NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a spin-off of the "A Man's Right to Choose" Thread.

If a man discovers that he is not the biological parent of a child should he have to continue to provide support for the child.

Say: A marriage breaks down, and during the divorce the man discovers their two year old kid was fathered by someone else. Should the man have to pay child support to provide for another mans child?

For clarification - This is assumed to exclude adoption or cases where the guy knows that he is not the father and acepts parental responsibility knowing he has no biological connection to the child.

For futher clarification - while the guy could want to be a part of the kids life still, this poll assumes that he does not want to be in the kids life.


The poll has genders as I am curious to find if man and women ahve different views as this is almost exclusively a gender specific situation as there are very very few women out there unknowingly raising other womens children.

EDIT 1: Hmm - early results show a 25:75% Yes:No split for both genders... I might be proved wrong on that assumption.

EDIT 2: Well - although the female sample size is much smaller there now does appear to be a general difference between how males and females view this - currently with the Yes:No for males as 8:71 while the Yes:No for females as 5:6. Currently it seems that men overwealmingly feel they should not have to provide for another mans child if they find they are not biologica fathers, while women seem much more divided on the issue. Sample size for women is very small though.

Hell no. Why should he?

No more than he should have to pay child support for his next door neighbour's child.

On what grounds should he be made to pay?

If the child was legally recognised by him as his own child, he is legally the father. So yes, he has legal obligations towards the child in case of divorce.

Hell no. Why should he?

On what grounds should he be made to pay?

Honestly I can't see any reason myself.

Based on the other thread I was wondering if I was alone in having difficulty in seeing why he should pay for a child that is not his - so I made this to see if I was a freak exception or if other people also had difficulty.

If the child was legally recognised by him as his own child, he is legally the father. So yes, he has legal obligations towards the child in case of divorce.
He was legally recognised as the father based on fraud.

Normally when a fraud is discovered you are allowed out of legal obligations of any contracts you enter into while you are being frauded.

And what about the biological father? Why the hell should he not pay while the fraud victim does?

I dont see any reason why he should have to pay but if he has spent two years caring for the child as a father i'd like to think he would still want to be a part of that childs life

I dont see any reason why he should have to pay but if he has spent two years caring for the child as a father i'd like to think he would still want to be a part of that childs life

Of course - if he wishes to still be a part of the childs life then that would be great for the kid and presumeable him if he stayed in the kids life. However in that case 'having' to pay is not an issue.

The poll however is looking at the case where he does not want to raise another guys kid - should he be forced to cough up the dough?

I dont see any reason why he should have to pay but if he has spent two years caring for the child as a father i'd like to think he would still want to be a part of that childs life

Yeah.

Of course - if he wishes to still be a part of the childs life then that would be great for the kid and presumeable him if he stayed in the kids life. However in that case 'having' to pay is not an issue.

The poll however is looking at the case where he does not want to raise another guys kid - should he be forced to cough up the dough?

If he wants to be part of the childs life as their father I think its only fair he does. Thats only one opinion though not something I would want made law

If he doesnt want to be a part of the childs life however then no he shouldnt pay

Nope.

I'd like to rid the whole parenting question of biology altogether. If a person agrees to parent a child, he or she has agreed and that's that.
But my yes-answer only holds if the man has the ability to have a paper abortion.

If he wants to be part of the childs life as their father I think its only fair he does. Thats only one opinion though not something I would want made law

To clarify - I was agreeing with you. I think.

If he wants to be a part of the kids life then of course he should be providing support. But in that case he will be providing support for the kid willingly anyway. And if he does not to be part of the kids life then I don't think he should be forced to - which I think is what you are saying.

He was legally recognised as the father based on fraud.

Normally when a fraud is discovered you are allowed out of legal obligations of any contracts you enter into while you are being frauded.

And what about the biological father? Why the hell should he not pay while the fraud victim does?

But marriage isn't a contract. It is a social relationship. So laws are a bit different.

What does a biological father mean, anyway? He's nothing more that a sperm donor. Being a father means helping the mother when she's pregnant and raising the child. The biological father isn't involved in that. The real father is the husband - or whoever recognised the child as his own at birth.
If the mother has been unfaithful, why should the child pay for his mother's fault? Losing the father is terrible to a child, even if he's a very small kid. And the biological father has proven himself not responsible enough to raise a kid.

If you raised a kid and after 6 years you'd discover that he isn't your biological child, who would you focus your anger on? The child or your wife? I'd be angry at my wife, but not at the kid, because I'd still see him as the child raised by me, and he'd see me as his father.

I dont see any reason why he should have to pay but if he has spent two years caring for the child as a father i'd like to think he would still want to be a part of that childs life

Well, yes. But we're talking about law here. Voluntary contributions have nothing to do with it. I really cant see why he should be forced to pay.

I'd like to rid the whole parenting question of biology altogether. If a person agrees to parent a child, he or she has agreed and that's that.
But my yes-answer only holds if the man has the ability to have a paper abortion.

But their acceptance of the role of parent may be based on the biological link between them and the child. If they are lied to about that then they werent given the full details to make their decision

To clarify - I was agreeing with you. I think.

If he wants to be a part of the kids life then of course he should be providing support. But in that case he will be providing support for the kid willingly anyway. And if he does not to be part of the kids life then I don't think he should be forced to - which I think is what you are saying.

Yeah sorry I didnt read your edit properly before posting. My mistake

But marriage isn't a contract. It is a social relationship. So laws are a bit different.

What does a biological father mean, anyway? He's nothing more that a sperm donor. Being a father means helping the mother when she's pregnant and raising the child. The biological father isn't involved in that. The real father is the husband - or whoever recognised the child as his own at birth.
If the mother has been unfaithful, why should the child pay for his mother's fault? Losing the father is terrible to a child, even if he's a very small kid. And the biological father has proven himself not responsible enough to raise a kid.

If you raised a kid and after 6 years you'd discover that he isn't your biological child, who would you focus your anger on? The child or your wife? I'd be angry at my wife, but not at the kid, because I'd still see him as the child raised by me, and he'd see me as his father.

Why should the father have to pay for the mothers mistake though? Granted I dont like the idea that anyone would just walk away from the child they considered their own but its not something I would want to make laws against

But marriage isn't a contract.
I think you might find otherwise...


What does a biological father mean, anyway? He's nothing more that a sperm donor. Being a father means helping the mother when she's pregnant and raising the child. The biological father isn't involved in that. The real father is the husband - or whoever recognised the child as his own at birth.
Then why do men who get women pregnant have to pay child support? There is a lot more to this than simple sperm donation. The guy accepted the responsibility based on fraud - on discovering the fraud he should be able to excuse himself from the responsibility.

If the mother has been unfaithful, why should the child pay for his mother's fault? Losing the father is terrible to a child, even if he's a very small kid. And the biological father has proven himself not responsible enough to raise a kid.

Why should the child pay? Why should the man pay? If I steal a ferrari and give it to my kid then why should he have to give it back to it's rightful owner - it's not as though it was his fault!

Remember - we're not talking about raising a kid - the frauded guy if he wants nothign to do with the kid is not going to be providing emotional or social support (and no court in the land can force that) so all that remains is financial support - which sure as hell can come from the biological father.

I think you might find otherwise...

I don't know about US laws. Anyway, here in Europe, marriage isn't a contract. Italian Constitution, for example, states that.


Then why do men who get women pregnant have to pay child support? There is a lot more to this than simple sperm donation. The guy accepted the responsibility based on fraud - on discovering the fraud he should be able to excuse himself from the responsibility.

Arguable. His responsibility is about the child, anyway, who is totally innocent of the fraud. This, at least, is my point. You accepted responsibility, you have that. "Mater semper certa, pater numquam", you always know for sure who the mother is, you never know about the father, as Romans said - this is common knowledge, so when a man recognises a child as his own, he should keep this in mind. Is your wife worthy of your trust? Since you married her, I'd assume she is. If she betrays you, divorce. But are you going to see the child - your child, you used to think - as a mere annoyance? I don't think so.


Why should the child pay? Why should the man pay?

The child shouldn't pay. I never said that. The man should pay. Because he's the father, morally if not biologically.


If I steal a ferrari and give it to my kid then why should he have to give it back to it's rightful owner - it's not as though it was his fault!

I fail to understand this. Completely.


Remember - we're not talking about raising a kid - the frauded guy if he wants nothign to do with the kid is not going to be providing emotional or social support (and no court in the land can force that) so all that remains is financial support - which sure as hell can come from the biological father.
Yep, I understand your point, and agree to some measure. But instead of having an uncaring sperm donor in charge of the education of a kid, I'd prefer to have social security system kicking in, if the "moral" father really doesn't want to care for the kid anymore.

But their acceptance of the role of parent may be based on the biological link between them and the child. If they are lied to about that then they werent given the full details to make their decision

True. But I'm kind of hoping that a parents love for his or her child isn't based entirely on the belief of shared genes.
If you don't want the child to begin with, then maybe the thought of a biological link can make you care for the child anyways, but like I said, I think both parents should be able to choose not to have a child they don't want.

And besides, if you willingly sign a parenting contract, where you are aware of what responsibilities you take on, and you do so knowing it might not be your biological child, there shouldn't be a problem.

True. But I'm kind of hoping that a parents love for his or her child isn't based entirely on the belief of shared genes.
If you don't want the child to begin with, then maybe the thought of a biological link can make you care for the child anyways, but like I said, I think both parents should be able to choose not to have a child they don't want.

And besides, if you willingly sign a parenting contract, where you are aware of what responsibilities you take on, and you do so knowing it might not be your biological child, there shouldn't be a problem.

Its optimistic to think that everyone will love their child regardless of genes. Not everyone is like that. My grandmother (who previously was very loving) will no longer talk to my cousins because their mother had an affair and she believes the children are not part of our family.

Parenting contract? These exist?

I dont see any reason why he should have to pay but if he has spent two years caring for the child as a father i'd like to think he would still want to be a part of that childs life

Agreed.

Its optimistic to think that everyone will love their child regardless of genes. Not everyone is like that. My grandmother (who previously was very loving) will no longer talk to my cousins because their mother had an affair and she believes the children are not part of our family.

Parenting contract? These exist?

Obviously people stop loving people at times. I said I don't think the love depends solely on the knowledge of shared genes.

No, parenting contracts don't exist. But they should. And if they did, I think the whole question of responsibility would be much easier dealt with.

Obviously people stop loving people at times. I said I don't think the love depends solely on the knowledge of shared genes.

No, parenting contracts don't exist. But they should. And if they did, I think the whole question of responsibility would be much easier dealt with.

Ah ok I understand now.

As for the parenting contracts though, if they are signed by a person who was persuaded by fraudulant information then they would be void so I dont see how it would work

Ah ok I understand now.

As for the parenting contracts though, if they are signed by a person who was persuaded by fraudulant information then they would be void so I dont see how it would work

Paternity tests before signing would sort that out. Though I dare say a lot of wives might not be all that pleased with the implication that their husband doesn't trust them.

I dont see any reason why he should have to pay but if he has spent two years caring for the child as a father i'd like to think he would still want to be a part of that childs life

My thoughts exactly. If he has loved the child & considered it his own, I would have thought he would want to continue to support it.

As for the parenting contracts though, if they are signed by a person who was persuaded by fraudulant information then they would be void so I dont see how it would work

Hm, yes. Ideally I guess the information about genetic similarity shouldn't be relevant to the contract at all. I don't know how these things work, though. But, for instance, if one person lies about how much the child weighs it wouldn't cancel the contract, because it's in no way relevant. Preferably it would be the same with the genetic similarity.

This is a spin-off of the "A Man's Right to Choose" Thread.

If a man discovers that he is not the biological parent of a child should he have to continue to provide support for the child.

Say: A marriage breaks down, and during the divorce the man discovers their two year old kid was fathered by someone else. Should the man have to pay child support to provide for another mans child?

If he's been the kid's father for two years, then it's not "another man's child." It's his.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to say that any guy who would be pathetic enough to want to ditch his own kid for this kind of reason is definitely not a fellow who should ever associating with children.

So I'm torn.

If he's been the kid's father for two years, then it's not "another man's child." It's his.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to say that any guy who would be pathetic enough to want to ditch his own kid for this kind of reason is definitely not a fellow who should ever associating with children.

So I'm torn.

But he may have only been the childs father for that long because he was lied to in the beginning

The child shouldn't pay. I never said that. The man should pay. Because he's the father, morally if not biologically.
You said : "why should the child pay?" I reiterated that and asked why sould thr man pay.

Sure - it's not fair on the kid - but that's not really the guys responsibility.

Why should the child benefit from the man just because he had misplaced trust in the childs mother?


I fail to understand this. Completely.
I was making the point that even though the child can be totally without fault in something that still does not mean they should enjoy the benefits of other peoples faults.

If I steal a ferrari and give it to my kid it is not his fault that I stole it. So why should he be obliged to return it? Obviously even though he (or she) did nothing wrong it does not mean he should be able to keep the ferrari - which was only passed to him as a result of a crime/injustice/fraud.

Ditto child support - it is not the kids fault the mother lied (or at the very least misled the man to his chances of paternity) to the guy and that the guy does not want to support the kid anymore. But just because it is not his fault does not mean that he should continue to benefit from the fraud that created the situation to start with.


Yep, I understand your point, and agree to some measure. But instead of having an uncaring sperm donor in charge of the education of a kid, I'd prefer to have social security system kicking in, if the "moral" father really doesn't want to care for the kid anymore.
I can agree with this - if you're saying what I think you're saying. But also think really the genetic father should be tracked down and held to his responsibilities before the taxpayer is burdened for his actions.

Hm, yes. Ideally I guess the information about genetic similarity shouldn't be relevant to the contract at all. I don't know how these things work, though. But, for instance, if one person lies about how much the child weighs it wouldn't cancel the contract, because it's in no way relevant. Preferably it would be the same with the genetic similarity.

If genetic similarity is so unimportant then why should men who get women pregnant have to pay support for the child that results rather than just picking a random guy off the street?

But he may have only been the childs father for that long because he was lied to in the beginning
Maybe "father" doesn't mean the same to everybody here.

To me, a father is a male parent who assists in both the support and care of a child. "Father" isn't just a paycheck each week and an occasional lecture about staying off drugs; "father" is involved with his child.

