A man discovers the kid is not his, is ordered to pay child support anyway

I'm not sure if this was ever discussed, but with that thread about feminism, I was just curious what you guys think.

The Miami Herald

Richard Parker said he never suspected that his wife had been cheating on him when she got pregnant seven years ago.

When the Hollywood couple divorced in 2001, he agreed to pay her $1,200 a month in child support.

But less than two years later, when his son was 5, he says he learned the awful truth: The boy he had raised as his own wasn't his.

Parker sued his ex-wife, Margaret Parker, claiming fraud. He wanted to terminate his child-support payments and recover the money he had paid out. His court battle, so far unsuccessful, raises delicate questions about fatherhood and men's rights in an age in which it has become relatively simple to prove -- or disprove -- paternity.


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/13553455.htm

trying to reject his son. The kid shouldn't get in the middle of the greedy bastard's feud with his cheating wife. Doesn't sound like either parent is a particular winner, though, does it?

She did indeed deceive him, and he SHOULDN'T legally be required to pay, BUT he's not thinking about the poor kid, who didn't cause this and probably feels terrible right now.

He needed to raise this issue at the divorce or shortly thereafter.

After paying support for a couple of years, he will find no judge is going to reopen the issue of paternity.

The guy who should be in court to challenge child support is the biological father. THAT is the legal presumption. Where does it say that a man who has not legally adopted or biologically fathered a child should be presumed to owe the child's mother even one thin dime? He's a (legal) bystander in this case. And while I believe he has a strong moral obligation to the child, he does not have a financial obligation to a mother who fraudulently misrepresented his financial (biological) stake in this matter.

The other guy is the sperm donor/biological creator. This guy is legally and -- imo -- morally the dad. The financial obligation IS to the kid -- he's not paying alimony. It's child support.

And report him to the court so they can force child support out of the free loader "sperm donor" and relieve the cuckold's burden.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

...but it is doubtful he has a fraud claim against the biological dad since it was her deceit, and probably not his.

If he even knows who the biological dad is.

Whether deceived or not.

I'm sure his name is on the birth certificate, but that all changes now.

Birth certificate doesn't change either

Read the timeline in the article. They were divorced by the time the kid was 3 which means he was with the wife and child less than 2 1/2 years, maybe far less. She was cheating on him well before that, as we know.

This is a flat-out hoax.

to a hearing and show how she lied and decieved him to try not to pay child support anymore and leave her to do that? Aren't only the blood related fathers supposed to be able to pay child support?

The "best interests of the child" is the trump card here.

Would this guy be claiming that he wasn't the father to get out of paying for feeding and clothing the child.

The guy sounds like a real jerk.

was raising the child on the false assumption that child was his biological son. The child wasn't. Meanwhile, the actual biological father is not paying anything at all. Why shouldn't he?

the man was deceived from day one. The judge should have ruled that the child's father paid the support. I agree that the poor kid should not be made to suffer but the man has been forced to suffer.

For one thing - the wife maintains that her former husband was infertile and was well aware of the "arrangement"...


I think adoption is close to what happened in this case. It sounds like this is a case where the "father" wants control more than anything....



"The child, now 7, still believes Richard Parker is his father, both parents said. His name has been withheld to protect his identity.

To be sure, Parker said he still wants to help the child. He said he would like to control where the money goes, and added that he and his current wife are already starting a college fund....

Biology isn't everything, conceded Parker, himself a child of adoption."

:eyes:

Well-said.

Right?

:eyes:

Why is it okay to trick someone into a legal and/or personal relationship?

The child is no longer a blessing but is now a thing to be despised because "it" eats and must be fed.

I guess to these people "It" should be sent to the pound to be euthenized.

he thought the child was his and found out the child wasn't and now doesn't want to be apart of the kids life. :(

Not a good start.

:sarcasm:

not by this guy.

Let the judge pay the child support. For all we know he may be the real father. We know for sure that this poor guy for sure isn't.

In all seriousness, the check should come from the state because that kid is an obligation of all of us, not some poor sucker who got tricked by a lying cheating woman.

just like he'd be expected to in almost any other situation?

The courts try to look at what is in the best interest for the child.

This man is not only pulling out financially, he is pulling out completely. He isn't sharing custody. To the kid, this is like being abandoned by Daddy. What did he do to make Daddy mad enough to leave him. The story didn't say that the grounds for divorce was adultry. I don't think it mentioned any alimony arrangement.

Sure he said he and his new wife would start a college fund, but I doubt this kid will ever see it.

I think it really went like this: The father knew and consented all along. The parents split up. The father paid the money and saw his son irregularly. The father remarried. The new wife doesn't want the son around. She wants to start her own family and have the family resources to give them a good life. Child support for the existing child is cutting into those resources. New wife is the driving force behind the father trying to duck his responsibilities. He isn't very good at selecting wives. Ironically, their kids won't be genetically his either, but this time they will probably go the clinical path to artificial insemination.

And no couture can order him to be more involved than he cares to be.

The court's decision regards who pays financial support. And in any other circumstances, the "sperm donor" would be the one, even if it was the result of a one night stand with no parental involvement at all.

If the man knew and consented all along there's no question that he is and should be the responsible party.

But if, as he claims, this was the result of infidelity and unknown to him, then he's been defrauded.

Since I wasn't born with psychic powers I have no way to observe the motives and scenarios your suggest.

Many years ago, I remember asking a judge, "Why should I pay for her irresponsibility?" And the judge said, "You shouldn't. But neither should your children." That really woke me up. A lot of things aren't fair .... I had equal custodial rights, and had the boys in my home more than their mother; she earned a greater income. But I paid "support" so that they didn't pay for her irresponsibility. Within a few years, both boys moved in full-time with me, and I've never asked for a penny. Put kids first. Don't make them pay for adult stupidity.

Good job.

Why is he off the hook, so to speak? Shouldn't he be paying child support? Is he not a jerk? Frankly, I understand why the guy doesn't want to pay child support for someone else's child.

