Does he have to pay child support ?

[EMNofSeattle]

Most women know. Getting them to admit it...that's different.

You think so? Clearly this guy did have sex with her. So it is not unreasonable to suspect him of fatherhood. It would be highly pretentious and really silly of you to make such assumptions without knowing the nature of the sexual relationship with each partner. Of course it's easy for misgogynists just to blame the woman in every case.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You think so? Clearly this guy did have sex with her. So it is not unreasonable to suspect him of fatherhood. It would be highly pretentious and really silly of you to make such assumptions without knowing the nature of the sexual relationship with each partner. Of course it's easy for misgogynists just to blame the woman in every case.

That would depend on how many men she was with at the time. Its not misogyny to assume a woman knows the father of her children. Unless she fits stereotypes that get labeled as misogynistic. Thanks for the catch 22, but I think I'll pass.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That would depend on how many men she was with at the time. Its not misogyny to assume a woman knows the father of her children. Unless she fits stereotypes that get labeled as misogynistic. Thanks for the catch 22, but I think I'll pass.

It's not a catch 22, it's the simple observation, you're being more artful then Henrin, but you have the same philosophy, men should have zero responsibility in these things women are exclusively at fault.

You are engaging in opinion and not fact, you cannot factually verify your argument that the mother knowingly lied to the ex husband

 

[OpportunityCost]

It's not a catch 22, it's the simple observation, you're being more artful then Henrin, but you have the same philosophy, men should have zero responsibility in these things women are exclusively at fault.

You are engaging in opinion and not fact, you cannot factually verify your argument that the mother knowingly lied to the ex husband

He is, in point of fact, NOT at fault. That's kind of the point. Its not his child.

 

[ajn678]

People that are answering yes because that's the current law are missing the point. If someone makes a thread on here discussing the legitimacy of the law, you argument should be based on more than just what the current law permits.

Obviously this law is ridiculous and the fact that this is even still in place just shows how backwards many of the laws in regards to child support are. This woman could've had an abortion, voiding both of them any responsibility of the child. She was not honest in the fact that she should have told him that he might not be the father. The man should be paid back all the money that he gave for the child, which I'm sure is easy because she probably spent it on nice things that she can sell back, rather than things for the kid.

 

[ajn678]

Yes it is, you can't prove the mother knowingly identified him as the father while not knowing it to be true. Being wrong is not lying.

Being wrong isn't lying, but not telling the person who you are with that it might not be your kid is. Obviously the woman knows that its possible that he might not be the father. Its her responsibility to inform the person she is apparently in love with and marrying. I knew of an old coworker that bragged about lying to a guy that he was the father because the actual father was in jail. These things do happen, and I would suspect more often than we would like to believe.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

He is, in point of fact, NOT at fault. That's kind of the point. Its not his child.

Apparently the judge tasked with determining Oklahoma law in this case disagreed with you. According to the story, two DNA tests confirmed a lack of a biological link to the child. I assume the decision to marry the mother and signing the child's birth certificate as father created status as a "Legal Parent." I would also assume the alleged father has not exhausted all his potential legal remedies.

 

[Henrin]

You think so? Clearly this guy did have sex with her. So it is not unreasonable to suspect him of fatherhood. It would be highly pretentious and really silly of you to make such assumptions without knowing the nature of the sexual relationship with each partner. Of course it's easy for misgogynists just to blame the woman in every case.

At best she lied by omission and lead him to believe something that she wasn't sure was true.

 

[Henrin]

Yes it is, you can't prove the mother knowingly identified him as the father while not knowing it to be true. Being wrong is not lying.

She likely didn't inform him that there was another man in the picture or that there was doubt he was the father. She likely pretended as if it was a sure thing he was the father even if at best she wasn't sure.

 

[Henrin]

Is the Bio father paying child support?

From the sounds of it the court never pursued it.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Being wrong isn't lying, but not telling the person who you are with that it might not be your kid is. Obviously the woman knows that its possible that he might not be the father. Its her responsibility to inform the person she is apparently in love with and marrying. I knew of an old coworker that bragged about lying to a guy that he was the father because the actual father was in jail. These things do happen, and I would suspect more often than we would like to believe.

While I hope that custom, morality and integrity lean toward disclosure by the mother to a prospective spouse the possibility of someone else as the biological father, you may struggle to find statutes and case precedents to confirm a legal responsibility by the mother.

I would have liked to respond to your post in another thread about Trump giving BJs. You probably know that thread closed for review. I absolutely consider sex with a foreign leader by the POTUS the people's business. Certainly enough powerful GOP people considered Bill Clinton's sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky the people's business.

 

[Henrin]

It's not a catch 22, it's the simple observation, you're being more artful then Henrin, but you have the same philosophy, men should have zero responsibility in these things women are exclusively at fault.

You are engaging in opinion and not fact, you cannot factually verify your argument that the mother knowingly lied to the ex husband

Nothing I said was sexist. Have feminist been sexist for the last fifty years with their continual criticisms of men? When feminists in the sixties claimed men were bad in relationships and demanded they do more housework was that sexist? If not, then how is it sexist to say women are terrible to live with because they make too many demands?

And btw, that little problem women have now is a direct result of what feminists were doing in the sixties.