Now, if the guy in question was already the kind of pathetic weiner who was half-assing his parenting even when he thought the kid was biologically his own, then...well, he's a pathetic weiner to start.

On the other hand, if he was an involved, supporting, caring parent, then (in my opinion) he would have to be a supremely vile form of life to suddenly switch off all his fatherly feelings for his child simply because of a DNA test. He would have to be a very low and loathsome form of scum to suddenly decide not to be a father to the child that he had parented for years.

But, for me, family bonds are very strong and very important, and don't rely on genetics.

I am not answering the poll question yet, because my emotional reaction to the topic gets in the way of my objective thinking. I feel nothing but contempt for the kind of person who would ditch their own child as the OP describes, so it's hard for me to find any sympathy for their situation or desire to see things from their perspective. Perhaps that will change over the course of the thread. ;)

Maybe "father" doesn't mean the same to everybody here.

To me, a father is a male parent who assists in both the support and care of a child. "Father" isn't just a paycheck each week and an occasional lecture about staying off drugs; "father" is involved with his child.

Now, if the guy in question was already the kind of pathetic weiner who was half-assing his parenting even when he thought the kid was biologically his own, then...well, he's a pathetic weiner to start.

On the other hand, if he was an involved, supporting, caring parent, then (in my opinion) he would have to be a supremely vile form of life to suddenly switch off all his fatherly feelings for his child simply because of a DNA test. He would have to be a very low and loathsome form of scum to suddenly decide not to be a father to the child that he had parented for years.

But, for me, family bonds are very strong and very important, and don't rely on genetics.

I am not answering the poll question yet, because my emotional reaction to the topic gets in the way of my objective thinking. I feel nothing but contempt for the kind of person who would ditch their own child as the OP describes, so it's hard for me to find any sympathy for their situation or desire to see things from their perspective. Perhaps that will change over the course of the thread. ;)

I'm not disagreeing with your feelings towards the person who would abandon the child they had been father to for two years. All i'm saying is that it is unfair on the father to be forced to continue his role as parent even when he was lied to in the beginning

I'm not disagreeing with your feelings towards the person who would abandon the child they had been father to for two years. All i'm saying is that it is unfair on the father to be forced to continue his role as parent even when he was lied to in the beginning
We're talking about a parent-child bond. Did the two year old lie to him? Then why should his relationship with the two year old change?

If genetic similarity is so unimportant then why should men who get women pregnant have to pay support for the child that results rather than just picking a random guy off the street?

They shouldn't. As I stated before, parenthood should initially be completly optional for everyone involved.

We're talking about a parent-child bond. Did the two year old lie to him? Then why should his relationship with the two year old change?

I've argued that point already but what i'm talking about is the initial question of whether the father should have to pay. I dont think it should be a legal requirement but a choice on the part of the father.

I've argued that point already but what i'm talking about is the initial question of whether the father should have to pay. I dont think it should be a legal requirement but a choice on the part of the father.
Well, and that's what I was saying before:

I find it really, really difficult to give a shit about the legal rights of the kind of jackasses who ditch their own kids.

It's kind of like how it's really, really hard for me to care about whether or not a serial rapist is receiving his daily allotment of rec time in prison.

I know, cerebrally, that I want to be consistent and fair-minded. Yet it's just so hard for me to remember why I should be remotely concerned with making sure that deadbeats have the right to be deadbeats. It's hard for me to remember why I should put their "right" to ditch their kid above that kid's welfare. I mean, maybe you can't legally force somebody to stop being a jackass, but at least you can force them to pay for the kid's braces or something.

I mean, maybe you can't legally force somebody to stop being a jackass, but at least you can force them to pay for the kid's braces or something.

I understand your feeling about the kind of father who would run out but just for this part of your post I have a question.

If the mother can afford these items should she not be the one paying for them since she lied to the father about his paternity to the child?

To me, a father is a male parent who assists in both the support and care of a child. "Father" isn't just a paycheck each week and an occasional lecture about staying off drugs; "father" is involved with his child.
Some people also view the 'father' as the man who led to the childs conception.


On the other hand, if he was an involved, supporting, caring parent, then (in my opinion) he would have to be a supremely vile form of life to suddenly switch off all his fatherly feelings for his child simply because of a DNA test. He would have to be a very low and loathsome form of scum to suddenly decide not to be a father to the child that he had parented for years.

Firstly - he probably is not choosing how he feels. Are all the big emotions you feel your personal choice? Say you walked in on your bf/gf/husband/wife having sex with someone else - do you choose your emotion or does your emotion happen to you? While this is not something the child has done wrong it is a similar thing. A guy who finds out he is not the biological father does not have the luxary of *choosing* to love anymore. He will or he wont.

Take this a step back to look at 'potential' for loving and caring for the child. Not quite the same - but I am interested to see what you think.

Can I ask - on the day of birth the man has a paternity test done and gets the results back instantly. If he is prepared to love and care for the child if it is his child, but not prepared to love and care for the child if it is not then does that make him scum? He has not formed the bonds yet - but the basis of the potential for forming bonds is on wether he is the genetic father.

Or - A man is in hospial with his wife giving birth (to a child that is genetically his). He is eagerley waiting to pur fourth love and affection on his newly born baby. A nurse comes up and dumps an extra baby in his arms from a different couple saying "We'll - you're prepared to love and care for that child in there - you're scum if you are not prepared to do the same for this one here. What - not your kid? Why should the genetics matter?"

Should hospitals be able to give any couple any child? Or should they match the child with the couple that it came in with? Why? The couple came in expecting a child - they go out with a child. Why should it matter if it is theirs or not?


I am not answering the poll question yet, because my emotional reaction to the topic gets in the way of my objective thinking. I feel nothing but contempt for the kind of person who would ditch their own child as the OP describes, so it's hard for me to find any sympathy for their situation or desire to see things from their perspective. Perhaps that will change over the course of the thread. ;)
Sounds like a definate 'Yes' to me...

I mean, maybe you can't legally force somebody to stop being a jackass, but at least you can force them to pay for the kid's braces or something.
Why should he be forced to pay for the braces rather than the biological parent? Why should the biological parent NOT pay?

Once it's just about cash then there is no good reason to go after the non-biological guy rather than the biological parent - who if the other guy did not have misplaced trust to start with would be paying for the braces anyway.

I understand your feeling about the kind of father who would run out but just for this part of your post I have a question.

If the mother can afford these items should she not be the one paying for them since she lied to the father about his paternity to the child?

You are assuming here that the mother lied - if she genuinely didn't know either, it's no more her fault than his.

otherwise, I'm with Bottle and Risottia on this one. If the man who has been the social and moral father won't support his child, he doesn't deserve one at all (and we are assuming that this family has been together for a few years). You can't punish the child for his mother's mistake OR her lie. So yes, he should support the child.

You are assuming here that the mother lied - if she genuinely didn't know either, it's no more her fault than his.

otherwise, I'm with Bottle and Risottia on this one. If the man who has been the social and moral father won't support his child, he doesn't deserve one at all (and we are assuming that this family has been together for a few years). You can't punish the child for his mother's mistake OR her lie. So yes, he should support the child.

She must have known there was a chance that was the case if she had cheated. The estimated conception date would be close to the time she cheated. She can't claim to be totally innocent if she never followed up on her suspicions.

Although you are right that i am making an assumption that she cheated and was not raped or something along those lines

I understand your feeling about the kind of father who would run out but just for this part of your post I have a question.

If the mother can afford these items should she not be the one paying for them since she lied to the father about his paternity to the child?
Again, what the mother may or may not have done is totally irrelevant to me. My bond with my father exists completely independent of anything my mom may or may not have done. If I found out tomorrow that my father is not my biological father, it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever, to either of us. He would never even remotely have considered stopping being my dad just because of genetics. It might have ended his relationship with my mother, depending on the circumstances, but it would never have stopped him from being my father.

I view the material support as just an extension of this. Sure, maybe Mom could pay for the braces. But so could Dad. Why should she, and not he? We're talking about their bond, or responsibilities, to the CHILD. Not to one another.

You are assuming here that the mother lied - if she genuinely didn't know either, it's no more her fault than his.
If the mother has good reason to believe the child might not be the fathers then she should tell him. It is still her fault for misleading the guy about him being the father.


You can't punish the child for his mother's mistake OR her lie. So yes, he should support the child.
He is not punishing the child. He is just not further punishing himself for the mothers actions. It's harsh on the child - but that is the mothers responsibility for creating the situation, not the guys for being decieved.

She must have known there was a chance that was the case if she had cheated. The estimated conception date would be close to the time she cheated. She can't claim to be totally innocent if she never followed up on her suspicions.

Although you are right that i am making an assumption that she cheated and was not raped or something along those lines

oh yes. and with that I'd agree. the conduct of the mother, after all, wasn't your original question.

Anyways. the question was about the man's obligation to the child, which Bottle has just answered much better than i could.

I'd be interested to see what your poll would look like if we separated the moral obligation and the legal one?

He is not punishing the child. He is just not further punishing himself for the mothers actions. It's harsh on the child - but that is the mothers responsibility for creating the situation, not the guys for being decieved.

i disagree, fundamentally and absolutely. the child comes first.

I'd be interested to see what your poll would look like if we separated the moral obligation and the legal one?

Agreed

i disagree, fundamentally and absolutely. the child comes first.

If I refuse to give someone something am I punishing them?

The homeless guy on the way to work - am I punishing him if I don't put cash in his cup?

If someone needs a kidney am I punishing them if I don't want to give up one of mine?

The guy is not punishing the child.

You are assuming here that the mother lied - if she genuinely didn't know either, it's no more her fault than his.

NOT HER FAULT??? LMAO unless the mother is Mother Mary and is giving birth to Jesus, im guessing she has an inkling as to the possibilities of who the father is.

otherwise, I'm with Bottle and Risottia on this one. If the man who has been the social and moral father won't support his child, he doesn't deserve one at all (and we are assuming that this family has been together for a few years). You can't punish the child for his mother's mistake OR her lie. So yes, he should support the child.

Again the question isnt if the father deserves doesnt deserve or anything. The OP is a clear and legal question. Should the court compel child support to a father that in fact is not the biological father based on fraud.

Im curious what punishment people think the woman should be forced to pay for lying? As it stands now she gets off completly scott free with no punishment at all. So a reasonable question to ask is, what is our societys obligation to punish lying whores, who thru thier lies and deceptions can extort potentially hundreds of housands of dollars to thier own profit?

i disagree, fundamentally and absolutely. the child comes first.

Would you make it compulsory by law for the father to pay then? or are you talking morally?

So a reasonable question to ask is, what is our societys obligation to punish lying whores, who thru thier lies and deceptions can extort potentially hundreds of housands of dollars to thier own profit?

Yikes i'm scared for you

NOT HER FAULT??? LMAO unless the mother is Mother Mary and is giving birth to Jesus, im guessing she has an inkling as to the possibilities of who the father is.



Again the question isnt if the father deserves doesnt deserve or anything. The OP is a clear and legal question. Should the court compel child support to a father that in fact is not the biological father based on fraud.

Im curious what punishment people think the woman should be forced to pay for lying? As it stands now she gets off completly scott free with no punishment at all. So a reasonable question to ask is, what is our societys obligation to punish lying whores, who thru thier lies and deceptions can extort potentially hundreds of housands of dollars to thier own profit?

Oh Christ, you had me agreeing with you untill the last paragraph.

I'd be interested to see what your poll would look like if we separated the moral obligation and the legal one?

I think the question was fairly clear on it being about the legal obligation. Or I thought so.

Really - if the guy is happy to continue raising the child as his own then that would be a win-win for everyone: He enjoys raising the kid, the mother gets the help, the kid get the continued father and the biological father gets away free.

If he does not want to continue supporting then sadly that is a bit harder. But life 'aint great all the time to everyone. If he does not love the kid upon finding the kid is not his then that is not really a conscious choice within his control - it is beyond his control - and all should have to live with the consequences.

Some people also view the 'father' as the man who led to the childs conception.

Yes, I know, and that's why I mentioned that maybe my view of the topic is colored by my understanding of the terms.

Splooging in somebody might result in you being the biological parent of an eventual child. But being a father requires more, to me. Now, that's just me, so that's why I tried to clarify.


Firstly - he probably is not choosing how he feels. Are all the big emotions you feel your personal choice? Say you walked in on your bf/gf/husband/wife having sex with someone else - do you choose your emotion or does your emotion happen to you? While this is not something the child has done wrong it is a similar thing. A guy who finds out he is not the biological father does not have the luxary of *choosing* to love anymore. He will or he wont.

If there is a person who would stop feeling love for a child they have loved for two years simply because of a DNA test, then (in my opinion) that human being is broken. Defective. I know, cerebrally, that I should care about protecting their freedoms and rights, but it's really hard for me to do so.


Take this a step back to look at 'potential' for loving and caring for the child. Not quite the same - but I am interested to see what you think.

Can I ask - on the day of birth the man has a paternity test done and gets the results back instantly. If he is prepared to love and care for the child if it is his child, but not prepared to love and care for the child if it is not then does that make him scum? He has not formed the bonds yet - but the basis of the potential for forming bonds is on wether he is the genetic father.

In my opinion? I don't know if I'd say he's "scum," but I would certainly say that he's nobody I would want to be a parent to any child I cared about.

And, before you ask, I feel the same way about any woman who based her "potential love" on whether or not a child was sufficiently genetically related to her.


Or - A man is in hospial with his wife giving birth (to a child that is genetically his). He is eagerley waiting to pur fourth love and affection on his newly born baby. A nurse comes up and dumps an extra baby in his arms from a different couple saying "We'll - you're prepared to love and care for that child in there - you're scum if you are not prepared to do the same for this one here. What - not your kid? Why should the genetics matter?"

Um, I'd say it's normal to not want to have a second baby suddenly dumped in your lap. Hell, my friend actually passed out when she found out she was having twins, and she panicked for a good month after. Two babies are different than one.


Should hospitals be able to give any couple any child? Or should they match the child with the couple that it came in with? Why? The couple came in expecting a child - they go out with a child. Why should it matter if it is theirs or not?