I think the first post had it right -- think of the kid.

demands that "sperm donor" paid child support for his biological child. How do you think his defense "well, I am just a sperm donor, really" would go
over with the judge?

I say raising the child trumps the provider of the sperm in terms of responsibility.

Fortunately, most judges are reasonable and will weigh the needs of the child and the responsibilities of the parents...

If a man gets involved with a woman that has children, and raises them for while, but then moves on-he is not made to pay child support.

You are bringing up situations that are different from what we are discussing.

It's wrong for the woman to have deceived the non-biological father just to get child support. If that can be proven, its not right. Granted that the child should always come first, but a man should not be deceived into raising a child when it is clearly not his. A tough situation, truly, but surely the woman should have some responsibility, don't ya think?

Remember, this man raised the child as his own for about 5 years before all this came out. He is the father.

According to you, if never spend any time with this child, even when he thought the child was his, he should be off the hook? But because he did spend time with him, he should pay 1, 200 $ a month?

I'd say not. I'd say he has the right to both have his support terminated and ask for all of his money to be returned; it was fraud, pure and simple. Why should a man have to pay support for a child that isn't his, especially if he's been deliberately deceived, as in this case? This is the kind of thing that gets men riled up against women and the court system, however wrong they may be in general.

And I'm speaking as a woman who's danced the I-don't-want-to-pay-my-child-support tango with my son's father for years, a man who bitches about any penny he has to pay at all for his son and a man who tried to claim in the beginning that I must have cheated on him when we were engaged and he wasn't the father because he didn't want to deal with it, and who never once apologized when the paternity test results came back showing just how wrong he was. The system needs to be fair to ALL parties, not just women, and it's being patently, blatantly unfair to this man.

"Ducking and putting on my flame suit" :evilgrin:

He raised the child for three years. It's his kid. Who cares where the kid came from? He's a jackass. The mom isn't any better. You don't pay child support to support your sperm, you pay it to support your child.

If this man loved and thought this child was his for 3 years, the courts probably will do what is in the best interest of the child.

I was separated from my first husband and when I got pregnant and had to give her his last name even though she wasn't his. They did not go after him for child support, which I am glad of.

I bet the same people who would take away a woman's reproductive rights will be screaming at the injustice of this without realizing it's basically the same argument.

If you are going to take away a woman's reproductive right, you ought to take away a man's right to decide if he's going to pay for the child (even if the child is not his).

and this ruling is stupid. The one who should be paying the child support is the man who impregnated her. She and the state are welcome to go out and try and find the other man. The ex-husband is being punished because she had an affair.

The ex-husband should move to Brazil. They won't be able to touch him there.

It's pro-life males who won't be able to resolve the irony of it.

:toast:

Silly courts.

Seriously, this guy may feel like he's been screwed here, bu the reality is that his marriage produced a child and he has a legal responsibility for it. Marriage is a complete partnership. While it'd be nice to pretend that he had nothing at all to do with the wife's loss of affection toward her now ex-husband, uner the law this doesn't matter. The reality is that there is no single absolute right course of action in a case like this. Impelling the man to continue caring for the child that he's cared for for the past seven years, rather than cutting off support for the child's food, clothing, and shelter, is the less wrong course of action.

Of course the bio-daddy oughta have to fork over too. But how much money can a pool boy be worth?

support.

If it were, then Bill Gates should pay the child support.

Rght?

this guy is, since the child was born in wedlock.

Right?

And since there IS a biological father NOT paying custody and a non biological father tricked into it, I think that's a problem.

to meet the best interests of the child. So the either/or doesn't work out so neatly, imo.

FWIW, I agree with you that the biological father (assuming the mother's story isn't correct) should owe child support.

legally: you are responsible for any child born to your wife while you are in wedlock.

Here's a hypothetical.

Robert and Mary are married.

Robert has an affair with Wendy and a child results. The child lives with Wendy.

Robert and Mary divorce.

Is Mary responsible to pay child support for the child that lives with Wendy?

It would seem so since it was a child born to her husband while she was in wedlock.

Does this situation come up in real life?

robert and wendy's child isn't born in wedlock. :shrug:

My husband had two children before we were married and was paying child support for them (as he should.) He lost his job and I was working. He had nothing coming in for a while, ex-wife took him to court and I was ordered to pay child support to her since we were married. It didn't happen, as he got another job, but for a while there I seriously considered divorcing him so I wouldn't have to pay child support for his children.

Do we know who the biological father is? I don't care if he is a pool boy or the CEO of GE, he should be found, and sued for everything he owns and earns. If that puts him in the poorhouse, then talk to the hand cuz the face don't want to hear it.

Finding the biological father should not just be blown off as water under the bridge. A message needs to be sent to all would be adulterers who impregnate women and skip town that this will not be tolerated.

So let me get this straight. The new standard for reproductive rights is now "Best interest of the child"? Does this apply to women as equally as men? Like say when women exercise their reproductive rights by having an abortion, or choosing adoption, or abandoning at a fire or police station?

Many here have characterized the non-biological father as a "louse" etc. for exercising his reproductive rights for refusing to be a parent for a child that not even his!

Apparently hardcore, conservative, right wing views of reproductive rights is perfectly okay for men but if the same standard was applied to women the Supreme Court would be surrounded by torches and pitchforks.

If women have choice to become a parent or not the same should apply to men. It's a no brainer. Especially if the man isn't even biologically the parent in question!

Speak for yourself.

I support the right of a woman to choose whether or not she should become a parent.

And I ABSOLUTELY support the right of a man to choose whether or not he should be the parent of someone else's kid.

If the kid suffers, it's mom's fault - no one else.

If the kid suffers, it should be all of our's fault.

If the kid needs support, the state should provide it, and I will happily pay my share.

But putting the burden of support on some poor sap just because he was played as a sucker by his cheating wife seems like piling on.

Let this guy go. He is a victim.

If the cheating wife and her boyfriend can't pay for the id, then the state should help.

doesn't matter who the biological parent is. Same for adoptions.

about 1992 during my divorce. Wasn't an issue with me, but by law the parents are responsible for children born during the marriage.

