Man must pay child support, DNA proves he's not the dad

[GoldenRivet]

chick judge

[XabbaRus]

It's not that simple.

Imagine your dad who you thought from the day you were born was your dad. Your folks then split up and you have a comfortable life 'cos your dad paid his dues. You might even have a decent relationship.

Then one day that is all taken away because of a DNA test, your dad doesn't want to pay anymore - forget the years when your folks were together and ok, forget the times after when you still saw your dad and it was fun.

I can see the judges point. It was only when the bill was upped did he go and have a test...

[GoldenRivet]

screw him if thats how he feels, i have worn those shoes before my friend.

but imagine I'M the dad.

Imagine for many years of my life i have been raising 2 kids that didnt belong to me.

despite how i felt about the kids... I WOULD BE PISSED, and i would probably rather not pay the child support any more.

that wife can find the man who owes her that money. i would still have an emotional attachment no doubt but i would have zero monetary responsibility.

16 years is a long time to be living a lie... not all men would take the attitude of "ohhhh awwwww well thats okay... because we love each other."

there happen to be a lot of men who would just dig 3 holes in the ground and put that "wife" and his "kids" in the ground.

[Frame57]

In my first marriage this is precisely what happened to me. I thought I was the daddy of a baby girl and it turns out that my ex (which is why she is an ex) decided to have a fling and got knocked up. This after 8 years of marriage. I spent thousands of dollars because the child was born premature. My family spent time and money growing attached to our girl and when this hit it caused no end of grief in my family. Once I found out the suspect sperm donor I went to court with a good attorney and we got a court ordered DNA. The judge was a right winger and nailed this guy to the wall for monies going back 8 years with interest. His parents actually went against him as they were filthy rich and they wanted custody of the child after our divorce. My ex tried to sue me for the award after all was said and done and her case got thrown out. I never thought in a million years something like that would happen, but it did. I was lucky in that I had a good attorney and Judge. The girl passed away due to complications of cerebral palsey a few years ago.

[XabbaRus]

Sorry to hear that Frame57 and I'm not having a go. You have been through it. all I'm saying that sitting on this side of the article it's easy to make judgements about whether it is right or wrong. I'm just thinking about the children.

As for the ex-wife of that guy, I don't agree she should be asking for more than what he was already paying. by all means find the scumbag who she had an affair with and go after him for the money.

If it happened to me I don't know how I'd react.

I think I'd go this way. Go to court get custody and keep the ex away...Though who can say till one is (hopefully not) in the situation.

[baggygreen]

She ought to be forced to repay every cent, as should every other mother (its almost always the mother) who has committed adultery and then stolen from the poor 'fathers'.

there is also no way I'd be letting her keep custody. What kind of environment can she possibly be bringing them up in if everything around them is a lie?

Sure, i know its a more extreme view, but I'm fed up to the back teeth with the child support system here, and by the sounds of it everywhere. Women get a free ride, they're always the innocent victims, even when faced with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence.

It really sh!ts me up the wall.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

screw him if thats how he feels, i have worn those shoes before my friend.

but imagine I'M the dad.

Imagine for many years of my life i have been raising 2 kids that didnt belong to me.

despite how i felt about the kids... I WOULD BE PISSED, and i would probably rather not pay the child support any more.

that wife can find the man who owes her that money. i would still have an emotional attachment no doubt but i would have zero monetary responsibility.

16 years is a long time to be living a lie... not all men would take the attitude of "ohhhh awwwww well thats okay... because we love each other."

there happen to be a lot of men who would just dig 3 holes in the ground and put that "wife" and his "kids" in the ground.

The whole point of the decision is what is based on best for the kids. NOT what is better for the mother or father.

In the absence of anyone else, when there is a "father" who has been footing the bills for the support of the family, blood relativity doesn't come into it. The kids need supporting and the "father" in this case, is it, regardless of the biological parentage of the children. Once the kids reach majority they are on their own but until then the state ain't paying.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. As a tax payer though I'd support the decision, as the "father" I'd be hacked off by it and as child I'd be wondering who my biological father was and why my dad doesn't want anything to do with me any more.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by TarJak

The whole point of the decision is what is based on best for the kids. NOT what is better for the mother or father.

In the absence of anyone else, when there is a "father" who has been footing the bills for the support of the family, blood relativity doesn't come into it. The kids need supporting and the "father" in this case, is it, regardless of the biological parentage of the children. Once the kids reach majority they are on their own but until then the state ain't paying.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. As a tax payer though I'd support the decision, as the "father" I'd be hacked off by it and as child I'd be wondering who my biological father was and why my dad doesn't want anything to do with me any more.