Setting aside the whole, "Why should hospitals be empowered to pick-and-choose which babies go where?" angle, there's also a lot more going on there than genetics. For instance, what if I've spent 9 months on a very special diet because I very strongly believe that it's critical to do so for the health of my growing fetus, but then the hospital swaps in a baby from a woman who drank and smoked throughout her pregnancy? I put a lot of time and personal effort into growing that fetus a particular way!

In all seriousness, though, I think I see what you're driving at with the last two questions. For me, it comes down to the bond and commitment that has been made. If a man has committed to being a child's father, then that's that. The reason the father who gets handed a second baby isn't under an obligation to rear it is because he committed to being the father of one particular baby.

One, individual, baby. He didn't commit to being "father to any baby that was partially grown from my spooge." He committed to THAT BABY, that one right there. That one sitting in that crib.

Maybe it's because I see babies as extremely small people, rather than lumps of genetic material. I see the father's commitment as involving the baby as an individual being, not as a commitment toward some thing that bears his genes.


Sounds like a definate 'Yes' to me...

No, it's not, and that's why I didn't answer the poll. I can recognize when my personal feelings on a topic are strong enough to cloud my opinion in a way that might lead me to choose something I later regret. That's why I'm waiting to vote, to see if my thought shake out a bit more.


Why should he be forced to pay for the braces rather than the biological parent? Why should the biological parent NOT pay?

Because the father in this case already made a commitment to that particular child. That individual kid. He didn't make a commitment to a particular pattern of genes, he committed to the individual human person who happens to be somebody else's biological child. If he had not done that in the first place, then it wouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't advocate pulling random dudes off the street and making them be daddies to random kids. I simply expect that a person who has become father to a child should behave like a father to that child.

NOT HER FAULT??? LMAO unless the mother is Mother Mary and is giving birth to Jesus, im guessing she has an inkling as to the possibilities of who the father is.

Again the question isnt if the father deserves doesnt deserve or anything. The OP is a clear and legal question. Should the court compel child support to a father that in fact is not the biological father based on fraud.

Im curious what punishment people think the woman should be forced to pay for lying? As it stands now she gets off completly scott free with no punishment at all. -snip-
Beyond the '-snip-' you are not helping very much...

The guy is not punishing the child.

If the man who has loved, cared for, and supported a child for even a couple of years walks out and refuses either emotional or financial support to that child, how is that not punishing the child? How is such a total parental rejection, that will just baffle and sadden a young child, not punishing the child?

of course, hopefully, the man who had such a meaningful bond with the child wouldn't do this - he might decide to leave the deceitful mother but we'd hope he'd stick by the kid. and if a bloke WAS that much of a rat then they're probably better off without him ;)

Oh Christ, you had me agreeing with you untill the last paragraph.

My last paragraph was nothing but a series of questions more or less. Nothing to agree or disagree with, just to answer.

No he should not be forced to pay … but he is a despicable waste of a human being if he loves a kid for two years and just abandons it based on something like that.

Splooging in somebody might result in you being the biological parent of an eventual child.

I'm sorry but I just find that word very funny for some reason :D

My last paragraph was nothing but a series of questions more or less. Nothing to agree or disagree with, just to answer.

Its your use of "lying whore" to describe the mother that worries me

I'm sorry but I just find that word very funny for some reason :D
It is a rather handy verb, and a evocative noun, but it fails miserably as an adverb. Just as a warning.

:D

Sorry someone who lies is a liar, and someone that uses sex to financially improve thier situation is a whore in my book so lying whore isnt a terribly inaccurate description.

And ive YET to hear what people think the punishment for the female defrauding the male should be? (if its knowingly)

Its your use of "lying whore" to describe the mother that worries me
The use of "whore" at all is the problem.

In the context of this discussion, it's entirely possible that the woman in question has had a grand total of two sexual partners, neither of which paid her for sex. Bringing in terms like "whore" just underlines the fact that there are guys who view this subject as being entirely about whether or not womens' sexual behavior is being controlled correctly, and the issue of childrens' welfare is beside the point.

The use of "whore" at all is the problem.

In the context of this discussion, it's entirely possible that the woman in question has had a grand total of two sexual partners, neither of which paid her for sex. Bringing in terms like "whore" just underlines the fact that there are guys who view this subject as being entirely about whether or not womens' sexual behavior is being controlled correctly, and the issue of childrens' welfare is beside the point.

I would also add that its unfair to take such a poor view of the mother in this case as the scenario we were given doesnt give enough of a reason as to why she didnt tell the father. Other than that I agree

Sorry someone who lies is a liar, and someone that uses sex to financially improve thier situation is a whore in my book so lying whore isnt a terribly inaccurate description.

And ive YET to hear what people think the punishment for the female defrauding the male should be? (if its knowingly)

How do you know she did it for money? She might have lied because she loved her husband and was afraid to lose him

The use of "whore" at all is the problem.

In the context of this discussion, it's entirely possible that the woman in question has had a grand total of two sexual partners, neither of which paid her for sex. Bringing in terms like "whore" just underlines the fact that there are guys who view this subject as being entirely about whether or not womens' sexual behavior is being controlled correctly, and the issue of childrens' welfare is beside the point.

No she is extorting money from the "not father" from the consequences of sex. Not a traditional definition of whore but close enough in my opinion.

Would you make it compulsory by law for the father to pay then? or are you talking morally?

This is really, really tricky. If the only question is money, then it doesn't matter where it comes from - perhaps the biological parent *should* pay, but logistically it could take years to track him down and force him, perhaps through the courts, to pay.

And if the question is moral and emotional support, that would be so hard to measure and quantify that i'm not sure you *could* enforce it legally, at least not effectively - not convinced you should try.

Such legislation would have to take into account the effect on the child - how detrimental would it be to permit that man simply to walk away with no obligations? I think in some circumstances he probably should be made to pay but i'm damned if i know how legislation could be made sensitive enough. I think if there were legislation i could see both good and bad issues with it.

If only we could reply on the man's bond with his erstwhile child to define the terms of the support he would give, along with mature and objective agreement from the mother, that would be best. Sigh. If only we lived in an ideal world.

No she is extorting money from the "not father" from the consequences of sex. Not a traditional definition of whore but close enough in my opinion.

Well wrong by definition by the English language and highly emotive rather then substantial

But at least it is fine by your standards …:rolleyes:

*snip*
Hell no.

Again the question that every single person in this thread has tap danced around. What should the culpability be to women that lie about who the father is?

How do you know she did it for money? She might have lied because she loved her husband and was afraid to lose him

Because at the divorce she is asking for money to support a child that isnt his. If it wasnt for money she wouldnt be asking for support.

No she is extorting money from the "not father" from the consequences of sex. Not a traditional definition of whore but close enough in my opinion.
We are talking about whether or not a man should be LEGALLY required to support a child that he finds out is not biologically his. If the laws require this, then it's not the woman's fault that he is being forced to pay for the child, it's the laws.

You are also making the assumption that the woman's motive must be extorting money from the man. I know this may shock you, but sometimes men and women actually form relationships that aren't based on money. Sometimes women are actually interested in being with men for reasons other than getting paid. Sometimes women even form emotional attachments to men, and desire to have those men in their lives for reasons that go beyond material support.

Sometimes women (and men) also give a shit about children. Sometimes women care about their kids and want their kids to be cared for well. Sometimes people think that kids deserve to have the support they need, even if those kids don't have the same genes as they do. Sometimes people don't want to see their children hurt (physically or emotionally).

Crazy shit, I know, but it's true.

If there is a person who would stop feeling love for a child they have loved for two years simply because of a DNA test, then (in my opinion) that human being is broken. Defective. I know, cerebrally, that I should care about protecting their freedoms and rights, but it's really hard for me to do so.

Is it ok for him to stop loving his wife upon finding out that she has been cheating on him?


Um, I'd say it's normal to not want to have a second baby suddenly dumped in your lap. Hell, my friend actually passed out when she found out she was having twins, and she panicked for a good month after. Two babies are different than one.
Would that be your ONLY objection to having another child that had no relation to you dumped on you?


For instance, what if I've spent 9 months on a very special diet because I very strongly believe that it's critical to do so for the health of my growing fetus, but then the hospital swaps in a baby from a woman who drank and smoked throughout her pregnancy? I put a lot of time and personal effort into growing that fetus a particular way!
I know you follow that up with your 'in all seriousneess' but I really hope these are not your only objections...


In all seriousness, though, I think I see what you're driving at with the last two questions. For me, it comes down to the bond and commitment that has been made. If a man has committed to being a child's father, then that's that. The reason the father who gets handed a second baby isn't under an obligation to rear it is because he committed to being the father of one particular baby.
The second baby - maybe I should have made that a bit different... mabe his missus has twins and the doctors switch one. Is you only objection the one about the difficulty of having two kids and the care the mother put into pregnancy?


One, individual, baby. He didn't commit to being "father to any baby that was partially grown from my spooge." He committed to THAT BABY, that one right there. That one sitting in that crib.
OR you could word it "He committed to the baby that he fathered".


No, it's not, and that's why I didn't answer the poll. I can recognize when my personal feelings on a topic are strong enough to cloud my opinion in a way that might lead me to choose something I later regret. That's why I'm waiting to vote, to see if my thought shake out a bit more.
Gotta admit - that's a bit more than I can do. Although I have been known to change my mind...


Because the father in this case already made a commitment to that particular child. That individual kid. He didn't make a commitment to a particular pattern of genes,
If the commitment was based largely on the belief the child was genetically his then this is not quite true.

Because at the divorce she is asking for money to support a child that isnt his. If it wasnt for money she wouldnt be asking for support.
She's not asking for money for her, she's asking for money for the kid that HE WAS A FATHER TO FOR TWO YEARS.

Is it really hard to understand that the woman and the child are two different individuals in this case?

Again the question that every single person in this thread has tap danced around. What should the culpability be to women that lie about who the father is?

Danced around because it is negligible in comparison to the care of a 2 year old child

Do i think she should get off Scott free absolutely not, but punishing her in a monetary way only hurts the care the child receives. Have you thought up of any fair punishments that don't degrade the future of the child?

Because at the divorce she is asking for money to support a child that isnt his. If it wasnt for money she wouldnt be asking for support.

There is nothing in the original post to suggest that there weren't other factors leading to the breakdown of the marriage. Nothing there says it was directly due to money and the child. They are just issues brought up during the divorce

Again the question that every single person in this thread has tap danced around. What should the culpability be to women that lie about who the father is?
We're not dancing around it at all. Several of us have very clearly and repeatedly said that the obligation is TO THE CHILD. It's not to the woman at all, in any way, shape, or form. It's to the child. Who is a different person than the woman. Not complicated.

The woman in the described situation is (it is being assumed) still caring for the child. She is dealing with her obligations to the child.

THE CHILD is the subject of the thread. What are the obligations of each adult to the child? That's the whole point.

Whether or not the man and woman have a score to settle between the two of them is a totally separate topic.

Sure. And while we're at it, can I get child support for my cats?

Hell no.

You snippitey snip snipped a little too much there chap.

Which post were you quoting?

Isnip

If the commitment was based largely on the belief the child was genetically his then this is not quite true.

Then what a despicable human being he is, regardless of legal consequences.

Is it ok for him to stop loving his wife upon finding out that she has been cheating on him?


But the child didnt actively do anything to lose the love of the father. The mother (if this resulted from her cheating) knew what she was doing and knew it would hurt her partner

Is it ok for him to stop loving his wife upon finding out that she has been cheating on him?

I am deeply frightened of anybody who could simply stop loving a person after such an event.

I would be hurt and angry and a great many other things in that situation, but I simply could not stop loving my spouse so quickly.

But, then, I believe it takes years to fall in love, and just as long to fall out of it.

Additionally, the baby didn't lie to him. It didn't do anything to him. It didn't pretend to be something it wasn't. Indeed, I'd say he's the one betraying the child's trust, since he pretended to love the child when it appears that all he loved was his own genetic material.


Would that be your ONLY objection to having another child that had no relation to you dumped on you?

As I said, the parent-child "bond" or "unspoken contract" is made with the individual child. Any "potential bond" or "potential unspoken contract" is made with the individual "potential child."

I don't believe that an individual is their genes. If I love somebody and then later find out that they were adopted (and, thus, don't have the genetic makeup I originally assumed) I would be one fucked up cookie to suddenly decide that I don't love them any more.


I know you follow that up with your 'in all seriousneess' but I really hope these are not your only objections...

Not the only ones, no, but they are legit IMO. Of course, it's different for a woman, because a woman actually puts physical labor into growing and producing a baby. Since a man's body does not participate in this process, it's a bit different for him (through no fault of his own!).


The second baby - maybe I should have made that a bit different... mabe his missus has twins and the doctors switch one. Is you only objection the one about the difficulty of having two kids and the care the mother put into pregnancy?

OR you could word it "He committed to the baby that he fathered".

He committed to those two, individual, children. They are individual people.

It's really weird for me, a vehemently pro-choice person often accused of being a "baby-killer", to be the one trying to explain the importance of infant personhood. To me, infants are not interchangable lumps that are distinguished only on the basis of their genes. They are individual persons.

Gotta admit - that's a bit more than I can do. Although I have been known to change my mind...

I don't do it as often as I probably should, but I'm having a good morning today. :D


If the commitment was based largely on the belief the child was genetically his then this is not quite true.
If the commitment was based on the child's genetic relatedness to him, then he's not somebody I would want parenting a kid I care about. But that's just me, and I'm not saying that I would legally enforce this opinion.

Then what a despicable human being he is, regardless of legal consequences.

So... A guys girlfriend gets pregnant - halfway through she tells him it is not his. He is dispicable for saying he want's nothing to do with it?

Bah this is just more of the out of control Child mania that is going on in this country. Lets just rip up the Constitution since the topic involves CHILDREN. Lets tear up all we know about contract law and agreements based on fraud. Why? The magic word CHILDREN. Lets take a guy who is the innocent VICTIM of a crime and send him a bill for the next 20 YEARS. Why? CHILDREN. Lets take a lying mother and NOT have her go after support from the legal actual father. Why? Cause going after the biological father might be HARD. And whenever justice is hard it should just be skipped. For the CHILDREN.

So... A guys girlfriend gets pregnant - halfway through she tells him it is not his. He is dispicable for saying he want's nothing to do with it?