How is that not correct?

on edit: this confirms what I was told, although it's a single case in Michigan...

snip
that of “a child that the court has determined to be a child born or conceived during a marriage but not the issue of that marriage" the Michigan Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require a court determination that the child is not the issue of the marriage prior to the putative father filing his complaint seeking paternity.
snip

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/paternity.html

I'm not saying this ruling is right, the guy was cuckold. I don't see how you can refuse to help a kid you've raised as your own for 3 years... what a sad mess.

My guess is that it comes from English Common Law.

Any child conceived in a marriage has the married couple as parents. There was no such thing as DNA tests when the laws were written. In days of old when knights were bold and went off to the Crusades, their wives would sometimes continue to have children while they were gone. Go figure. When the knight came home, if he resumed his marriage and didn't challenge the legitimacy of the children, they were his even if they did look like the merchant or sheriff.

Poor men didn't always get divorces back then, they would just run out on their families. Divorces were for the wealthy.

Child support is supposed to be for the survival of the child, not as punishment to the Father. Think of the only innocent party here. How is he going to eat if his Dad won't buy him food? Now, who is going to visit him and take him to ball games and make sure he grows up to be a man and not just an adult male.

What was the father guilty of?

I don't know the financial situation of the mother, but the highest poverty group in the US is Children. Mostly children from broken homes. I have heard too much about fathers who bought expensive cars and went on numerous vacations with the new family while the kids from the old family were living on food stamps.

A child born in a marriage is legally a product of that marriage and the father is legally responsible for his share of the expenses just as the mother is responsible for her share. If the father gets custody, then, the mother is responsible for child support. You don't just walk out on a kid who trusts and believes in you.

It doesn't sound like that the way I read it.

To be sure, Parker said he still wants to help the child. He said he would like to control where the money goes, and added that he and his current wife are already starting a college fund.

If the kid doesn't have a father, he is more likely to get involved in drugs, drop out of school and a whole lot of other things bad that happen to kids without a loving relationship with a male parent, then that college fund will go unused.

The kid should never have been born to such selfish people. But he was. He exists. He eats. He needs a father, the one he knows. He is not likely to get a step-father who will fill those shoes. Those men are rare.

Unless the college fund is established in such a way that it cannot be reversed, I won't believe the kid will ever see a dime of it. The new wife will see to that.

Back to the basics. The kid was born in a marriage. He is legitimate. This man is his "father." That is the way the law is written. You can change the law tomorrow and it will impact the kids who are born after tomorrow.

I also think this has more to do with the new wife than with the father. I don't think she wants part of her husband's paycheck to go to another woman's child. It was her grandmother who instigated this whole thing. I also don't think she wants him to spend time with his son, she has plans for him to spend all his time with his new family. Based on the story, her kids won't be his genetically either.

It's the case in my state.

It doesn't matter if the husband is not the biological father: if the child is born in marriage, then the child is considered by the state as being the responsibility of the husband.

That may not be the case in all states, but it damn sure is in Tennessee.

There was a case near me that got lots of media for a while.

Woman ran off on her husband to live with boyfriend. Got divorced.

Then guy found out two of the three kids were his wife's and the biyfriend she's now living with.

Court ordered him to keep paying child support. Just send the check to your cheating wife and the real father.

It even made one of those 60 minute like clone shows a few years back.

should have at least 50% custodial rights of that child

you that it is NOT nonsense. The law in most states automatically regards a child born during a legal marriage to be the child of the husband, even if the couple were separated at the time of birth. As long as they're still legally married, the husband is automatically considered the legal father. It's called "presumptive paternity." I agree that that is totally crazy and unfair, but that's the way the law is right now.

And no, conservativesux and other similar-minded men here, it has NOTHING to do with feminism's "corruption" of family law, etc., etc., blahblahblah (insert RW talking point here). These laws and the legal concept of "presumptive paternity" were on the books long before the rise of feminism, and were written by men.

I'm not a family law expert and if I am wrong please correct me. But there is a presumption of parenthood for all children conceived or born during marriage. It is a rebuttable presumption but you have a short window (6 months to a year I think) to contest fatherhood. The state says that the child's interest in having a father is greater than the rights of a man not to be pay child support of another man's child.

All these laws were in place to protect the children because there was no way to prove who the father is. Now that we can, why should we keep the old outdated laws? Meanwhile, somebody obviously fathered that kid. What about that man's responsibility toward the child? Gee, not only he is not raising the child, he is not paying child support either. Why shouldn't he?

If evidence surfaces that a child is not the husband's, all bets are off.

IOW, it's a rebuttable presumption.

and then the court has to rule that, then they have to find the real father and make him pay.

Should the child suffer in the meantime?

assumes responsibility for the care of the child.
Or is that just a self-serving and comforting myth?

Some states are changing the law that makes any child born into a marriage as the responsibility of the parents. My belief is that all children should have dna tests at birth.

as RFK said some people look at the world the way it is and say why. I look at the world the way it should be and say why not.

Taking a guy who was cheated on and lied to and say now fork over money for a decade or more is just plain wrong.

but it does seem that the mother raised the issue during the divorce, and he should have contested it then. I know in many states you only have two or three years from birth to question paternity if you are married to the mother. Simply put, if you really want to protect yourself, get a test after birth.

It's like the old joke: why do mothers love their children more than fathers do? the mothers know the kids that theirs.

than she does to the husband?
The child is a close blood relative, the husband is just some man she met in a bar.

better kick that way. :)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And he has every right to regain the money he paid her. This is a fraud case, isn't it?

Sorry, but the child's interests clearly trump the father's. What principle of law could ever put a man's money interests ahead of child's?

The other guy is the donor

and a pregnancy results and the guy says, "Hey I ain't nobody's dad, I'm just a donor," his argument wouldn't see much sympathy on DU.

People want it both ways.

If you are a donor and never intend to parent a kid you should pay.

If you parent but find out you weren't the donor, then you should pay too.