I disagree. Just because something may be "best for the kids" doesn't mean that someone should be essentially socially and economically imprisoned. That argument is far too open to interpretation.

You'd be forcing someone to continue paying for the mistakes of someone else, even AFTER that mistake is known!

Sure, kids have rights. But not at the expense of other adults.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I disagree. Just because something may be "best for the kids" doesn't mean that someone should be essentially socially and economically imprisoned. That argument is far too open to interpretation.

You'd be forcing someone to continue paying for the mistakes of someone else, even AFTER that mistake is known!

Sure, kids have rights. But not at the expense of other adults.

Reality is people!
Not what is the best interest of the kid. Not what is the best interest of the parents.

But what is the best interest?

Best interest depends on the judge. Judge decides the fate. Judge determines the best interests according to his or her personal preferences, belief's and experiences.

What is right and wrong doesn't god dam matter.

That's reality.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

Reality is people!
Not what is the best interest of the kid. Not what is the best interest of the parents.

But what is the best interest?

Best interest depends on the judge. Judge decides the fate. Judge determines the best interests according to his or her personal preferences, belief's and experiences.

What is right and wrong doesn't god dam matter.

That's reality.

This is where laws are supposed to come into play. It's too bad that so many judges tend to sidestep the law in order to make it fit more properly with their personal convictions ... but that's a discussion for another thread.

Here's an analogy I've come up with: Let's say you were found unconscious holding a bloody knife next to a person who was murdered. You have no memory of what happened. You conclude that it likely was you who killed that person, and plead guilty.

While in prison, events trigger memories that suggest that you may not have murdered that person after all. You plead with the prosecutor to take another look at the case, and he agrees. DNA evidence then exonorates you from the murder.

Now, should you have to stay in prison simply because, for the majority of the time, you've accepted your fate?

That's what the reasoning behind the whole idea that, "well, since you acted as their father for so many years, you are therefore the father" seems like. It is utterly preposterous.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You'd be forcing someone to continue paying for the mistakes of someone else, even AFTER that mistake is known!

Sure, kids have rights. But not at the expense of other adults.

Law before justice? The kids are the most innocent in adult's messups. The alternative to not making protection of their vulnerability a priority principle - is to dump them. And that hardly is acceptable for a society claiming to be civilised. Sure, you have to make sure at court proceedings that one of the parents does not rip opff the other for nothing and although the new family where kids live can afford them, in so far father's rights needs protection. But that'S it, and the father never is completely innocent. It was his decision to get invovled with the woman in question. If she betrayed him, had a lover, got preganent, and the other guy leaves, and nobody being able to finance the kids, then it were the adults messing things up: the woman first, but the "father" second", for he got engaged with a person doing like this. If the relation was less off standard and people are more civilised even in conflict and while separating (such things happen), both people should be able to handle such questions with slightly better sense of responsibility for the kids.

Just saying: "they are not mine so I do not care if they get sunk by the river or not" - that is not an option, no matter who made what mistakes. chuldren are chidlren. somebody has to take care for them. Whether or not oin times of conflict luxury and spending money althouzgh it is not needed is part of that, is something different. But their basic safety has to be secured.

You are responsible for your choice of people with whom you get engaged. And if they cheat you, it has been your choice to get enagged with them nevertheless. Maybe look twice and think three times before sharing lives with a stranger. the high rate of divorces today last but not least comes from the fact that a.) standards and moral rules of living together have been eroded, and b.) too many people make too inadequate, easyminded choices of partners. Some relations are doomed to fail from the very beginning, since both partner'S charcters and ways of life do not match. Film stars are a very good, but not the only example.

Originally Posted by TarJak

Prepsoterous it may be, however this is the way family law court decisions are made. Paramount is the interest of the child above all other considerations.

I'm not defending it, just stating the fact that this is how the judges are instructed to operate in these situations. This is to prevent the burden for support of the child falling with the state when there is another option.

Exactly. A much better way to say - and cut short - what I tried to express!

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by TarJak

The whole point of the decision is what is based on best for the kids. NOT what is better for the mother or father.

In the absence of anyone else, when there is a "father" who has been footing the bills for the support of the family, blood relativity doesn't come into it. The kids need supporting and the "father" in this case, is it, regardless of the biological parentage of the children. Once the kids reach majority they are on their own but until then the state ain't paying.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. As a tax payer though I'd support the decision, as the "father" I'd be hacked off by it and as child I'd be wondering who my biological father was and why my dad doesn't want anything to do with me any more.

Well, i guess you just named reason number 1233 why i have elected not to have children throughout my - so far - 7 years of marriage.

I'll tell you what though... they need to put that mother away and give the dad sole custody if thats the case.