Halfway through the pregnancy? No, but if you can just turn your back on a two year old kid that you had cared for as your own kid like that ... absolutly

Without reading the volumes of response prior to mine and trying to put myself in this lousy postion-

If I was married and my wife got pregnant and had a baby-I would assume I would have been there throughout the pregnancy, caring and supporting my wife and the unborn baby (as I have three times now)-assisting with her needs, participating in her pre natal visits,checking out the sonagrams, watching our diet,making sure she doesnt miss vitamins and sleep-then the baby is born-I'm right there,holding her hand through epidural and c-sections (all three), the doctor hands me the baby for me to show its mother. I change the first diapers as mom is still recovering from incision. I sleep over in the hospital, keeping and eye on mom and baby and making sure they arent missing any care, making sure they are both attended to and comfortable.

Then we have a fight and it escalated til Geraldo or Maury or some other opportunist scum-bag is paying for paternity tests so we can smack and kick each other while tearing our clothes off on national TV, with a hoard of trailer trash chanting "bitch" at us when I find out I'm not the biological father.

Guess what? I'm still this child's father. I've been there from day one,even though it wasnt me who fertilized the egg.
Am I upset and angry? yeah, but I dont just assume-"Alright-I got outta this one, I'm not the baby's father and I dont have to pay. I can spend all my extra money at OTB now!! Wahoo!!!"

No-I've been acting as the baby's father and I'll continue to do so, regardless of laws and courts. The kids already in my heart,mind and soul and I'm not going to remain part of his life, spiritually,emotionally and financially because soem scum-bag lawyer is better than mine- I'm doing it because in my way of life-there is no other way. There isnt even a choice.

I am deeply frightened of anybody who could simply stop loving a person after such an event.

I would be hurt and angry and a great many other things in that situation, but I simply could not stop loving my spouse so quickly.

But, then, I believe it takes years to fall in love, and just as long to fall out of it.

Agreed - I did not mean right away, but as a result of the actions - but the point is that people can and do stop loving people.


I don't believe that an individual is their genes. If I love somebody and then later find out that they were adopted (and, thus, don't have the genetic makeup I originally assumed) I would be one fucked up cookie to suddenly decide that I don't love them any more.
This is slightly different to being expected to provide for someone for 18 years regardless of their relation to you.


Not the only ones, no, but they are legit IMO. Of course, it's different for a woman, because a woman actually puts physical labor into growing and producing a baby. Since a man's body does not participate in this process, it's a bit different for him (through no fault of his own!).
So the actual parentage of the child would be secondry to those points?


It's really weird for me, a vehemently pro-choice person often accused of being a "baby-killer", to be the one trying to explain the importance of infant personhood. To me, infants are not interchangable lumps that are distinguished only on the basis of their genes. They are individual persons.
I found it surprising too - I note you have very very strong pro-choice views. I find it a little odd that you consider a child before birth little more than a parasite, but ten seconds later it is a human that has full rights to emotional and financial suport from whoever believes they are the father at the moment of birth.


I'm having a good morning today
I hope this thread does not ruin it!


If the commitment was based on the child's genetic relatedness to him, then he's not somebody I would want parenting a kid I care about. But that's just me, and I'm not saying that I would legally enforce this opinion.
If you and your husband (you're married?) decide to have a baby, you will I assume love and care for the child. However instead of getting you pregnant your husband goes out and gets some girl knocked up without telling you then one day turns up on your doorstep with the baby saying "honey - here's a kid - we don't have to try for one anymore". Would you say "Oh! she's beautiful - of course I'll help raise her - I'd be a deadbeat if I didn't" or would you be more inclined to tell him to fuck off, take the baby back to it's mother so they can raise it together.

I think you misrepresent Bottle's views on abortion a bit there... but i'm not getting into that as we have been here before many, many, many, many ... where was I?

Anyway. To answer your scenario about the one-night-stand who shows up with the baby - completely different, isn't it?

There is a third person in the equation - the stranger mother is involved in away that the oblivious biological father is not. there is a relationship, however short, between the third parent and the child which doesn't exist in the original scenario. Also the childless wife hasn't been under the impression that she had a child of her own, where as the original cuckolded husband did.

But if the couple have been struggling and failing to conceive, and the stranger mother really doesn't want anything to do with the baby, then perhaps the childless wife would indeed accept the idea of raising it. Of course she'd be upset at first... but then so would the cuckolded husband, whom we have been hoping will continue to support his child regardless.

I think you misrepresent Bottle's views on abortion a bit there... but i'm not getting into that as we have been here before many, many, many, many ... where was I?
I'm pro-choice btw - I thought Bottl was one of those who view a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy up until birth. If not - then I apologise for misrepresenting her views.


Anyway. To answer your scenario about the one-night-stand who shows up with the baby - completely different, isn't it?

There is a third person in the equation - the stranger mother is involved in away that the oblivious biological father is not. there is a relationship, however short, between the third parent and the child which doesn't exist in the original scenario. Also the childless wife hasn't been under the impression that she had a child of her own, where as the original cuckolded husband did.

The difference in involvement is due to differences between biological differences between men an women.

This of course does not compare to the two year old - but that is because it is almost physically impossible to trick the woman into looking afer a child that is not hers due to biology. However it compares as close as possible to the case of a guy in the waiting room who does not want to commit to a child unless it is biologically his. Which a few people have said makes him a crappy human. Is the woman a crappy human if she does not want the child because it is not hers? For example Bottle has said that if a parent cares wether the child is biologically theirs then they should not be caring for children full stop.

I think the biological mother is implied that she does not want the kid.


But if the couple have been struggling and failing to conceive, and the stranger mother really doesn't want anything to do with the baby, then perhaps the childless wife would indeed accept the idea of raising it. Of course she'd be upset at first... but then so would the cuckolded husband, whom we have been hoping will continue to support his child regardless.
Is she a bad person if she does not want to accept the child?
If she had not been struggling to concieve, but her husband had been sleeping around beforehand and then he rolls up with the baby?

I might have misled witht he "we don't ahve to try anymore bit" - Assume they would not have had any difficulty - and that the husband inpregnated his gf 8 months earlier and he rolls up with the baby after the first month of trying for a child with his wife.

I found it surprising too - I note you have very very strong pro-choice views. I find it a little odd that you consider a child before birth little more than a parasite, but ten seconds later it is a human that has full rights to emotional and financial suport from whoever believes they are the father at the moment of birth.

What you appear to misunderstand is that the personhood of fetuses is irrelevant to my stance on abortion. I'm more than willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a complete human person equivalent to a born infant...and, under those circumstances, I still support a woman's right to end her body's participation in pregnancy at any time and for any reason. This is because I believe all persons have the right to bodily autonomy, and thus the subject of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is a person.

In other words, my legal right to own my own body and decide what happens to my own body supercedes any and all legal responsibilities I might have to other people in my life. I am free to refuse to donate my kidney to my spouse or child (if I had either). I am permitted to decline to give blood to my parent or sibling. These are living human persons to whom I believe I have a responsibility, yet my responsibilities to them do NOT include any obligation to have my body used to prolong their life. That is my opinion on the subject, of course, and I know many people do not share it.


I hope this thread does not ruin it!

I doubt it will. I'm pretty used to General by now. ;)


If you and your husband (you're married?)

Oops, no I'm not, should have been more clear about that. I kind of lapse into theoretically language without mentioning that I've done so. My bad.


decide to have a baby, you will I assume love and care for the child. However instead of getting you pregnant your husband goes out and gets some girl knocked up without telling you then one day turns up on your doorstep with the baby saying "honey - here's a kid - we don't have to try for one anymore". Would you say "Oh! she's beautiful - of course I'll help raise her - I'd be a deadbeat if I didn't" or would you be more inclined to tell him to fuck off, take the baby back to it's mother so they can raise it together.
Hmm. My point doesn't seem to be getting across.

If my partner (or anybody else) showed up with some random kid and said, "Hey, you have to be this kid's Mommy!" I would laugh in their face. I did not form any bond with that child. I did not form a commitment to it. The fact that it may be genetically related to my partner does not automatically create an obligation in ME to rear it. I don't feel any obligation to that child. If I decided that I wanted to be a part of the kid's life, that would be up to me, and I could create the bond and enter the "contract" with that kid at that point.

However, if my partner somehow managed to bring a baby into our lives that I believed was biologically mine, but later it turned out the baby was not biologically mine, I would be as much that child's parent after finding out as I had been before I found out. Once I have become parent to a child, my bond is with THAT CHILD. Not with what I think their genetic makeup may be. It is with the individual kid.

[As an aside, it's funny you should mention this particular scenario. I am completely disinterested in being pregnant and giving birth, and I don't particularly care about having biological kids. My partner, however, really wants to have biological kids of his own some day. I've told him that I most likely will never want to be impregnated, but I might some day be willing to be a parent (possible, though unlikely), so we often joke about picking out a woman to "bear his seed" for us.]

If my partner (or anybody else) showed up with some random kid and said, "Hey, you have to be this kid's Mommy!" I would laugh in their face. I did not form any bond with that child. I did not form a commitment to it. The fact that it may be genetically related to my partner does not automatically create an obligation in ME to rear it. I don't feel any obligation to that child. If I decided that I wanted to be a part of the kid's life, that would be up to me, and I could create the bond and enter the "contract" with that kid at that point.
How is this fundamentally different to a man deciding wether he will care for a child or not based on a paternity test? (At birth that is).

If a guy is prepared to love the child his partner gives birth to if it is his, but not if it is someone elses is about the same as a guy rolling up with a baby (once the wife/partner has agreed to have children, and thus is implied she will love and care for the kid) and expecting the wife to care for it.

Her rejection of the child would only be based in genetics, as she has agreed to have a child.

The only difference is the woman will know right away while the guy needs a quick test done first.

This situation was based on:

Can I ask - on the day of birth the man has a paternity test done and gets the results back instantly. If he is prepared to love and care for the child if it is his child, but not prepared to love and care for the child if it is not then does that make him scum? He has not formed the bonds yet - but the basis of the potential for forming bonds is on wether he is the genetic father.

In my opinion? I don't know if I'd say he's "scum," but I would certainly say that he's nobody I would want to be a parent to any child I cared about.

And, before you ask, I feel the same way about any woman who based her "potential love" on whether or not a child was sufficiently genetically related to her.

I have tried to make it as close as possible from the other genders angle. You have the infidelity, you have the child that is not theirs, you have the rejection based on parentage.


[As an aside, it's funny you should mention this particular scenario. I am completely disinterested in being pregnant and giving birth, and I don't particularly care about having biological kids. My partner, however, really wants to have biological kids of his own some day. I've told him that I most likely will never want to be impregnated, but I might some day be willing to be a parent (possible, though unlikely), so we often joke about picking out a woman to "bear his seed" for us.]
I'm spooked now that it was to you who I raised this scenario!

How is this fundamentally different to a man deciding wether he will care for a child or not based on a paternity test? (At birth that is).

Because my response to that situation would be the same if the baby that my partner produced WAS biologically related to me. My feelings on the subject have absolutely nothing to do with my biological relationship to the child in question.


If a guy is prepared to love the child his partner gives birth to if it is his, but not if it is someone elses is about the same as a guy rolling up with a baby (once the wife/partner has agreed to have children, and thus is implied she will love and care for the kid) and expecting the wife to care for it.

If your partner is pregnant and you agree to be the parent to the fetus she is carrying, then you have bonded yourself to that particular pregnancy. As a man on this thread has described, a loving male partner will probably be somewhat involved with his partner while she is pregnant, and will be involved in many of the trials and joys of that process. Pregnancy isn't some invisible, intangible process whereby a man's seed magically transforms into a child...it's very real, solid, living process that has a major impact on the woman who is participating in the pregnancy. Any man who is involved with that woman is going to become involved in the pregnancy by association, since it's going to end up being kind of a big part of her life for a while.

To put it another way, you have chosen to become a "potential parent" to that particular "potential child," to use your language from earlier.

A man bringing home a baby that his partner has never even known about is, obviously, quite different. She couldn't very well have chosen to become parent to a child she didn't know existed.


Her rejection of the child would only be based in genetics, as she has agreed to have a child.

You keep leaving out the knowledge aspect. When we're talking about the guy in these situations, he KNOWS the child or fetus exists, and he's prepared to commit to being a parent to it...but then he decides to pull that commitment because he found out about the kid's genetics. For the woman, on the other hand, she doesn't know the child even exists until AFTER she's already well aware that it's not biologically hers, so she can't possibly have made any choice about parenting that child until after the biological issue has already been answered.

If a guy is prepared to love the child his partner gives birth to if it is his, but not if it is someone elses is about the same as a guy rolling up with a baby (once the wife/partner has agreed to have children, and thus is implied she will love and care for the kid) and expecting the wife to care for it.

I think i see what you are trying to say.
But I think there is a distinction between agreeing in principle to commit to a baby and *actually* committing to a *particular* baby by sharing a pregnancy with your partner up to the birth.

Suppose a couple agreed in principle to conceive. then suppose a former flame of EITHER partner turned up with a baby they wanted to palm off on the couple. i think
a ) the reaction of both of the couple would be similar to each other, and
b ) this reaction would be different to the one the guy in the waiting room who'd shared 9 months of pregnancy would have.
If that makes sense.

I think i see what you are trying to say.
But I think there is a distinction between agreeing in principle to commit to a baby and *actually* committing to a *particular* baby by sharing a pregnancy with your partner up to the birth.

Suppose a couple agreed in principle to conceive. then suppose a former flame of EITHER partner turned up with a baby they wanted to palm off on the couple. i think
a ) the reaction of both of the couple would be similar to each other, and
b ) this reaction would be different to the one the guy in the waiting room who'd shared 9 months of pregnancy would have.
If that makes sense.
YES. That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Because my response to that situation would be the same if the baby that my partner produced WAS biologically related to me. My feelings on the subject have absolutely nothing to do with my biological relationship to the child in question.
You would dirtch a child that was biologically related to you if you missed the pregnancy? Say a coma?
How is this different from a guy refusing to look after a kid he fathered if the girl turns up 9 months later with a baby?