Even if the guy never intended to have a child by having one night stands, etc, the fact that he got one makes him responsible for child support. Unless, the woman is married-lucky for him.

The principle of law that could put a man's money interest ahead of a child's is one of the most basic of all; the protection of private property.

The child does not *ipse facto* have any more claim on support from his mother's ex-husband (not "the father") than he has on support from you. It's possible to *make a case* that he does, but simply saying "think of the children" doesn't suffice.

A man (or more rarely but by no means never a woman) should only be required to support a child if a) they are the biological parent, or b) they have undertaken a commitment to raise it as though they were.

The issue here, I think is whether or not "commitment" implies "informed commitment". My feeling is that it does, and that unless the man knew the child wasn't his own when he undertook to pay child support (my impression is that he didn't, although I've heard both stories from different sources) he should not have to, and should be able to claim the money he's already paid back.

Saying "it's in the child's interests, therefore we should do it" is a superficially very tempting position, but it's not an absolute. This man pays a proportion of his income in taxes ito the state, some of which is spend on child relief, some of which will go to the child. He has an obligation to it to that extent, but not more, any more than anyone else does.

Whether levels of child support for children of poor or single parents should be higher is a completely different question, and one to which I think the answer is undoubtedly yes, but that doesn't in any way justify forcing an individual to give money to a child that isn't his.

Why should he be paying for the little bastard?

And why do the child's interests clearly trump the non-father's?

What difference does it make to the kid where the check comes from?

Whether it comes from the victimized ex-husband or the state or bill Gates, what difference does it make to the kid.

You're saying if the suckered guy doesn't pay the kid will suffer. I don't think that's a fair burden to put on the cheated on guy. If the kid suffers, it's ll of our fault as a society that won't pony up to pay for a kid in need. I'm sure willing to pay my share.

What I am saying is that if the mother lead the man to believe he was the father--while knowing this was false-- then that could be considered fraud, no?

Clearly the child's interests must be put ahead.

...conceived, the law assigns legal and financial responsibility to both parties. Maybe, this is based on the theory of community property.

it victimizes a man who has already been victimized by his cheating spouse and her lies.

How does the law know whether a husband and wife, the community, agreed to co-parent a child not biologically related to the husband. Maybe the wife conceived as the result of surreptitious extramarital sex and told her husband about it, after the fact. Maybe she conceived another man's child with her husband's full knowledge and approval.

It may seem unfair but the law is not privy to decisions made by the couple and, thus, must take the position that any child born during the marriage is the joint responsibility of the community.

The wife might say "He knew I was a sorry cheating pig," and the husband would say "no I didn't"

But in the overwhelming amount of cases both sides would agree that it was kept from the husband by the lying ex. Wouldn't you think?

In a no-fault divorce, the community is what it is. It won't always work out to both parties' satisfaction but the court's task is only to divide the assets, liabilities, rights, and responsibilities arising from, and accumulated during, the marriage. To expect any more than that is to expect the court to save us from our own bad decisions. We have to take responsibility for those, ourselves.

that the basis for the continuation of the support is "the best interests of the child."

Pauperizing a five year old during a domestic legal entanglement couldn't remotely be deemed to be in the best interests of the child.

On the other hand, this man should clearly be allowed to sue and bring in the true father. If the victim of the fraud turns out to be of greater financial means than the natural father, I can well imagine the Court ordering him to continue to pay, again based upon the "best interests of the child."

Even though it would end some marriages rather precipitously, I can see where paternity testing at birth would be a valid means of foregoing this kind of misery.

Bill gates responsible for the child's support. At least he wasn't victimized by the child's mother's lies and cheating.

were Bill Gates properly before it and married to the woman when the child was born

Which made sense at the time, legal marriage meant the man was the father, end of story. I really don't know whether this should change or not. What if it had been ten years later, should the biological father be presented with a $120,000 bill? That doesn't seem quite fair either. Being a parent is more than writing a check. If a step-father raises a child for many years, he doesn't become the presumptive child support payer if there's a divorce. So I don't know.

through a one night stand without nowing the mother's name?

As just the sperm donor, shouldn't he be released from responsibility then?

Or is this a case where we want it both ways?

I parented but wasn't the father -- responsible for support.
I am the father but never parented -- responsible for support.

I explained the reason legal husbands are expected to support children born into a marriage. I also said that I don't think it's fair for an unnamed father to be presented with a bill years later. Which has nothing to do with expected the biological father to begin paying support once his identity is known. But the concept that fathers are nothing more than banks has hurt children more than the lack of support. Some states are recognizing this and reducing support, particularly for young fathers, in order to keep them involved in their children's lives because that is emotionally better and increases the chances of financial support in the long run.

And plenty fair.

ione he's not involved with - he should pay.

the children men have outside of marriage.

This is fucking sexist bullshit.

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

:eyes:

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

Marriage is an economic contract in which two people agree to pool resources for the primary purpose of supporting offspring (their own or other peoples.) As such, any children that they agree to support together deserve the benefit of that support until they are old enough to go out on their own- even if the marriage breaks up.

In your situation, the husband and wife had a kid within marriage (and hence entitled to the support of both partners) and a child out of marriage (and hence not entitled to the support of non-parents who never claimed it.)

What about if a couple adopts a child and then splits up? Can both parents say "it doesn't have my DNA, I'm off the hook"? Of course not. They both agreed to raise the kid, whether or not it's theirs. This man agreed to support the kid when he married the mother and took it home from the hospital.

And your definition of marriage is as good as George W. Bush's.

I'm sorry, but I find your post sickening.

parent (arguably another form of gender bias in the court) so it's easy to make the case that that child would be brought up in the mother's home. What if this were'nt the case, and the father brought in the illegitimate child with the cheater's wife? I realize that this scenario probably belongs on Jerry Springer, but it does highlight some gender bias that does exist in courts even today.

The courts, as always, should PRESUME that the child's biological father is financially responsible--unless the child was adopted--and let him go after the child's mother's ex-husband for the cash.