 

[celticwar17]

He wasn't married to her when she got pregnant. He wasn't concerned that the child might not be his until he was out the door. I can't think of any reason why he should be exempt from the law.

He should pay.

Wouldn't he have to technically legally adopt the child? He assumed it was his, but marriage with the woman does not make the baby his legally. Custody of a child is not determined by marriage but by biology.

... i know my father legally adopted my oldest brother

 

[OpportunityCost]

Apparently the judge tasked with determining Oklahoma law in this case disagreed with you. According to the story, two DNA tests confirmed a lack of a biological link to the child. I assume the decision to marry the mother and signing the child's birth certificate as father created status as a "Legal Parent." I would also assume the alleged father has not exhausted all his potential legal remedies.

As a point of fact, he is not the parent. As a point of law, he is. Reconciling the two things is what I am referring to.

 

[bunny199]

No he shouldn't be required to pay. Stupid laws should be changed, not enforced. A more sensible law would be to mandate a DNA test in all custody/child support cases.Conveyance Narellan

Hello
Child support is the financial obligation you have to support your child as he or she matures. If you have custody of your child, the courts assume that you fulfill your financial obligation. If your child does not live with you, however, the courts may require that you pay child support to the custodial parent.

 

[JANFU]

From the sounds of it the court never pursued it.

Unusual, IIRC some States mandate the mother naming who the father is in other cases, such as single parent claiming welfare.

 

[MaggieD]

Wouldn't he have to technically legally adopt the child? He assumed it was his, but marriage with the woman does not make the baby his legally. Custody of a child is not determined by marriage but by biology.

... i know my father legally adopted my oldest brother

That's sure one way. And it's also the way for a stepdad to be sure he never loses parental rights in case of divorce. Your dad was quite obviously a standup man. I'm sure your family is very proud of him.

The law in this state specifies that particular circumstance though.

 

[radcen]

Why should he be exempt from the law?

I think the law should be changed, but until it is, there is no reason he should be exempt from it.

Stupid has consequences.

Stupid law has consequences, too, for otherwise good people. The law is bad law and needs to be changed.

 

[radcen]

A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.

When Thomas’ high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.

Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.

“It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should’ve expected it but I didn’t and it hit me. I’m telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone,” he said.

The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child’s birth.

(from this thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...y-child-support-despite-not-being-father.html

No, he should not be required to continue to pay. It's not his, period.

I stop short at saying any money and financial contributions he has paid so far (prior to official legal objection) should be refunded, though.

 

[radcen]

Legally probably not, but personally, I'd like to think that I wouldn't just turn my back on a kid like that.

I don't disagree, but the question here is the legal obligation.

 

[Casper]

No, he should not be required to continue to pay. It's not his, period.

I stop short at saying any money and financial contributions he has paid so far (prior to official legal objection) should be refunded, though.

Correct.

I agree, and with that said maybe he should consider suing both the mother and actual father for every penny he ever has to pay. I have the feeling that if he brought his case before a civil court verses a family court he would come out ahead because it would left up to citizens instead of some judge that does not care about Justice.

 

[radcen]

The scenario in this case, which is more common than many of us want to know, is precisely why I believe that DNA testing should be mandatory in ALL births, married or not, and paternity established right from the start, and any resulting legal obligations established right from the start.

 

[radcen]

Correct.

I agree, and with that said maybe he should consider suing both the mother and actual father for every penny he ever has to pay. I have the feeling that if he brought his case before a civil court verses a family court he would come out ahead because it would left up to citizens instead of some judge that does not care about Justice.

I can see where a biological father may honestly not know. I am open to her being sued for fraud, though, depending on circumstances.

 

[radcen]

I have listened to men on this website cry about child support for as long as I've been here. And read more than a few of these unfair stories about guys who found themselves in the same position this guy does. I think women who knowingly lie are the lowest of the low. I'm assuming when they DO lie it's because they've finally decided to pick the better man . . . Or, maybe, the real dad walked away. Neither option is pretty. The law should be changed. I think I said that.

In fact, now that I think about it, the woman is always lying because she is always unsure unless she was unconscious when she had sex. So let's call her what she is -- a liar.

Should a guy have a paternity test when he's not married to the mom? Yeah. Why not? If you're going to say he's in love and that wouldn't be nice, then why later should he have the right to change his mind and HAVE a DNA test that exonerates him from Child support?

Part of being an adult is taking care of business. Even when it makes you squirm. What would be more important to a man than making sure a child is his? IOW, there's a part of me that thinks, "Speak now or forever hold your peace."

Justice and responsibility is taking care of YOUR OWN business, not somebody else's. We don't randomly assign rapists to women simply because she thinks it's one particular guy years later, and we should be making that kind of arbitrary assignment here.

I think it's kind of repugnant for a guy to suddenly sever an established relationship with a kid (emotional, financial, or otherwise), but to sever the legal requirement of financial support is only fair. It's not his. Period.

 

[radcen]

"Always questioning" is very different from confirming a child is yours. I can't think of many things in life more IMPORTANT than knowing that.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that the law is correct. You have two years to disavow a child through a DNA test. If you don't act? It's legally yours. Is it fair? We all know the answer to that.

The mere concept of "justice" presumes fairness. Without fairness, it's not justice.