If your partner is pregnant and you agree to be the parent to the fetus she is carrying, then you have bonded yourself to that particular pregnancy. As a man on this thread has described, a loving male partner will probably be somewhat involved with his partner while she is pregnant, and will be involved in many of the trials and joys of that process. Pregnancy isn't some invisible, intangible process whereby a man's seed magically transforms into a child...it's very real, solid, living process that has a major impact on the woman who is participating in the pregnancy. Any man who is involved with that woman is going to become involved in the pregnancy by association, since it's going to end up being kind of a big part of her life for a while.
This is all involvement with the woman, not with the child.


To put it another way, you have chosen to become a "potential parent" to that particular "potential child," to use your language from earlier.

A man bringing home a baby that his partner has never even known about is, obviously, quite different. She couldn't very well have chosen to become parent to a child she didn't know existed.

In the scenario the woman agreed to be a potential parent to a potential child . The man agreed to be a potential parent to *that* potential child based on it being his.

Th situations are not identical, but I think they are as close as biologically possible.

The knowlege aspect - this is hard - there is no real way the woman can be decieved in the same way a man can. Unless you have an asshole working in an IVF clinic.

BUT - as you count the pregnancy as bonding qwith the child - When CAN a man decide to disown a child that is not his in the same way the woman can if the guy rolls up with a baby?

Taking on responsibility for a child is a lifelong decision, not a "for a little while" or "only if I don't find out 'x'" decision. If any person, man or woman, would wish to abandon a child if something were discovered about that child, they better make damn sure they have the answer to their questions *before* taking on that responsibility. Any person who would do this should demand a parentage test immediately upon seeing the child.

I see no difference between a parent raising a child for 2 years and then wishing to abdandon him because he doesn't share 1/2 of their DNA and a parent raising a child for 2 years and then wishing to abandon him because the child has Sickle Cell or she has Turner's. It demonstrates that the parent does not, and never did, care for the child. It also demonstrates that the person was never responsible enough to care for a child in the first place. Any person attempting to do this should never, for the rest of their lives, be legally allowed custody of a child.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see the man or woman who could actually look a child in the eyes and say, "Sorry kid. I don't love you anymore because someone else lied to me." Such a person would be a monster - and should probably be placed in a zoo or a circus.

Maybe "father" doesn't mean the same to everybody here.

To me, a father is a male parent who assists in both the support and care of a child. "Father" isn't just a paycheck each week and an occasional lecture about staying off drugs; "father" is involved with his child.

Now, if the guy in question was already the kind of pathetic weiner who was half-assing his parenting even when he thought the kid was biologically his own, then...well, he's a pathetic weiner to start.

On the other hand, if he was an involved, supporting, caring parent, then (in my opinion) he would have to be a supremely vile form of life to suddenly switch off all his fatherly feelings for his child simply because of a DNA test. He would have to be a very low and loathsome form of scum to suddenly decide not to be a father to the child that he had parented for years.


I find it extraordinarily telling that your insults hurled straight at the male in the scenario. I wonder if you would have such harsh words for the woman who had the affair, and birthed a child from a man not her husband, and conceiled that fact.

As for my opinion, as much as bottle wants to hurl insults to obstruct the original problem, and perhaps guilt trip anyone who would answer differently into being scum by association...the child is either his, or it is not his. Biologically it is not his, and he took no affirmative legal steps to officially, legally, adopt the child from the biological father's care.

Ergo he has no legal responsibility for it.

And ya know, I have one tiny lil question here. What if the biological father finds out, and wants in on his biological child's life? Now the argument is as always "well, he fathered the child, his responsibility" but he also never actually agreed to care for it, other than having sex with the woman.

So what happens? Should the father who is not the biological father be forced to pay, while the biological father forced to be excluded? If the biological father is forced to be excluded because he never agreed to take part, what does that say about any one night stand that results in pregnancy? Is the child entitled from two child supports from "sperm daddy" and "childhood daddy"? Do they split it? Down the middle? Is 2 years equal to the same amount of child support as shared genetics? More? Less?

All of this is ludicrusly convoluted and problematic when a simple rule suffices. Pay for what's yours. Not your kid? Not your problem.

Why are many of you assuming that the father in these cases ever volentarily decided to be the father? Why are you assuming the existence of a fuzzy parental bond?

Whenever this situation is discussed, the vission I always have is as follows:

A man and woman have a fling. Later on, the woman approaches the man and says "Meet Junior". The man wants nothing to do with the mother anymore. They had their reasons for breaking up, and he is firm in his refusal to deal with that woman ever again (for whatever reason). He does decide (for whatever reason) to own up to his financial obligation to his ofspring. He never goes to the soccer games, or anything like that for whatever reason (maybe because he is so adamant about the woman remaining out of his life), but either because he personally feels a moral obligation to support a child that was the result of his actions, or because the law obligated it, he does send a check for the benefit of the child.

A ways down the road, maybe a week, maybe two years, he finds out the child isn't his. Now he has never been a dad to his kid. This isn't a case of he stops loving the child because it isn't his. It's a case of he stops financially supporting a child who isn't his.

Setting asside for the moment whether it's right to force a man to pay child support for a child he never wanted in the first place, is it right that this man who once payed support under the belief they were the biological father to continue to be forced to pay once that assumption has been refuted?

You would dirtch a child that was biologically related to you if you missed the pregnancy?

I would feel the same about such a child as I would feel about any child presented to me in the same manner. I would, obviously, feel very different about the situation if it turned out I'd been pregnant, given birth, and never knew about it, but that wouldn't determine how I would feel about the individual child in question.


How is this different from a guy refusing to look after a kid he fathered if the girl turns up 9 months later with a baby?

That's not the situation we're talking about. The situation we're talking about is the guy refusing to look after a kid he's been looking after for 2 years. Or refusing to look after a born child after he's been participating in the gestation of the fetus (to the extent of his biologically limited ability to do so).


This is all involvement with the woman, not with the child.

Yes and no. A lot of it is, but it's also a kind of emotional preparation to be a parent to the child that (hopefully) will result. Most people make specific plans about things they hope to do once that particular child is born. These plans don't automatically apply to any other child they may one day have.

And, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of people engage in particular activities during gestation which they believe are important for the growing fetus. (My father stuck headphones on my mother's belly to play rock music for me when I was in utero, for instance.)

The man is dating a particular woman, who is experiencing a particular pregnancy with a particular fetus. A different woman would be a different situation. The same woman will never experience the same pregnancy twice, nor will she ever gestate the same fetus twice. All women are not interchangable, just as all fetuses are not, just as all pregnancies are not, just as all children are not.


In the scenario the woman agreed to be a potential parent to a potential child . The man agreed to be a potential parent to *that* potential child based on it being his.

Th situations are not identical, but I think they are as close as biologically possible.

The problem is, they aren't close enough. There is a critical component that you just can't realistically introduce with the reversed-gender situation, as I've mentioned before.

Believe me, I don't LIKE that our biology is unequal in this manner! I certainly don't blame anybody for the fact that men and women participate differently in reproduction. I just think it's silly to try to pretend like these differences don't exist, or that they don't make a big difference in particular areas. One of those areas is topics like this one.


The knowlege aspect - this is hard - there is no real way the woman can be decieved in the same way a man can. Unless you have an asshole working in an IVF clinic.

Exactly. So you pretty much can't create a "regendered" version of this topic.


BUT - as you count the pregnancy as bonding qwith the child - When CAN a man decide to disown a child that is not his in the same way the woman can if the guy rolls up with a baby?
If you're asking me when I think it's okay to decide that you don't want to be a kid's parent, then the answer is that it's okay for as long as you have not agreed to be the kid's parent.

Once you've agreed to be a kid's parent, you bear that responsibility. Now, there are parents who realize that they are doing a lousy job, or who realize that they cannot provide what their children need, or that they simply cannot cope with parenting even though they are honestly trying their best. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is to recognize that you can't be the parent your child deserves. But this is very, VERY different from simply deciding that you don't WANT to be a parent to a child that you already committed to.

EDIT UPDATE: Okay, I thought of a crazy Soap Opera way to maybe create a closer regendered approximation of this topic.

Let's say that Jim and Jane want to have kids, but Jane can't bear the children herself (for whatever reason) so they decide to use a surrogate. Unbeknownst to Jane, Jim ends up cheating on Jane with the surrogate. So Jane thinks that the surrogate is bearing a fetus that is biologically the child of Jane and Jim, but the surrogate is actually bearing a child that was conceived during the episode of cheating (and is therefore Jim's biological child, but NOT Jane's).

If Jane goes along thinking the fetus is her biological child, and then the baby is born and she takes it home and rears it as hers, and then two years later finds out that it is actually not genetically her baby, then I would feel the same way about her parental responsibilities as I feel about the responsibilities of a dude who finds out that his two year old isn't biologically his. That is, she is still that child's mother, even if it turns out that she didn't contribute the egg to the original fertilization.

Why are many of you assuming that the father in these cases ever volentarily decided to be the father? Why are you assuming the existence of a fuzzy parental bond?

Whenever this situation is discussed, the vission I always have is as follows:

A man and woman have a fling. Later on, the woman approaches the man and says "Meet Junior". The man wants nothing to do with the mother anymore. They had their reasons for breaking up, and he is firm in his refusal to deal with that woman ever again (for whatever reason). He does decide (for whatever reason) to own up to his financial obligation to his ofspring. He never goes to the soccer games, or anything like that for whatever reason (maybe because he is so adamant about the woman remaining out of his life), but either because he personally feels a moral obligation to support a child that was the result of his actions, or because the law obligated it, he does send a check for the benefit of the child.

A ways down the road, maybe a week, maybe two years, he finds out the child isn't his. Now he has never been a dad to his kid. This isn't a case of he stops loving the child because it isn't his. It's a case of he stops financially supporting a child who isn't his.

Setting asside for the moment whether it's right to force a man to pay child support for a child he never wanted in the first place, is it right that this man who once payed support under the belief they were the biological father to continue to be forced to pay once that assumption has been refuted?
Um maybe because we read the original post that not only said that until that point they had an active marriage.

It also said that the choices were to STILL be in the child's life or not ... that implies the fact that he WAS part of the child's life not just a financial doner

I am deeply frightened of anybody who could simply stop loving a person after such an event.

I would be hurt and angry and a great many other things in that situation, but I simply could not stop loving my spouse so quickly. [mild snip]

Why? Having a child is a huge deal. IF you think the child is yours and then find out it isn't, it isn't just that your partner had an affair and carried someone else's baby. It's that they committed one of the largest lies possible. How could you ever trust that person again? You may still love them, but I personally couldn't maintain a relationship after that.

Additionally, the baby didn't lie to him. It didn't do anything to him. It didn't pretend to be something it wasn't. Indeed, I'd say he's the one betraying the child's trust, since he pretended to love the child when it appears that all he loved was his own genetic material.
[snip other stuff I'm not responding about]
If the commitment was based on the child's genetic relatedness to him, then he's not somebody I would want parenting a kid I care about. But that's just me, and I'm not saying that I would legally enforce this opinion.

I concur on this point, but on a legal basis, I don't think he should pay, as he cared for the child on false pretenses. He's still a prick if he chooses to be gone from the childs life, but a legally correct prick.

One interesting thing. In over 7 pages, there has been much talk about deadbeat dads. Not one person has mentioned "What if the mother, after telling the 'not the biological father' the truth chooses to cut him out of the childs life?" Which may well happen if a bitter divorce ensues.

Then that's a whole new thread. What obligation do people receiving maintenance from a not-psycho parent have to allow their ex to see the children? Should the carer of the children be forced to stay in the same state? If the carer moves, should maintenance be cut, as the partner wants contact but can no longer do so? I have no answer for this as it is wat too complex. People's liberty shouldn't be curtailed, but a parent shouldn't be cut out of a child's life, especially if that parent is paying maintenance.

I find it extraordinarily telling that your insults hurled straight at the male in the scenario. I wonder if you would have such harsh words for the woman who had the affair, and birthed a child from a man not her husband, and conceiled that fact.

I do have harsh words for her. However, this topic is about the responsibilities that the adults have TO THE CHILD. Whatever problems I may have with the woman's actions toward her partner, they are not relevant to this particular topic. I didn't want to hijack, so I stuck to the topic.


As for my opinion, as much as bottle wants to hurl insults to obstruct the original problem, and perhaps guilt trip anyone who would answer differently into being scum by association...

I'm not hurling insults. I'm sharing my personal opinion of people who choose to disown children because those children don't have the genes their parents wanted. I was asked my opinion, so I shared it. You can certainly disagree with me, but it's rather pointless to get huffy about the fact that I use blunt language to express my opinions.

Why? Having a child is a huge deal. IF you think the child is yours and then find out it isn't, it isn't just that your partner had an affair and carried someone else's baby. It's that they committed one of the largest lies possible. How could you ever trust that person again? You may still love them, but I personally couldn't maintain a relationship after that.

You answered your own question. I said I could not simply stop loving that person, and that's the truth. I didn't say I would necessarily choose to stay in a relationship with them, or that I would trust them. If an individual betrays me in such a serious way, I probably would be hard pressed to figure out how to salvage my relationship with them.

But, again, the child did not commit any betrayal in this situation.

Um maybe because we read the original post that not only said that until that point they had an active marriage.

It also said that the choices were to STILL be in the child's life or not ... that implies the fact that he WAS part of the child's life not just a financial doner

Sorry about that. I actually read the opening post, but got too involved with the later discussions Bottle and Free Randomers were having about creating a more analogous situation. I'd assumed the marriage in the example was just that, an example, and that the central question was if accepting responsibility at any point obligated a person to maintain that responsibility.

Treat my example as a separate scenario, since obviously it's not analogous to the marriage in the original example.

I would feel the same about such a child as I would feel about any child presented to me in the same manner. I would, obviously, feel very different about the situation if it turned out I'd been pregnant, given birth, and never knew about it, but that wouldn't determine how I would feel about the individual child in question.
Why would you feel differently if it was genetically your child?


Yes and no. A lot of it is, but it's also a kind of emotional preparation to be a parent to the child that (hopefully) will result. Most people make specific plans about things they hope to do once that particular child is born. These plans don't automatically apply to any other child they may one day have.

And, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of people engage in particular activities during gestation which they believe are important for the growing fetus. (My father stuck headphones on my mother's belly to play rock music for me when I was in utero, for instance.)

The man is dating a particular woman, who is experiencing a particular pregnancy with a particular fetus. A different woman would be a different situation. The same woman will never experience the same pregnancy twice, nor will she ever gestate the same fetus twice. All women are not interchangable, just as all fetuses are not, just as all pregnancies are not, just as all children are not.
But all this is because the man is in a reationhsip with the woman, and wants to look after her. As you yourself said - it would not matter what your relationship with your bf/partner was, it would not make you liable for a child he rolled up with.


If you're asking me when I think it's okay to decide that you don't want to be a kid's parent, then the answer is that it's okay for as long as you have not agreed to be the kid's parent.

Once you've agreed to be a kid's parent, you bear that responsibility. Now, there are parents who realize that they are doing a lousy job, or who realize that they cannot provide what their children need, or that they simply cannot cope with parenting even though they are honestly trying their best. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is to recognize that you can't be the parent your child deserves. But this is very, VERY different from simply deciding that you don't WANT to be a parent to a child that you already committed to.

What I am asking is when is a man allowed (in your moral view) to not be liable for another mans child who was mothered by a woman he was in a sexual relationship with. It seem from your view that if he accepts the pregnancy he is already liable. So lets look at how a vaguely decent guy can get out of being liable for another mans child:

1. At 2 years he has a paternity test - he is not the parent. Under your reasoning he is pretty scummy if he rejects the kid.

2. At birth he has a paternity test - he is not the parent. Under the reasoning of the last few posts he has already bonded with the child by accepting the pregnancy. He has an obligation to carry on that responsibility.

3. At conception. The mother tells him he is the father. The only way he can avoid No. 2 is if he says something like "I don't believe you. I refuse to support you through the pregnancy until you can prove it is mine". I don't know about you, but I think that is pretty scummy too.

So - in summary according to the morality that I think you are conveying (I miht be wrong) it is impossible for a man to morally NOT assume parental responsibility for a child that is not his if the mother tells him during pregnancy that it is his without him being a really crap human.

When you are talking about legislation, you cannot simply pick an example of a man who loved and raised a 2 year old then finds out it isn’t his, you have to look at every case (unless you want to argue that laws should just be suggestions and a judge can do whatever he wants – but that isn’t a society in which I would feel secure).

Some of you are assuming that every case would be an ideal family situation – something I find common in anti-abortion activists. Sometimes things are not so Leave it to Beaver.

Would you force a woman to stay in an abusive relationship because children are better off in a two parent household? Then why would you force a child to be raised by someone who may resent the child?

If you are arguing that the cuckolded man should not be obligated to raise the child, and simply must contribute financially, then why is it the cuckold that must pay and not the biological father? If a woman has an ex-husband she thought about having a kid with, but ends up having a kid with someone else, does she have the right to a significant portion of his paycheck simply because they thought about having a kid and she had one?

If you are going to talk about legal obligations, you must examine possible cases, not just ideal cases (in which legislation wouldn’t be necessary anyway).

Morally, if a man raises a child for years before finding out, he should still care for the child – but moral obligations aside, why should there be a legal obligation?

What about this situation:
A man is injured and has fallen into a coma. While in a coma, his wife is sleeping around and gets pregnant. Two years later he comes out of it and is presented with a child he is told is his. A couple days later he finds out that it is not actually his. He divorces his wife (who has always been a bitch to him and was an unhappy marriage to begin with, but he was trying to make things better rather than just giving up) and she gets sole custody. Does he have the obligation to pay child support for the next 17 years?

If Jane goes along thinking the fetus is her biological child, and then the baby is born and she takes it home and rears it as hers, and then two years later finds out that it is actually not genetically her baby, then I would feel the same way about her parental responsibilities as I feel about the responsibilities of a dude who finds out that his two year old isn't biologically his. That is, she is still that child's mother, even if it turns out that she didn't contribute the egg to the original fertilization.

My one simple question to you is, what defines parent?

Is it genetics, or is it action? If it's action then a father who does NOTHING more than supply his genetics can not be held to be the child's parent, or have legal obligation to it.

If it's genetics, then regardless of how much support one puts in, it's voluntary, and can be recinded at any time because it's not genetically bound (without a formalized legal agreement superceding genetics).

If it's action, and the person who raised the child is the father, not the person who supplied the genes, then how is an adulterous woman who had an affair and got pregnant with another many different from a woman who engaged in a one night stand with another man? Should the man who slept with a MARRIED woman be excused from parental obligations to the child he biologically fathered just because there was another man married to her?

What happened to your big kick of personal responsibility? What happened to the whole idea of you take responsibility for YOUR actions? The biological father is now excused because he happened to screw a married woman not a single one? That seems rather arbitrary to me.

And one more little wrench in the works. If the "father" is a father because he took responsibility to raising the child, even though it turns out not to be his...what if the mother is declared unfit? Can the "father", who is not a father genetically, seek custody of a child...that's not his? Can he take full custody against hte wishes of the biological mother, who is unfit?

And most importantly, can he take full custody against the wishes of the biological father, and deny him visitation? If he is the father of the child, he certainly has the right to seek custody, and win it if the mother is unfit.

And what have you done here? You have given a man full custody of a child, not his, and given him the power to deny access to that child to the biological mother (who may be unfit and deserve it) and, most importantly, the biological father, who signed no adoption papers, gave notihg away, and may weill have not even known he was a father.

Sorry about that. I actually read the opening post, but got too involved with the later discussions Bottle and Free Randomers were having about creating a more analogous situation. I'd assumed the marriage in the example was just that, an example, and that the central question was if accepting responsibility at any point obligated a person to maintain that responsibility.

Treat my example as a separate scenario, since obviously it's not analogous to the marriage in the original example.

If there is no real vested interest in the child's future I deffenatly see less of an obligation on his part

Don't get me wrong I don't see either case as a legal obligation really but as a moral one in the case of caring for the kid for two years (at least more of a moral obligation)

I find it extraordinarily telling that your insults hurled straight at the male in the scenario. I wonder if you would have such harsh words for the woman who had the affair, and birthed a child from a man not her husband, and conceiled that fact.

I would have very harsh words for such a woman, although they would be directed a bit differently.

As for my opinion, as much as bottle wants to hurl insults to obstruct the original problem, and perhaps guilt trip anyone who would answer differently into being scum by association...the child is either his, or it is not his. Biologically it is not his, and he took no affirmative legal steps to officially, legally, adopt the child from the biological father's care.

Ergo he has no legal responsibility for it.

Not true. He took on that legal responsibility, whether he filled out paperwork or not. If he didn't want it, he shouldn't have taken it on. If it was tied to parentage, he should have made sure of parentage before taking them on.

And ya know, I have one tiny lil question here. What if the biological father finds out, and wants in on his biological child's life? Now the argument is as always "well, he fathered the child, his responsibility" but he also never actually agreed to care for it, other than having sex with the woman.

So what happens? Should the father who is not the biological father be forced to pay, while the biological father forced to be excluded?

At this point in the child's life, that would most likely be what is best for the child, yes.

If the biological father is forced to be excluded because he never agreed to take part, what does that say about any one night stand that results in pregnancy?

It isn't that he never agreed to take part, it is that someone else already has.

I hate to compare children to animals, but this is the closest situation I can think of. Suppose I own a dog that has puppies, but I don't know that it does. She has the litter off in the woods somewhere and I never see them. *Technically*, those puppies are mine, and I am legally required to either take care of them, have them euthanized, or see them to an adoption center of some sort (or I could abandon them in a neighboorhood somewhere -technically illegal, I believe, but unlikely to be prosecuted). However, if I do not know they exist, and then someone else finds some of them and chooses to takes care of them, *they* are now legally responsible for those animals. I am not. They cannot come sue me for financial support or leave the animals on my doorstep.

Why are many of you assuming that the father in these cases ever volentarily decided to be the father?

Because that is the scenario being discussed. Not only did he voluntarily decide to do so, but he *has* been doing so for years.


EDIT UPDATE: Okay, I thought of a crazy Soap Opera way to maybe create a closer regendered approximation of this topic.

Let's say that Jim and Jane want to have kids, but Jane can't bear the children herself (for whatever reason) so they decide to use a surrogate. Unbeknownst to Jane, Jim ends up cheating on Jane with the surrogate. So Jane thinks that the surrogate is bearing a fetus that is biologically the child of Jane and Jim, but the surrogate is actually bearing a child that was conceived during the episode of cheating (and is therefore Jim's biological child, but NOT Jane's).

If Jane goes along thinking the fetus is her biological child, and then the baby is born and she takes it home and rears it as hers, and then two years later finds out that it is actually not genetically her baby, then I would feel the same way about her parental responsibilities as I feel about the responsibilities of a dude who finds out that his two year old isn't biologically his. That is, she is still that child's mother, even if it turns out that she didn't contribute the egg to the original fertilization.

Precisely.


But, again, the child did not commit any betrayal in this situation.

Exactly! Abandoning a child because your spouse cheated on you makes as much sense as abandoning a child because your best friend lied to you. Neither is, in any way, the fault of the child.

How could someone possibly look after a child for several years, attempting to do what is best for that child (we hope, anyways), and then suddenly give no regard to what is best for that child because it turns out they don't share 1/2 of the same DNA?


One interesting thing. In over 7 pages, there has been much talk about deadbeat dads. Not one person has mentioned "What if the mother, after telling the 'not the biological father' the truth chooses to cut him out of the childs life?" Which may well happen if a bitter divorce ensues.

Unless there was abuse or something like that involved, such a woman is obviously not interested in the well-being of her child, and is unfit to be a parent. The father, non-biological or not, should get custody.

My one simple question to you is, what defines parent?

Is it genetics, or is it action? If it's action then a father who does NOTHING more than supply his genetics can not be held to be the child's parent, or have legal obligation to it.

If it's genetics, then regardless of how much support one puts in, it's voluntary, and can be recinded at any time because it's not genetically bound (without a formalized legal agreement superceding genetics).

If it's action, and the person who raised the child is the father, not the person who supplied the genes, then how is an adulterous woman who had an affair and got pregnant with another many different from a woman who engaged in a one night stand with another man? Should the man who slept with a MARRIED woman be excused from parental obligations to the child he biologically fathered just because there was another man married to her?

What happened to your big kick of personal responsibility? What happened to the whole idea of you take responsibility for YOUR actions? The biological father is now excused because he happened to screw a married woman not a single one? That seems rather arbitrary to me.

And one more little wrench in the works. If the "father" is a father because he took responsibility to raising the child, even though it turns out not to be his...what if the mother is declared unfit? Can the "father", who is not a father genetically, seek custody of a child...that's not his? Can he take full custody against hte wishes of the biological mother, who is unfit?

And most importantly, can he take full custody against the wishes of the biological father, and deny him visitation? If he is the father of the child, he certainly has the right to seek custody, and win it if the mother is unfit.

And what have you done here? You have given a man full custody of a child, not his, and given him the power to deny access to that child to the biological mother (who may be unfit and deserve it) and, most importantly, the biological father, who signed no adoption papers, gave notihg away, and may weill have not even known he was a father.

I wish I could put thoughts into writing as clearly as this.

Not true. He took on that legal responsibility, whether he filled out paperwork or not. If he didn't want it, he shouldn't have taken it on. If it was tied to parentage, he should have made sure of parentage before taking them on.

Haven't you argued in the other thread that the biological father is the one who has responsibility for the child by nature of being biological father? Basically it comes down to "the father is the one who agreed to hold responsibility for the child, unless no father agreed to hold responsibility fo rthe child, in which case it's biological".

Isn't that extremely arbitrary? Basically you're saying "fatherhood" is entirely situational. That doesn't sit well with me at all. You're basically saying a father who conceived a child with a single woman, never knew he had that child, can, 10 years later, find out, and still have legal claim to his child (along with responsibilities) BUT if he conceived a child with a married woman...too bad he has no rights to his child he conceived?

You're basically defining fatherhood based on whether the mother is married or not.


Unless there was abuse or something like that involved, such a woman is obviously not interested in the well-being of her child, and is unfit to be a parent. The father, non-biological or not, should get custody.

In which case the biological father gets no custody. And having no custody he should not pay any support. Which means his biological connection is irrelevant. So why have you come out the other way? Isn't it very subjective to say that your biology only matters if the other woman happens to be married or not?

At this point in the child's life, that would most likely be what is best for the child, yes.

This point has come up a lot - "Do what is best for the child"

So many are saying that nothing else matters, or is as important as what is best for the child.

Say a woman has a child but can't trace the father - what would be *best* for the child (or a better option than her working in wal-mart 60 hours a week) would be if Bill Gates was named as the father and had to provide support for the kid so the kid can enjoy top healthcare, a great lifestyle and the best schooling and great life oppertunities out there.

So - although it would be in the interests of the child why is this not allowed?

Because the childs interests are not the only factor here.

Yes it might be best for the child if a man who was having sex with his/her mother was legally forced to provide for him/her - but as as keeps being pointed out the issue is the child, the mans relationship with the mother is irrevelent.

Would you force a woman to stay in an abusive relationship because children are better off in a two parent household?

Nope.

Then why would you force a child to be raised by someone who may resent the child?

I wouldn't. In the case of a man who wants to abandon his child, the mother is going to have custody and the mother is going to be raising the child. If the financial support is all we can get out of the deadbeat, it's all we can get. he owes the child at least that much for being such an asshole.

If you are arguing that the cuckolded man should not be obligated to raise the child, and simply must contribute financially, then why is it the cuckold that must pay and not the biological father?

Because he took on that responsibility, and now he can't just skip out on it.

If I agree to sign a lease because my friend tells me that she will help me pay the rent, and then my friend turns out to be lying, do I get out of the lease? No, I don't. I have taken on that legal obligation, for whatever reason, and I am now stuck with it, even if I now don't want it.

If a woman has an ex-husband she thought about having a kid with, but ends up having a kid with someone else, does she have the right to a significant portion of his paycheck simply because they thought about having a kid and she had one?

Of course not. But that is an entirely different situation, in which the man has not actually taken on responsibility for the child.

Morally, if a man raises a child for years before finding out, he should still care for the child – but moral obligations aside, why should there be a legal obligation?

Becaue the legal obligations, just like the moral ones, last until (a) someone else takes on those obligations or (b) the child becomes an adult. He already took on those legal obligations, and they will last that long.

