the case.
the court only cares about the court and how much money they can make off child support.
If the man refuses to pay for kids who are not his, what will the charges against him be? He's not a "deadbeat" dad. He's not even a dad at all. I would move to another state, let another jurisdiction handle the case, fight extradition, and if they pursue contempt of court, you can then present your evidence which is in black and white. No jury can rule outside your favor.
Your argument represents, in logical terms, the red herring fallacy.
In rare cases, men have been wrongly forced to pay child support for children proven to be someone elses. This doesn't mean that men shouldn't have to take full, long-term consequences for their actions.
In the vast majority of cases, men pay child support for children they have fathered, and can be proven to have fathered.
As the anti-crime fanatics are fond of saying, "You do the crime, you do the time."
I don't agree with it either, but do understand the logic. Yes, the court has assumed that the biological father does not want the child, or he would have been aware of the pregnancy of the mother, birth, and current circumstances of the child. Additionally, once a man assumable fathers a child and accepts that child as his own, a bond is formed between father and child, just as between mother and child. Is it then the child's fault when it is later determined that it was not this man's sperm who gave the child life? Should the man (one child knows as Dad) physically, emotionally, and financially abandon this child because of a dishonest mother? Why make the child suffer? Like it or not, a forced child support arrangement is one way for the court to insure that the "father" (though not biological) continue to know where the child is, have the ability to maintain contact with that child, and be a positive male role model for that child. If the mother put the child in this situation to begin with, it's likely someone else has to be a role model.
Unfortunately, a child born in wedlock belongs to both partners, whether the man is the biological father or not. I heard a statistic that up to 25% of all children born in wedlock are bot biologically the man's offspring. They have to draw a line somewhere and unfortunately, it isn't fair. Increasingly, this ruling is being challenged on the grounds of gender fairness. After all, if a woman can sue a man for child support, the man should also be able to appeal and NOT pay if not the biological father. More and more men are winning these challenges and not paying for children not their own. The same applies to step-children. If a man marries a woman with children, and then subsequently divorces, it used to be he had to pay child support for the step-children which allowed the woman to double-dip at the child support trough, which I think is where the precedent for support for children not the man's in marriage came from. The problem is that the state still goes after whoever is closest who has the money, which means the non-biological father gets hit and the step-parent gets hit unless each fights it very aggressively. I almost got hit with the step-children support until I pointed out to the judge at the settlement conference that she had prior outstanding judgments from the real fathers. So, I got off the hook and paid no child support for children not my own. Like the assumption that the mother usually gets custody, the courts feel the man should usually pay child and spousal support, no matter how unfair it seems. Now you know why it is unlikely I will ever marry again without a pre-nup which spells these things out in great detail.
i think the answer to your question is contained in ***sparkles*** comment but not quite how she meant it...
you see, there are some women that feel like they aren't responsible for their own actions so they blame men for "jumping into bed with any willing woman". I'm sorry, did i miss something? is not a woman that "jumps into bed with any willing man" just as culpable as the man that lays her?
get real sparkles, your ignorance and avoidance of responsibility is exceeded only by your spiteful blaming of men for doing the same things women do. to blame a man for being promiscuous but excuse a woman for being such a whore that she doesn't even know who the father of her child is is about the most sexist thing Ive heard in more than a decade.
people like you piss me off.
It is quite simply wrong to make a man pay child support who did not father the child unless he adopted said child. Make the mother present a list of people she slept with and determine who the biological father is. If it can't be determined becasue she's such a **** that she doesn't know everyone she slept with then she can't expect child support from anyone.
I would also like to see the mother and father each be 50/50 responsible for the financial support of the child. And I would like whoever has custody of the child to be held accountable for how the child support is spent.
i have never heard of a case where the man has to continue to pay child-support after DNA test say that he is not the father.
and if that does happen then the man accused of being the father could file a counter-suit
what case has been like that, b/c i have seriously never heard of that??
Women can pay child support too you know. If the father has custody of the kids, then the mother has to pay. It has more to do with who is awarded custody than which sex. Unfortunately, men generally get stuck with the bill because courts generally award custody to the mothers because of stereotypes dating to Victorian England.
On the thing about DNA, if the father legally adopted the kids when marrying the mother, it doesn't matter what DNA says. The ex-husband is now, on paper, the father and therefore gets the bill if the ex-wife gets the kids.
The way the law is, if a couple is married and the woman cheats and gets pregnant, he is responsible legally for supporting that child. I don't think it is fair, but also, it is not fair to the child because they know that man as their "daddy". It is the same if a man meets a woman that is already pregnant and they get married before the baby is born. He is legally considered the father in terms of support, even though, he really has no rights to the child because he did not adopt the child. Yes, the system is flawed, BUT if a man believes that the children he and his wife have are his and he treats them like his children and he is their daddy, and he wants to have a relationship with them after the divorce, he should contibute to their support.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: