• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A woman can cheat on you, tell you a child is yours when it's not and then keep you on the hook for 18 years even after you prove it's not your child.

A man that was deceived into believing he was a father should not be on the hook for 18 years. Why not saddle you with the responsibility instead? You are a reasonable person. You really don't think this is wrong?

The child's well-being is the first priority. Do you agree?
 
The child's well-being is the first priority. Do you agree?

A child's need does not justify victimizing a man that was deceived and taken advantage of. Why should a court not arbitrarily decide that you have to take care of a child that is not yours? It's in the child's best interests.
 
The child's well-being is the first priority. Do you agree?
Not above everything. If that is the case the father should give ALL his money to the child
 
Maybe she had multiple partners and thought it was his...
Maybe she thought that he would be the best father...
Maybe she was in love with him, that he loved her and that he was excited about being a dad...

There are a lot of ways to look at this... but some want to just assume that she is a lying bitch out to **** over the man...

This is going over your head. I'm not interested is this exchange anymore.
 
This is going over your head.

no. It isn't. You want to pout that a few men were lied to by a woman but you are ignoring context.

I'm not interested is this exchange anymore.

That is fine. Pouters often run away.
 
Not above everything. If that is the case the father should give ALL his money to the child

Then the father would not be able to support himself, he would die and not be able to further care for the child.

Supporting policies that would lead to death is not going to help the child.
 
Yes you pretty much did.


If the monthly cost of raising a child is just over $1000 a month, then those paying child support should be paying, dependent on many factors, around $500+ per child, per month on average.


The average appears to be lower than that at $450.

Mind you, this is all just numbers. We would have to look at situations. Who was the breadwinner in the family prior to divorce/separation? Who has more earning potential? Who actually is paying for more of the expenses? What lifestyle did the kids live before and is their current equivalent to roughly what each parent is living?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
But how does that address his point that a man who is not the actual father, but was falsely claimed as such? He's not arguing that all men period should not have to pay if they leave. Only that if he finds out that he's not the bio father (or went through the legal process of adoption) then he should not be responsible. He is addressing a specific situations, not the general.

Given the number of times people have said, "You made it, you are responsible for it" (paraphrased), I think it's a valid question to ask, "Turns out I didn't make it, so why should I still be responsible?" While I don't agree with his logic and conclusion, the question is valid.
 
Then the father would not be able to support himself, he would die and not be able to further care for the child.

Supporting policies that would lead to death is not going to help the child.
So just the minimum for the dad?


Ridiculous
 
But how does that address his point that a man who is not the actual father, but was falsely claimed as such? He's not arguing that all men period should not have to pay if they leave. Only that if he finds out that he's not the bio father (or went through the legal process of adoption) then he should not be responsible. He is addressing a specific situations, not the general.

Given the number of times people have said, "You made it, you are responsible for it" (paraphrased), I think it's a valid question to ask, "Turns out I didn't make it, so why should I still be responsible?" While I don't agree with his logic and conclusion, the question is valid.

The poster knows that. The evasion was intentional.
 
Don't have unprotected sex. Don't have sex with strangers. If, as a man, you do these two things, you will not be subject to this OP. And, as a bonus, you won't get an STD, or AIDS. All these pages for nothing. Yeah, smart men and women!!
 
This is evil. You can be hooked for 18 years even after you prove she cheated and the child isn't yours. The particular case I'm showing here is just an example. It's the standard that is the issue. Men are being forced under threat of jail to pay for children that they were tricked into believing are theirs. If a man accepts a child as his under false pretenses the agreement should be invalid.

https://dadsdivorce.com/articles/as...t-yours-can-i-kick-my-spouse-out-of-my-house/

"Family courts are courts of equity and if the biological father is not produced, the courts may completely overlook your victimization because the court is focused on the best interest of the child. What is in the child’s best interest may be to continue to require you to support the child, even though you know you are not the biological father."

"In addition to proving that the mother committed fraud, it is important to also identify and locate the biological father. Even if you can prove you are not the biological father, the court may not change the judgment. It is unlikely that the court will remove you as the father unless there is another man it can name as the child’s father."
I agree, this is completely wrong and this should be ended.
 