Many states do unfairly favor the mother, but since I have no idea what the case is here, I won't judge either party on custody issues.

And, again, the ex IS the father. He just is not the origin of the sperm.

This is not a male/female thing... this is a child thing.

Five days, five weeks, five years? This father lived with this child for 2 years by the timeline in the article. He did not raise the child.

When do you actually become a dad? Some kids must have 3-4 dads by this math. Should those "dads" pay too?

This is all about the legal necessity to not have a class of unfunded bastard children.
What is the addage...possession is nine tenths of the law?
In the state where I live, even if after proving the paternity is false, an order would not be vacated.
The real father would pay as well, or could have an order to pay entered against him, if the mother, or whomever held physical custody pressed the issue. If they found themselves on state assistance, the state would in fact bring a case against the paternal father to court by statute.

... because I'm about to get FLAMED!

First of all, the only thing that matters here is the welfare of the CHILD, which means having financial support to meet his everyday needs.

This man, according to your post, agreed to pay $1,200 a month to support his child. Finding out that the child is not biologically his does not change the fact that the child was raised and accepted as HIS OWN OFFSPRING. One can only wonder what kind of low-life 'father' clings to a legal loophole as a way to wiggle out of that obligation.

Let me give you a scenario, if I may: I have raised and financially supported two children. I am their mother, and did so willingly. What if I were told tomorrow that due to a mix-up at the hospital, neither of these children were biologically mine? Would I disown them? Would I sue the hospital, or the children, to recoup my financial 'investment'?

If you view your own children, biological or otherwise, as a financial obligation that can be overturned on a legal technicality, your problem lies not with your cheque-book, but with your own sense of morality.

gave you someone else's kid ON PURPOSE and hid it from you for years, I bet there'd be lawyers involved in that case pretty quikly.

That's different than a mistake.

sued the hospital. Nobody said "well, the kid ain't mine, but hey, I am happy anyway". To suggest that when hospital mix ups are discovered people just accept it without questions is completely ridiculous. Those lawsuits and custody battles go on for years.

He has a legitimate cause of action for fraud against the mother, but that doesn't mean he skates on child support.

He should seek custody, and make her pay him child support.

Good call, Neil!

BE HIS DADDY. End of story.

As the character in PARENTHOOD said "any butt reamining asshole can be a father, but it takes a man to be a daddy."

At least that's how I remember it, and I am not gonna look it up.

In some ways, I hate these modern DNA paternity tests. Hell, I've got friend who is black, his wife is white, and one of their kids was the result of an affair she had with a white guy. He has never treated that white boy different than his other sons, who are clearly my friend's.

Sometimes you have to suck it up and be a daddy anyway.

RE my earlier post in this thread ... what would any of you here think if I found out my son, due to a mix-up at the hospital, was not my biological offspring, and I immediately jumped up and said, "A ha! Now I don't owe you anything as a parent -- in fact, you, or whoever your REAL mother is, can repay me for every penny I've ever spent on you!"

You'd all think I was a selfish bitch.

Now tell me how the father who finds out that a child he has loved, raised, and nutured as his own is any different, when he points to the results of a DNA test and shouts, "Thank God Almighty, I am(financially) free AT LAST!"

That is too disgusting a premise to even comment upon ...

with her new boyfriend and even marries him, that new man would assume a role of the father. Should he start paying child support if the woman moves on to the next relationship? But our courts won't make that man to pay child support, would they?

but it shouldn't be the law.

A good mn would step up to pay to support his cheating, lying ex-wife's kid. But the state shouldn't force that on him.

It's a rightwing talking point and I'm amazed at how often I find these points on supposedly progressive forums.

Give them bread, circuses, and ridiculous talking points.
They'll never rise up as long as they're eating their own.

It's a situation that occurs without regard to politics.

Not everything you dislike is a rightwing talking point. I know all the rightwing talking points, and this ain't one of them.

It's a talking point that takes advantage of the average person's real fears. The loss of individual liberty. As long as they keep the focus on women and reproduction, no one considers the real agenda of eroding personal privacy rights for working americans.

Not everything that is discussed in this world is a rightwing talking point. If you have a problem figuring which ones are talking points and which ones are your imagination, let me know and I'll tell you which are talking points. This one isn't.

It should be addressed.

The kid! What about the kid!

why that father isn't raising him or at least paying child support?

Just the sperm donor.

And, if you read my post further down, I say the sperm donor should have to pay half of the $1,200, but the father should also have to pay half. And SHAME on him for the way he is doing this.

natural way. If the woman was not married, and he was identified five years later, it wouldn't matter-he would be paying child support. He is only off the hook because the woman fooled her husband into paying child support.
And what if he had no idea he had a son? Maybe once he finds out, he would want visitation rights, etc. Should he be allowed or not?

And the other gentleman is the father.

If he wants visitation, then it's up to the courts and the child psychiatrists to decide, not me. Whatever is in the best interest of the child.

And part of your argument is moot, because the woman was married -- that's what this is all about -- and the law says the man is responsible. Plus, he bonded with and loved this child, and the way in which he is protesting is despicable where the child is concerned. But I'm sure you'll spin this some way and put in an eye-rolling smiley or two.

one night stands, sleeping around, etc-they are sperm donors and shouldn't pay child support? They are off the hook unless they show interest in the child and spend time with the child? Otherwise, they should be free as birds, happily breeding, without having a worry in the world-is that what you are saying?
:eyes:

but only if the women in question have unsuspecting husbands.

I shall join you in your eye rolling :eyes:

Seriously, put the kid's hurt feelings aside for a moment - why should this guy's right to the pursuit of happiness (which even assholes who reject their kids are entitled to) be infringed upon because of something his wife and her lover did?

If it's the law, then the law needs to be changed.

:shrug:

You might want to move on to a thread that IS. Just a serving suggestion.

Single payer health-care would be a good start.
Real jobs with real wages.
Corporate regulation.

There's no reason we as a society aren't ALL contributing to the support of "our" children.