What about this situation:
A man is injured and has fallen into a coma. While in a coma, his wife is sleeping around and gets pregnant. Two years later he comes out of it and is presented with a child he is told is his. A couple days later he finds out that it is not actually his. He divorces his wife (who has always been a bitch to him and was an unhappy marriage to begin with, but he was trying to make things better rather than just giving up) and she gets sole custody. Does he have the obligation to pay child support for the next 17 years?

No (although I think the law in many places would currently disagree with me here).


My one simple question to you is, what defines parent?

A biological parent is defined by genetics.

A legal parent is defined by legal obligation - who is legally obligated to that child.

Generally, the biological parents are assumed to be the legal parents, but this may not be the case. In this case, the man is the legal parent. He has taken responsibility for that child, taken on the obligations of a legal parent, he has had custody of that child, and now he wishes to abandon it.

If it's action, and the person who raised the child is the father, not the person who supplied the genes, then how is an adulterous woman who had an affair and got pregnant with another many different from a woman who engaged in a one night stand with another man? Should the man who slept with a MARRIED woman be excused from parental obligations to the child he biologically fathered just because there was another man married to her?

No, but he should be excluded if someone else has been raising that child, because introducing him at that point would most likley be detrimental, as would removing a parent that child loved from the equation.

All of the fun little situations we're discussing about legal obligations involve irresponsible actions of adults. The law must be concerned with what is best for the child, not what a bunch of whiny adults who can't get their lives together wish they had.

What happened to your big kick of personal responsibility? What happened to the whole idea of you take responsibility for YOUR actions? The biological father is now excused because he happened to screw a married woman not a single one? That seems rather arbitrary to me.

This seems to assume that the biological father knew about the child in the first place. Meanwhile, someone else has already taken on that responsibility, and must now take responsibility for his own actions. Any adult that is willing to take responsibility for his own actions would wish to do what is best for the child.

And one more little wrench in the works. If the "father" is a father because he took responsibility to raising the child, even though it turns out not to be his...what if the mother is declared unfit? Can the "father", who is not a father genetically, seek custody of a child...that's not his? Can he take full custody against hte wishes of the biological mother, who is unfit?

Yes, of course he can. He is, legally, just as much that child's parent as she is. A stepparent can do this. Why on earth would you assume another non-biological parent could not?

And most importantly, can he take full custody against the wishes of the biological father, and deny him visitation? If he is the father of the child, he certainly has the right to seek custody, and win it if the mother is unfit.

That's a trickier issue, and I'm not sure how it would come out. I'd have to think about it. If the biological father did not know about the child up until this point and wants to be an active part of the child's life, it may be best to allow that. Or, it may be in the best interest of the child to exclude that person, at least until the child is older and can fully understand the situation. It's probably a decision that should be left up to the custodial parent, but I'm not really sure.

This is a spin-off of the "A Man's Right to Choose" Thread.

If a man discovers that he is not the biological parent of a child should he have to continue to provide support for the child.

Say: A marriage breaks down, and during the divorce the man discovers their two year old kid was fathered by someone else. Should the man have to pay child support to provide for another mans child?

For clarification - This is assumed to exclude adoption or cases where the guy knows that he is not the father and acepts parental responsibility knowing he has no biological connection to the child.

For futher clarification - while the guy could want to be a part of the kids life still, this poll assumes that he does not want to be in the kids life.


The poll has genders as I am curious to find if man and women ahve different views as this is almost exclusively a gender specific situation as there are very very few women out there unknowingly raising other womens children.

Hmm - early results show a 25:75% Yes:No split for both genders... I might be proved wrong on that assumption.

Should he have to by law? No of course not, would he do it though if the child menat anything to him, yeah I guess he would.

If the wife left him, took him to court, costs him hundreds of dollars in court fees, as well as child support up until they found out he was not the biological father...

The wife should be made to pay back the money she cost him, and the "father" should not have to pay an ounce of child support.

Key Word: Child.

It is not his child, either biologically or legislatively (wrong word maybe, but I mean by law)

(((This is assuming the father wants nothing to do with the child...)))

The fact is, "fatherhood" should only be defined in one way (absent a legally binding document that clearly spells out the alteration in this effect).

EITHER fatherhood is:

a) the one who genetically fathered the child

or

b) the one who agreed to take care of the welfare of the child.

It's one or the other. If fatherhood is biological, then it's biological ALWAYS. If fatherhood is defined as taking responsibility, then it's taking responsibility, ALWAYS.

This comingling results in a situation where if I have sex with two women, impgrenate both, find out 10 years later that I have done this, and one of the women raised it as a single parent...I'm the father. If the other woman raised it in her marriage with her husband taking responsibility...I'm not the father.

It makes fatherhood contingent on whether or not the woman I sleep with happens to be married or not.

What??? That's ludicrus. And it goes against fundamental legal maxims that only I can enter into agreements that govern me. It makes MY fatherhood contingent on HER life situation, that's nonsensical. Legal positions can not be defined subjectivly. I either am, or I am not. Either I am a father by biology, or I am a father by activly seeking responsibility. One or the other.

The fact is, "fatherhood" should only be defined in one way (absent a legally binding document that clearly spells out the alteration in this effect).

EITHER fatherhood is:

a) the one who genetically fathered the child

or

b) the one who agreed to take care of the welfare of the child.

It's one or the other. If fatherhood is biological, then it's biological ALWAYS. If fatherhood is defined as taking responsibility, then it's taking responsibility, ALWAYS.


This comingling results in a situation where if I have sex with two women, impgrenate both, find out 10 years later that I have done this, and one of the women raised it as a single parent...I'm the father. If the other woman raised it in her marriage with her husband taking responsibility...I'm not the father.

It makes fatherhood contingent on whether or not the woman I sleep with happens to be married or not.

What??? That's ludicrus. And it goes against fundamental legal maxims that only I can enter into agreements that govern me. It makes MY fatherhood contingent on HER life situation, that's nonsensical. Legal positions can not be defined subjectivly. I either am, or I am not. Either I am a father by biology, or I am a father by activly seeking responsibility. One or the other.


Thats madness why can't it be both?

If I agree to sign a lease because my friend tells me that she will help me pay the rent, and then my friend turns out to be lying, do I get out of the lease? No, I don't. I have taken on that legal obligation, for whatever reason, and I am now stuck with it, even if I now don't want it.
When you sign a lease in such a way it is usually clear you are jointly liable - a condition you knew when signing the lease.

If you sign a lease for an appartment with central heating, running water and two bedrooms for you use and you turn up and the landlord tells you there is no heating, no running water and the second bedroom will now have the landlords son living it it you would be able to get out of it.

You have taken on the legal obligation on an understanding, that understanding was a lie, you are no longer constrained by the agreement you made.

The law must be concerned with what is best for the child, not what a bunch of whiny adults who can't get their lives together wish they had.


Here's the thing. I agree that the rights of the child are important. I agree that the child needs to be considered.

But the law is grander than one person. The law has responsibilities to itself and to society that supercede simply one individual's concerns.

The law MUST always, ALWAYS be objective, non arbitrary, and universal. It must be so ALWAYS. That is of principle, paramount importance, beyond the life of any one individual. The law is the foundation of our society, to render it subjective and arbitrary is to weaken society, that goes far beyond one child's life.

And frankly what you are suggesting is to do just that. It is to make the law abritrary on whether or not the woman pregnant happened to be married. The law can not tolerate such arbitrariness. It is an anathma to ordered society. Fatherhood MUST be defined in one way, and one way ONLY, the law, and society by extention, demands it. Otherwise our laws, and thus our society, becomes arbitrary and subjective, and this can not stand.

Absent a legal, recorded, and binding adoption fatherhood must be defined in ONE way, and regardless of whether that way is "genetics" or whether that way is "taking responsibility" it must be so universally, and consistantly. The law must be consistant.

Thats madness why can't it be both?

I'm sure he can answer it better than me but:

Why is he the father to the single womans child but not to the married womans child?

Why should he have parental rights (visitation etc.) to the single womans child but not to the married womans child?


Remember - it is the CHILD we are talking about - not the woman.

Support his cheating wife's bastard child? I say no.

a man should pay for fucking.

Thats madness why can't it be both?

because the law can not be subjective. The law must be objectivly clear, and objectivly universal.

Now if you want to argue, in some way, that fatherhood is BOTH genetics AND responsibility, so that when one individual has manifested both genetics and a willingness to take responsibility then he is a "full" parent, however in the instances when one has supplied genetics, and one has taken responsibility, they are both in essence "half" parents, I can somewhat agree on that.

However neither one would be able to assert full "fatherhood" and neither one can be required to pay full share of child support. If you want to say they BOTH have legal rights and responsibilities...then ok, I can somewhat agree there, at least in legal principle.

But to say YOU are the father if you impregnate the woman, unless someone else takes responsibility in which case you are NOT the father, is arbitrary, and subjective on circumstances. And the law can NOT allow for that.

Haven't you argued in the other thread that the biological father is the one who has responsibility for the child by nature of being biological father? Basically it comes down to "the father is the one who agreed to hold responsibility for the child, unless no father agreed to hold responsibility fo rthe child, in which case it's biological".

That's how parentage always works. The biological parent is assumed to be the legal parent, unless another willing legal parent takes on that responsibility. This is precisely what adoption is - legal parentage being transferred from the biological parents to different parents.

In this case, the adoption occurs in a different way, but is legally binding nonetheless.

Isn't that extremely arbitrary? Basically you're saying "fatherhood" is entirely situational. That doesn't sit well with me at all. You're basically saying a father who conceived a child with a single woman, never knew he had that child, can, 10 years later, find out, and still have legal claim to his child (along with responsibilities) BUT if he conceived a child with a married woman...too bad he has no rights to his child he conceived?

You're basically defining fatherhood based on whether the mother is married or not.

No, I'm not. I'm basing fatherhood (legal fatherhood) anyways, on legal obligations.

Is this a horrible situation? Of course it is! But it has already happened, and the interests of the child must be protected. Do you think a man who raised a child for 10 years as his own and is actually a real human being with real human feelings should lose contact with that child because a paternity test reveals that his sperm had nothing to do with it? Do you think that would be best for the child?

Do you think a man who has been in what seems to the child to be a loving relationship should cut all ties to that child, possibly leaving the child unsupported? Is that what is best for the child?

Do you think a man who has never met the child should suddenly show up on that kid's 10th birthday and say, "Hey, I wanna be your daddy! You're going to come live with me now!" Is that what is best for the child?

In which case the biological father gets no custody. And having no custody he should not pay any support. Which means his biological connection is irrelevant. So why have you come out the other way? Isn't it very subjective to say that your biology only matters if the other woman happens to be married or not?

It isn't a matter of whether or not she is married. If the biological father sues for custody and recognition when the child is born, then he should absolutely get parental rights, married or not.

However, if he finds out 10 years later, when the legal obligations and physical custody have already been with a man who is, for all intents and purposes, that child's father, the situation is entirely different. It would be highly detrimental to the child to rip that child away from the father he has always known and give him to a complete stranger. Is it a bad situation? Yes. And that is why we must keep the interests of the child in mind.


So many are saying that nothing else matters, or is as important as what is best for the child.

Indeed.

Say a woman has a child but can't trace the father - what would be *best* for the child (or a better option than her working in wal-mart 60 hours a week) would be if Bill Gates was named as the father and had to provide support for the kid so the kid can enjoy top healthcare, a great lifestyle and the best schooling and great life oppertunities out there.

You really do like making ridiculous claims, don't you?

That wouldn't be "best" at all. It would be introducing an unwilling, forced parent, who would provide nothing but financial care and has never had any emotional connection with the child.

Yes it might be best for the child if a man who was having sex with his/her mother was legally forced to provide for him/her - but as as keeps being pointed out the issue is the child, the mans relationship with the mother is irrevelent.

Indeed. It is the relationship of the man with the child that is under discussion here. He took on responsibility for that child, raised that child for several years, and now wishes to abandon that child. While we obviously cannot force him to keep pretending to care for that child, we can at least obtain financial support - the financial obligations he willingly took on when he decided to take on legal custody of the child. As far as the damage done by having daddy decide he doesn't love the child anymore, that is done already. It can be mitigated somewhat by not removing the man from that child's life completely.

I'm sure he can answer it better than me but:

Why is he the father to the single womans child but not to the married womans child?

Why should he have parental rights (visitation etc.) to the single womans child but not to the married womans child?


Remember - it is the CHILD we are talking about - not the woman.

My family history is long and complecated, but briefly, I was brought up by a woman that wa snot my biolgical Mum, she just happend to marry my Dad after his first divorce.

Is she then not my Mum? Shit of course she is, and my biological Mum? Well I was introduce to her when I was 11, so is she my Mum, shit yeah.

A parent does not have to be the biolgical parent to be considered a parent.

If you are looking after a kid, or kids, if you show them love and do your best for them if you fight for them, then you are a parent. It matters not whether they are the fruit of your loins.

a man should pay for fucking.

Yeah and so should a Woman.

Yeah and so should a Woman.
yeah

But to say YOU are the father if you impregnate the woman, unless someone else takes responsibility in which case you are NOT the father, is arbitrary, and subjective on circumstances. And the law can NOT allow for that.

How is that arbitrary? It makes perfect legal sense. Are you saying that adoption proceedings are "arbitrary" and that one or the other should have full custody all the time? In the end, this is the same thing. If a couple adopts (ie. takes on legal responsibility for, relieving the biological parents of that responsibility) a child because they think the child is going to be highly intelligent, but the child turns out to be clinically retarded, they don't get a free pass to get out of their legal obligations.

In this case, a man takes on legal responsibility for a child because he thinks it is biologically his. If he finds out later that it is not, he doesn't get a free pass to get out of his legal obligations.


Meanwhile, the idea that the law is not subjective based on circumstances is truly ........ stupid. The law is almost always conditional. If I shoot someone, is that illegal? Well, let's see. If I shoot someone with the intent of killing them when they are not threatening me, it is. But if I shoot someone who has just shot at me, it isn't. Wow! How arbitrary and subjective!

because the law can not be subjective. The law must be objectivly clear, and objectivly universal.

Now if you want to argue, in some way, that fatherhood is BOTH genetics AND responsibility, so that when one individual has manifested both genetics and a willingness to take responsibility then he is a "full" parent, however in the instances when one has supplied genetics, and one has taken responsibility, they are both in essence "half" parents, I can somewhat agree on that.