How could a woman that cheated and was impregnated by another man not have engaged in deception? Also the lawyer goes into detail about just how difficult it is to prove fraud to the court. A lot of times dude will just be screwed.
The man should not be held responsible...he never "chose" to risk that pregnancy. He was conned, cheated.
 
This is evil. You can be hooked for 18 years even after you prove she cheated and the child isn't yours. The particular case I'm showing here is just an example. It's the standard that is the issue. Men are being forced under threat of jail to pay for children that they were tricked into believing are theirs. If a man accepts a child as his under false pretenses the agreement should be invalid.

https://dadsdivorce.com/articles/as...t-yours-can-i-kick-my-spouse-out-of-my-house/

"Family courts are courts of equity and if the biological father is not produced, the courts may completely overlook your victimization because the court is focused on the best interest of the child. What is in the child’s best interest may be to continue to require you to support the child, even though you know you are not the biological father."

"In addition to proving that the mother committed fraud, it is important to also identify and locate the biological father. Even if you can prove you are not the biological father, the court may not change the judgment. It is unlikely that the court will remove you as the father unless there is another man it can name as the child’s father."
absolutely it is sick, and the weird thing is republican states are worse in this, well actually-no surprise because they believe in traditionally values of the women raising the children-thats good but the court takes it too far
 
It's about the balance though. Who gets screwed more? Who is multiple times more likely to win custody and be awarded money from the other parent? Who is more often the victim of unfair bias? The general abuse of men by family courts is well documented.
The laws regarding custody and child support do apply to both sexes equally. However that doesnt mean the court always applies them equally. OTOH, most family court judges are men....so? Change needs to occur at the bench, not in the laws.
 
A lot of men find being made a cuckold to be a sexual turn on. I could go on but this process can get pornographic.
I bet not 'financially.' :rolleyes:
 
If she believes the husband is the father, then she isn't lying. See how that works?

No, dude. That's not how it works.

Different jurisdictions have different standards for the division of property during a divorce -- and yes, lots of people (mostly men) try to hide their assets.
But if she cheated on the 'husband,' she knows it. She knows there's a possibility. That she chooses to ignore it, that once married, it's easy to ignore it, doesnt erase her actions (having sex with someone else.)

I'm not judging...their relationship was their relationship. I'm just not giving her a pass for 'choosing' for the husband. For taking the easiest route. If the family stays together and life goes on wonderfully...great. But if he was ****ed over (intentionally or not)...then she is responsible. not him.
 
I started another thread about how men serve significantly more prison time for the same crimes. I included studies and everything. Does that count as systemic sexism?
Same crimes yes...same criminal record leading up to those crimes? How many other offenses? Were the records comparable as well?
 
So here is the question? Would the above apply to men who have custody and the later to woman who do not? I happen to know that non-custodial mothers have gone to jail for not paying their child support.
That meme is such BS. Every man knows before he sleeps with a woman that she has total choice on how to handle a pregnancy. If he chooses to take the risk, then he should be held accountable just like she is. Abortion, miscarriage, having a kid...all these are consequences and all can even result in her death, altho more unlikely in the first 2 instances.

And once there is a child...both are equally obligated by law to paying child support. If the man has custody or joint custody, he's just as entitled to the same public assistance benefits. If the mostly male judges dont apply the laws that way...who's fault is that? At least the trend is towards more equal treatment for men.
 
Which part of what I said wasn't true? There is no such thing as even custody in Florida. Forgive me if my terminology wasn't perfect. Also the determination of said custody is often biased.
Yes, people can get joint custody in FL.

Took less than a minute to Google and post.

.
 
I don't care to argue it further. It's almost impossible to get visitation split completely evenly. Do you think there's any bias in the determination of who gets the child the most?
Visitation is not the only criteria. There are many things that factor into joint custody, including logistics...how do you split kids 'evenly' when they need to go to school during the week? Just one ex.
 
The child is better off with a father than without a father. They aren't going to remove a parent from the child's life without another present to pick up the slack.
Not a father that now hates him. Or feels no emotional or other connection to him/her beyond financial. He or she is the product of betrayal, lies. I hope that any emotional connection would remain, but you cant make it happen.

You cannot force that on people.
 
Back
Top Bottom