Universal healthcare of all children would cut the
intensity of childcare costs that the upkeep of kids
cost less to divorced parents.

The article says the guy agreed to the wife having
the child with a "mutually agreed on impregnator".
But 1200 bucks a month for so many years is a painful
expense to bear for fuck all.

And he's now fucked even without making the kid.
the 1 out of 20 kids born not to the father are an
interesting case for paternity in future.

Bottom line, avoid having kids and spare yourself
being enslaved for a coupla decades to pay for the
mistake whilst someone else enjoys raising the kid.
... or maybe nobody enjoys raising the kid... all
cost and no benefit... if hormones weren't involved
the human race would die off.

We all are responsible for this child. We have no right to dump the responsibility onto someone who's been victimized enough by his lying, cheating ex.

I wonder what would happen if the real father should come forward and want to claim custody of this boy. Does the "father" who pays child support have any rights to the child?

I would sue for full custody and then make her pay child support.

Unless the kid grows up and strikes it rich.

If the woman wasn't married, that guy would be paying. But because she is married, he doesn't have to.

Since this guy is not biological father, he won't be awarded custody, I think.
But he still has to pay for the child. Now, I do think it's crazy.

He needs to answer some questions before this case goes any further.

... as his own, from birth.

Is anyone in this discussion a parent? If you found out one of your own children were not biologically yours, due to a hospital mix-up, would your first reaction be to look for the 'culprit' and recoup your 'financial investment'?

Just wonderin' ...

For one thing, the child inherits from the sperm donor, as a matter of law, unless the sperm donor has a will which specifically excludes the child in clear and identifying language.

Plus, he's the support of last resort. What if this boy's "daddy" croaks? Sperm donor can be held liable at any time. All it takes is a court action to do so.

And, there are the medical issues. The child needs to know the family history on the sperm donor's side. He could be at risk of Hodgkins or worse.

Bottom line is the sperm donor needs to be identified, and eventually, the child will want to know, and he needs to have a straight answer.

That there are exceptions to the absolutes that are claimed here (specifically, "For one thing, the child inherits from the sperm donor, as a matter of law, unless the sperm donor has a will which specifically excludes the child in clear and identifying language.)

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4563541&mesg_id=4563541


(notice that the linked story has been backed up by a lawyer involved - so this poster obviously just doesn't know what can happen in a courtroom... )

interesting characterization. let's be honest about this, m'kay.

and yes, I'm a parent. my feelings would probably be much more complex than you describe, but anger and feeling betrayed would definately be among those emotions.

People sue the hospital responsible for the mix up. Then they sue each other to figure out who gets to raise what child. Why should this man be any different. The child is not his. The child obviously does have a biological father. Why not find that father and make him pay child support?

... two children involved, each 'biologically' belonging to two different sets of parents. But even in that case, if I'd raised a child for any amount of time, and bonded with and loved that child, his 'biological' beginnings would be of no consequence.

As for finding the 'father' and making him pay, the 'father' is the man who raised this child.

What if the 'biological' father was determined? Would the courts have the right to say to him: You never had the joy of sharing this pregnancy with the child's mother. You weren't there (not by your own choice) when this child came into the world; never held him for the first time, never got to play the proud father, never enjoyed watching him take his first steps, etc. You had no say in how he has been raised, what religion he was brought up in, what values were instilled in him, what kind of person he has been nurtured to be. But now, five years down the road, YOU are financially responsible for him.

I still have a real problem with so-called parents whose first thought is SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Call me crazy (and some would), but I have never looked at my own children in terms of a 'financial investment' whereby I should be monetarily compensated if it turned out they weren't 'biologically' mine.

people end up suing the hospital and each other to figure out who gets to raise which kid. No one is sitting down and saying "well, hell, the kid isn't mine, and mine is being raised by some other couple, but I will just leave at as it is and be happy".
And what if biological father was determined? What if the guy didn't know he had a son? What if he showed up now and wanted visitation rights, etc? Should he not be given any, even though he might have had no idea he had a son?

but gave yours to someone else on purpose and lied to you about it for years.

I bet the lawsuits would fly a mile a minute them.

Parent of three here, and if found that "my" non-custodial kids were not mine - I absolutely would do as the guy in the article did.

I take my responsibilities as seriously as I take the responsibilities of others. The kid in question is the latter. I will not be able to afford a family of my own if I'm paying for someone else's.

And adoption is a red herring. If I adopt a child, I've chosen to make that child mine.

In Britain they did genetic testing in a maternity ward to determine paternity and ten percent were fathers other than listed on the birth certificate.The same results have been reproduced in other countries including America.

Females in all species want the best genetic material and environment for their offspring.Obtaining this from different partners is just a way for the individual to maximize their own environment.Males have more opportunities to reproduce as their desirability by females increase.This helps the species in general,the best produce the most.

In America men in their forties have attained status and income so this is the decade when men cheat the most.Conversely,omega males lose reproductive opportunities because of their low status which has led to the substitution of pornography which is the hypothesis of anthropologist Lionel Tiger.

Omega females reproduce but do not have the ability to game the system like the others so their offspring suffer and the strongest survive which also has a benefit to the species in general.

Marriage is the female seal of approval for a man by a woman which states that the man can provide.This makes him more desirable than a single man because they are an unknown quantity.I had a friend tell me he wished he had married sooner because women made him offers all the time,he is doing in his forties what he fantasied about in his twenties.

Since genetic testing evolutionary theory has made great strides and human examples can be found from research done in other species.I do not find it upsetting that humans are like other living things.Humans have the benefit of language but it can be seen as just another tool in the evolutionary arsenal.

Legitimizing and naturalizing rank sexism and reinforcing gender normative stereotypes is the whole point of it.

But I'm not even going to bother arguing about it (seriously, don't even bother) or linking you to the NUMEROUS articles debunking many of it's claims. I will just say that while I also don't find the idea that humans resemble other animals in our behavior upsetting, I do find attempts to use "evolution" to rationalize or absolve shitty behavior on the part of either gender to be ridiculous. People don't cheat because they want to maximize their reproductive environment. They do it because they can and because they're assholes.

It takes a real man to be a father and it never matters if the kids have your gens. This guy has been raising this child since birth and no matter what this child thinks of him as the dad.

but I bet the REAL father could not afford the same level of child support as this man. IMHO the mother would have gone after the REAL father if she thought there was more money there.


Also IMHO,, I think both should share in the support of the child. $1,200 sounds right per month, divide it 50/50.

Considering she was married, and her husband was assumed to be the father, could this woman have gone after someone else for child support?

he found out when the kids were about 5 and 6 years old, but nebraska courts would not do anything to fix it. The kids are now well over 21 and he still is forced to pay.

Is he paying arrearages?

I really dont understand it.

Unless you agreed to pay for college.

There are many states were paying for college is not as 'optional' as you claim.

How can one be forced to pay beyond the age of 21?

I could not get my ex husband to agree to pay through the completion of college and I was told by my attorney that a judge in Ohio would never order it. Maybe other states are different :shrug:

She was collecting child support from a guy who was proved to not be the father. Of course, she was never married to the guy, but I didn't read anything about him getting any of his money back after paying her for two years. I'm not sure if the courts let him stop paying her or not.

But I believe his complaint was within the two year statutory limit in California law.

that perhaps for men, childrearing is a hobby. (not all men of course) Perhaps a certain other DUer, making comments on the title a parent should claim in another thread should read this.

that perhaps the mother had a few hobbies of her own.

who caused this problem. The man is the victim as is the kid.

and be careful who you enter into legal contracts with.

Crooks & liars know no sex/age/race boundaries.

The children are the real victims.

Lawyers & courts work to keep their very lucrative "Divorce Industry" going for years & years.

having to pay costs for the child through govt programs. I can understand his frustration. I feel badly for the child - as the child has to have a sense about the rage. But long and short - this is the state acting to try to prevent having to pay costs through social programs/services for the child.

because doing so would "be a mockery of family bonds."

I would prefer the state kept me up for 13yrs before they made me pay for a child that was not mine. Let the mother go collect the money from her lover.

I hold no water with cheaters or their ilk. This man should not pay for the womans indiscretion.

And for the "he already took care of the child for 5 yrs" or the "they were married crowd" Don't you think he might have changed that if had known the truth all along?

What is gonna have for this child now? Resentment that what he'll have. Every time he looks in the kids face he's going to see the cheaters breaking of their marriage contract. He's gonna look at the poor kid and see every sumabitch in towns face but his.

Let the woman go find support from the man she made the baby with, since she thought he was so great to begin with.

CHAPTER 2. PROOF OF PATERNITY

SECTION 1. THE PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY OF HUSBAND;

DISAVOWAL OF PATERNITY; CONTESTATION;

ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY

SUBSECTION A. THE PRESUMPTION

Art. 185. Presumption of paternity of husband

The husband of the mother is presumed to be the father of a child born during the marriage or within three hundred days from the date of the termination of the marriage.

Amended by Acts 1976, No. 430, §1; Acts 2005, No. 192, §1, eff. June 29, 2005.
Art. 198. Father's action to establish paternity; time period

A man may institute an action to establish his paternity of a child at any time except as provided in this Article. The action is strictly personal.

If the child is presumed to be the child of another man, the action shall be instituted within one year from the day of the birth of the child. Nevertheless, if the mother in bad faith deceived the father of the child regarding his paternity, the action shall be instituted within one year from the day the father knew or should have known of his paternity, or within ten years from the day of the birth of the child, whichever first occurs.

In all cases, the action shall be instituted no later than one year from the day of the death of the child.

The time periods in this Article are peremptive.

Amended by Acts 1944, No. 50; Acts 1948, No. 482, §1; Acts 1979, No. 607, §1; Acts 2005, No. 192, §1, eff. June 29, 2005.
SECTION 2. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY BY SUBSEQUENT

MARRIAGE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Art. 195. Presumption by marriage and acknowledgment; child not filiated to another man; proof; time period

A man who marries the mother of a child not filiated to another man and who, with the concurrence of the mother, acknowledges the child by authentic act or by signing the birth certificate is presumed to be the father of that child.

The husband may disavow paternity of the child as provided in Article 187.

The action for disavowal is subject to a peremptive period of one hundred eighty days. This peremptive period commences to run from the day of the marriage or the acknowledgment, whichever occurs later.

Acts 2005, No. 192, §1, eff. June 29, 2005.

Doesn't matter if they look a lot like the German Shepard dog down the street.

I feel for the guy a little, but he's all the "dad" the kid has ever known. I think he ought to put his rancor over his cheating ex-wive aside and step up, since the sperm donor has never taken responsibility.

You just stated that as long as the people are married, the child is theirs. So, if the actual biological father wanted to take responsibility, could he? The law says the child is not his. Does he have any rights to his own biological child, and should he have any rights?

And there's plenty of precedence for the scenario you describe. And it's a crap shoot. Sometimes the court comes down on the side of the biological, sometimes on the husband of the cheating hussy.

And FWIW, *I* didn't state that as long as people are married, the child is theirs, I was quoting the law here in Indiana, and I believe it's the same in most states. All children produced in a marriage are assumed under law to be a product of that marriage.

Perhaps the cuckolded husband should not be saddled with raising the child if he does not want to, and the biological father can be identified. But I say again, it's not the kid's fault, and he's known that man as "dad" all his life.

My parents pressured me to get a paternity test after my first marriage fell apart, because they considered my first ex a "trollop" and were SURE that my daughter wasn't mine. I told them "So? If it proves that you're right, who gets to sit a little 4-y-o girl down and tell her that her daddy isn't her daddy and good by and good luck?"

IOW, I told them to go fuck themselves. They never forgave me and I could give a shit.

My daughter? Oh, she's mine all right. You can see that easily. Poor kid.

called into question the presumption does (or should) end.

Not mine.

And, for the record, I'd just like to say that I don't really know anything at all about the case or the people involved aside from what is in the article, but

The woman is probably taking him to the cleaners. Is she currently living with her lover or someone else? Is the lover currently paying? If not, why not?

and

$1,200 a month plus whatever this guy might have to pay in alilmony and what have you is a ton of money.

Hardly anyone pays alimony anymore. That's very, very unusual.

But I know divorce can be very expensive, even if the wife is at fault (as in this case apprently, she cheated on him).

The biggest thing, though: That's a lot of money each month for a kid that isn't his and that he may have no legal claim to (since its not his son)

At least in most states. That's my understanding.

I was saying there's a big difference between child support and alimony. Sometimes alimony is deserved, but child support is always deserved. This man need to pay at least 50%. He is the child's father.

Not included in the snip above:

Margaret Parker, 41, insists that she never deceived her husband. She said they had trouble conceiving, so she had sex with a "mutually agreed upon individual" in order to get pregnant.

"He is the fraud," she said, describing her ex-husband as a louse, eager to dodge his responsibility....

She said her ex-husband was infertile, a claim he called a "a total lie," adding that, in fact, he has impregnated women in the past.....

To be sure, Parker said he still wants to help the child. He said he would like to control where the money goes, and added that he and his current wife are already starting a college fund.

So--is he supporting the children of the women he impregnated in the past? Or did they find out that he was a louse in time to terminate their pregnancies?

Apparently he didn't begin wondering about the kid until his girlfriend's grandmother remarked on a lack of resemblance. He's since married the girlfriend--& I'm sure he can use the money for his new family. Too bad he didn't bother to even LOOK at the kid earlier.

Lets say he got out of relationship before the child was even born, never spend a day with him. Still, he would have to pay child support, as long as he was married to the woman at time of conception. But the laws state he has to pay, regardless. It does not seem fair to me.

If he had acted earlier.

The court said Richard Parker should have questioned the blood line sooner -- within a year of the divorce -- if he had any doubts.

But I do realize that support is usually paid for any child born during a marriage. Unless it isn't paid at all. And that's not fair, either.

First of all, I'm uncomfortable with the system that leaves choice to the woman, and the bill to the man. If he has no choices left after conception, he's left paying for someone else's choices. I don't know how to fairly resolve this situation, though.

That said, I don't think biological paternity should be the point. If he fathered that child in every other way, he is the child's father. If fatherhood is nothing more than a biological responsibility, his actions might make sense. It's not. He's doing possibly lifelong emotional damage to this boy, who did not choose his biological parent.

My family faced this possibility. My son, presented with a pregnant girlfriend who wanted to keep her baby, supported her through the birth and first few months after. When he saw that his role was supposed to be keeping a roof over her head while she partied all day and invited numerous partners into their bed, he left. At that point, he doubted whether the child was his at all. Almost 6 years later, he has custody of that child, and is raising it. No paternity tests needed; whether it was his biological child or not, he'd made the decision to be a parent early in the pregnancy. As years passed, it became obvious that the boy is his son. The physical resemblance is too strong to be a coincidence. It wouldn't matter, though. He's our family, regardless of biology.

the husband is the presumed father of a child. In many states (Kansas is one, I know because I read the statutes while researching a project in one of my paralegal classes last semester)a man has a limited time, about two years or so, to insist on testing to prove he's not the father. If he passes on doing so, he's usually on the hook for child support until the kid is of whatever legal age that state declares.

I'm constantly astonished, when these kinds of issues (child support, man having to support a kid he never wanted in the first place) at the vitriol shown to the women. If a man doesn't want to be stuck supporting some kid he never wanted in the first place then he should make goddamn sure he doesn't make a baby. Or, if he's so certain the woman is unfit, he should fight harder for custody. And women need to be much more willing to give up custody of their kids to the fathers so that more men would get a hint as to how phenomenally difficult and expensive it really is to raise a kid by yourself.

And from what little has been reported about this case here, it looks like he's simply trying weasel out of a responsibility he took on willingly at the beginning.

I think the woman deserves all the vitriol that has been afforded her. She knowingly slept with another man to impregnate herself, then at the divorce, knowing that she was unfaithful, sues to get money from her ex-husband for a child she knew with probable certainty, was not his. Begs the question as to why she didn't indulge this information sooner?

How about the federal government pass a law mandating paternity tests from all parents upon birth? At least then we can start protecting the man from unfaithful women.

I have a few choice words for her, but wouldn't dare say them on this board.

"If a man doesn't want to be stuck supporting some kid he never wanted in the first place then he should make goddamn sure he doesn't make a baby."

an interesting road you are traveling there...

Only of you consider fraud a reasonable basis for decision making.

but he didn't want somebody else's kid, he wanted his own biological child.

Only they know which is true, but I'm guessing the (now 55) old guy who married a (now 41) year old who had previously fathered children, and already has a NEW wife (read: multiple marriages) knew how his kid was conceived. He's a louse. :(

When they're the ones cheating.

the same things happens in thousands of other cases where it is plain simple cheating.

LOL. That has got to be bogus.

And how is he a louse?

Did he deceive anyone?

infertility was an issue for them, and now he's impugning her honor by accusing her of doing something "unsavory" to save some money. Hence, if he "knew" there was a sperm donor involved, then he's a louse.

"Margaret Parker, 41, insists that she never deceived her husband. She said they had trouble conceiving, so she had sex with a ''mutually agreed upon individual'' in order to get pregnant."

I don't think this is as cut and dry a "she's lying cheating bitch" story as everyone here seems to believe but what else is new? :shrug:

"Parker said he still wants to help the child. He said he would like to control where the money goes" He's not trying to take the money away from the child - he's trying to control the ex-wife.

No two ways about it.

the woman committed an intentional act of fraud in the divorce because obviously, she fucked the other guy and knew she did, and knew it was his baby the whole time.

This poor guy should get his money back and the cheatin' lover should get slammed in back childsupport payments.

To think otherwise is simply.... Republican.

having their life screwed up through no fault of their own...