However neither one would be able to assert full "fatherhood" and neither one can be required to pay full share of child support. If you want to say they BOTH have legal rights and responsibilities...then ok, I can somewhat agree there, at least in legal principle.

But to say YOU are the father if you impregnate the woman, unless someone else takes responsibility in which case you are NOT the father, is arbitrary, and subjective on circumstances. And the law can NOT allow for that.

Personaly I think it is a great steaming crock of shit. I have two Mum's each of which have equal claim on my life, my love and my time, and lets not forget Women can abandone their kids as easily as Men, I don't hear anything said about Mothers paying the Fathers for the upbringing of the children.

That wouldn't be "best" at all. It would be introducing an unwilling, forced parent, who would provide nothing but financial care and has never had any emotional connection with the child.
Hell - better than an absent mother 'cos shes always working.


Indeed. It is the relationship of the man with the child that is under discussion here. He took on responsibility for that child, raised that child for several years, and now wishes to abandon that child. While we obviously cannot force him to keep pretending to care for that child, we can at least obtain financial support - the financial obligations he willingly took on when he decided to take on legal custody of the child. As far as the damage done by having daddy decide he doesn't love the child anymore, that is done already. It can be mitigated somewhat by not removing the man from that child's life completely.

So now having an unwilling and forced parent is a good thing?

Abandonment? How's the 2 year old remember?

Once the care is removed all that is left is the finance - as you have just said. So it would be best if as much as possible was provided - hence Mr. Gates.

Now - he willingly took on those obligations on based on a deception - when you are frauded into a contract the ocntract is void when the fraud is discovered. You no longer have the legal obligations you agreed to, as you agreed to them ased on fraud.

That's how parentage always works. The biological parent is assumed to be the legal parent, unless another willing legal parent takes on that responsibility. This is precisely what adoption is - legal parentage being transferred from the biological parents to different parents.

False analogy. Adoption occurs when the biological parents legally sever legal ties. In this instance the biological father has done no such thing, and in fact, it can not be presumed he wants to.

In this case, the adoption occurs in a different way, but is legally binding nonetheless.

It has not occured, because the biological father has not consented, and his consent can not be assumed, especially if he is unaware.


Is this a horrible situation? Of course it is! But it has already happened, and the interests of the child must be protected.

No. The interests of LAW should be protected, the interests of ordered objective societal obligations should be protected. Those are far more important than any one person.

Do you think a man who raised a child for 10 years as his own and is actually a real human being with real human feelings should lose contact with that child because a paternity test reveals that his sperm had nothing to do with it? Do you think that would be best for the child?

You are arguing that the man who is biologically linked to the child be forced to have no legal rights to the child he fathered, and to be legally forced out of his child's life.

Do you think a man who has been in what seems to the child to be a loving relationship should cut all ties to that child, possibly leaving the child unsupported? Is that what is best for the child?

What is best for society as a whole is more important than what is best for one child. And what is best for society as a whole is that the law be objective and non arbitrary, which you are advocating here.

Do you think a man who has never met the child should suddenly show up on that kid's 10th birthday and say, "Hey, I wanna be your daddy! You're going to come live with me now!" Is that what is best for the child?

And yet if the child never had any father figure, that man would have the legal right to do so, as the child's father, would he not?



It isn't a matter of whether or not she is married. If the biological father sues for custody and recognition when the child is born, then he should absolutely get parental rights, married or not.

However, if he finds out 10 years later, when the legal obligations and physical custody have already been with a man who is, for all intents and purposes, that child's father, the situation is entirely different. It would be highly detrimental to the child to rip that child away from the father he has always known and give him to a complete stranger. Is it a bad situation? Yes. And that is why we must keep the interests of the child in mind.

And once again, you have made the law arbitrary. You have made fatherhood contingent on when one knows he is a father. That is arbitrary law. The law must be objective and non arbitrary, that is more important than one child.


That wouldn't be "best" at all. It would be introducing an unwilling, forced parent, who would provide nothing but financial care and has never had any emotional connection with the child.

Isn't that the same thing that happens when a biological father is forced ot pay child support for the child he conceived even though he has no emotional connection? It's a great example. If we're all about best interests of the child, and we're willing to make the law arbitrary, let's screw biology all together and simply make the child's "father" the one who can best financially support it.

As you have already admitted, that's ludicrus and arbitrary. Your scenario is equally so.



Indeed. It is the relationship of the man with the child that is under discussion here. He took on responsibility for that child, raised that child for several years, and now wishes to abandon that child. While we obviously cannot force him to keep pretending to care for that child, we can at least obtain financial support - the financial obligations he willingly took on when he decided to take on legal custody of the child. As far as the damage done by having daddy decide he doesn't love the child anymore, that is done already. It can be mitigated somewhat by not removing the man from that child's life completely.

very well, now we're talking about responsibility. You posit that fatherhood is defined as taking responsibility....except when it's not.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's biology OR it's "taking responsibility", and if it's the former, then no amount of responsibility I have given makes me the father. If it's the second, regardless of my genetics, if I haven't taken responsibility, i'm not the father.

Law can not operate the way you suggest.

Personaly I think it is a great steaming crock of shit. I have two Mum's each of which have equal claim on my life, my love and my time, and lets not forget Women can abandone their kids as easily as Men, I don't hear anything said about Mothers paying the Fathers for the upbringing of the children.

because that is not the topic. If you wish to discuss it, create a thread on it. If a father has custody, then the mother (however we define motherhood) should of course be legally required to support.

My family history is long and complecated, but briefly, I was brought up by a woman that wa snot my biolgical Mum, she just happend to marry my Dad after his first divorce.

Is she then not my Mum? Shit of course she is, and my biological Mum? Well I was introduce to her when I was 11, so is she my Mum, shit yeah.

A parent does not have to be the biolgical parent to be considered a parent.

If you are looking after a kid, or kids, if you show them love and do your best for them if you fight for them, then you are a parent. It matters not whether they are the fruit of your loins.

we're not talking family bonds. We're not talking emotional connections. We're talking legal requirements here.

You may consider both parents your mothers for the purposes of your family life, but it doesn't mean both are in the purpose of law.

When you sign a lease in such a way it is usually clear you are jointly liable - a condition you knew when signing the lease.

I didn't say we both sign the lease. I said *I* sign the lease.

Try again.

because that is not the topic. If you wish to discuss it, create a thread on it. If a father has custody, then the mother (however we define motherhood) should of course be legally required to support.

Ahhh topic shmopic, this is a net forum, the ebb and flow of on topic off topic postings is a natural phenonama in places like this:eek:

How is that arbitrary? It makes perfect legal sense. Are you saying that adoption proceedings are "arbitrary" and that one or the other should have full custody all the time? In the end, this is the same thing. If a couple adopts (ie. takes on legal responsibility for, relieving the biological parents of that responsibility) a child because they think the child is going to be highly intelligent, but the child turns out to be clinically retarded, they don't get a free pass to get out of their legal obligations.

In this case, a man takes on legal responsibility for a child because he thinks it is biologically his. If he finds out later that it is not, he doesn't get a free pass to get out of his legal obligations.

OK, fine. If that's the way you want to define it, we'll define parenthood as taking on legal responsibility for the child.

Therefore, if a man impregnates a woman, and refuses to take legal responsibility, he's not the father.

The problem is you keep shifting where the "taking responsibility" comes in. Either it's that second his sperm hits the egg, or it's when he makes direct ovetures to make it clear he intends to take responsibility.

One

or

the

other

If responsibility for child is assumed the moment that the sperm hits the egg, then the "willingness" of the biological father to assume responsibility for the child comes before, and thus supercedes the non biological father, OR responsibility for the child is shown through overt act. In which case the biological father, having committed no overt act, has no legal responsibility.

Pick one. If the intent to take responsibility is manifested in "the sex", then the biological father took responsibility first, and regardless of what the non biological father did, the biological father, because he asserted his right to the resultant child, as a result of the manfiest responsibility of boning the mother, first. if the intent is more overt than that, then someone who has sex with a woman once, then wanders off, can never be assumed to have taken responsibility. Either the act of sex implies willingness, in which case willingness is implied by the biological father FIRST, or it does not.

And if it does not, on its own, then it NEVER does.


Meanwhile, the idea that the law is not subjective based on circumstances is truly ........ stupid. The law is almost always conditional. If I shoot someone, is that illegal? Well, let's see. If I shoot someone with the intent of killing them when they are not threatening me, it is. But if I shoot someone who has just shot at me, it isn't. Wow! How arbitrary and subjective!

It is most certainly not.

One is an act of self defense. One is not.

Self defense has very specific rules and requirements for it to BE self defense.

If it fits those rules and requirements, it is self defense.

If it does not, it is not.

It's never defined "in context", an act IS self defense, or it IS NOT. If it meets the criteria it is self defense, ALWAYS. If it does not, it's not self defense, EVER. Self defense is defined by the facts of the situation. If the facts meet it, it is, if the facts don't, it doesn't. It's not "it's self defense if the guy you shot was white, but murder if the guy you shot is black". That's arbitrary, that's subjective.

Which is EXACTLY what your situation is "you're a father doesn't have someone to take support of the child, but you're not a father if she does".

we're not talking family bonds. We're not talking emotional connections. We're talking legal requirements here.

You may consider both parents your mothers for the purposes of your family life, but it doesn't mean both are in the purpose of law.


Heh we are not talking about family bonds, but about law. Shit man, law is made for humans yeah? Humans have all sorts of social interactions, and for the law to be blind to them is just rubbish.

yeah yeah, I realise that law should be impartial, but hands up how many people here feel agrieved when they hear of a two year senatnce for a peadophile?

The law should reflect what is important to humanity, and family bonds are such a thing. The law should represent that and take it into account.

Here's the thing. I agree that the rights of the child are important. I agree that the child needs to be considered.

But the law is grander than one person. The law has responsibilities to itself and to society that supercede simply one individual's concerns.

The law has no responsibilities to "itself". That's ridiculous. The law has responsibility to those it is meant to protect. In the issue of child custody and child support laws, those it is meant to protect are the children.

The law MUST always, ALWAYS be objective, non arbitrary, and universal. It must be so ALWAYS. That is of principle, paramount importance, beyond the life of any one individual. The law is the foundation of our society, to render it subjective and arbitrary is to weaken society, that goes far beyond one child's life.

And the streets should be paved with gold and chocolate should rain from the sky.

You know what happens when you try to make unconditional? Straight-A Eagle Scouts get kicked out of school because they forget to clean out their cars after a camping trip and women get fined for shooting alligators that come into their homes to attack them.

The law has to be situational because it is ridiculous otherwise. If the law is not situational, it fails at protecting the citizens - which is the only reason it exists in the first place.

And frankly what you are suggesting is to do just that. It is to make the law abritrary on whether or not the woman pregnant happened to be married.

Wrong. I have not based it at all on the mother's marital status. I have based it on the already established legal relationship between the child and parent. If a man who is not married to the mother takes on this responsibility, the same rules would apply to him. Marital status has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Fatherhood MUST be defined in one way, and one way ONLY, the law, and society by extention, demands it. Otherwise our laws, and thus our society, becomes arbitrary and subjective, and this can not stand.

In that case, adoption cannot occur. Fatherhood must be defined one way, and one way ONLY, so an adoptive father would never be a real legal father, since that would be a different definition.

Absent a legal, recorded, and binding adoption fatherhood must be defined in ONE way, and regardless of whether that way is "genetics" or whether that way is "taking responsibility" it must be so universally, and consistantly. The law must be consistant.

What I am advocating is consistent. It would work the same way with all children, everywhere.


Hell - better than an absent mother 'cos shes always working.

If money is the only issue, it is better for that mother to receive some other type of subsidy.

So now having an unwilling and forced parent is a good thing?

Now, having an unwilling parent doesn't introduce any new harm, while removing that parent altogether does.

Abandonment? How's the 2 year old remember?

I have memories from when I was 2. If those memories were traumatic, they would likely b even more pronounced.

Now - he willingly took on those obligations on based on a deception - when you are frauded into a contract the ocntract is void when the fraud is discovered. You no longer have the legal obligations you agreed to, as you agreed to them ased on fraud.

The contract is only voided if the person you contracted with committed fraud. In this case, that did not happen. The parent entered into legal obligations to a child. The child did not commit fraud. As such, the contract is not voided.

If my friend tells me that a contractor has a specific degree, and I don't check up on it and go into the contract with that person based on my friend's advice, I cannot break the contract because my friend was lying. I did not contract with my friend, but with the contractor, and I must now meet my obligations.

False analogy. Adoption occurs when the biological parents legally sever legal ties. In this instance the biological father has done no such thing, and in fact, it can not be presumed he wants to.

You were the one saying that fatherhood cannot be defined two different ways. If adoption is allowed, then it already is.

No. The interests of LAW should be protected, the interests of ordered objective societal obligations should be protected. Those are far more important than any one person.

The case in which a child is ripped from his parent's arms and given to a total stranger based on genetics is not very ordered, and it protects no one.

You are arguing that the man who is biologically linked to the child be forced to have no legal rights to the child he fathered, and to be legally forced out of his child's life.

Unfortunately, that is what is best for the child, and, since the laws regarding child custody and child support are designed to protect the child, it is what the law must do.

What is best for society as a whole is more important than what is best for one child. And what is best for society as a whole is that the law be objective and non arbitrary, which you are advocating here.

We aren't talking about one child. We are talking about children in general.

Meanwhile, this is no more or less arbitrary than what you are suggesting, while being much, much, much more detrimental to the people supposedly protected by the law.


And yet if the child never had any father figure, that man would have the legal right to do so, as the child's father, would he not?

Technically? Yes. Of course, no court in its right mind would grant such custody unless the mother was dead or unfit, in which case the child would already have to switch custody.

And once again, you have made the law arbitrary. You have made fatherhood contingent on when one knows he is a father. That is arbitrary law. The law must be objective and non arbitrary, that is more important than one child.

No, I have made it contingent upon legal obligations already taken on. There is a difference.

Isn't that the same thing that happens when a biological father is forced ot pay child support for the child he conceived even though he has no emotional connection?

Yes. And that is why I think such deadbeats should be able to walk out and never come back - before such ties are made.

very well, now we're talking about responsibility. You posit that fatherhood is defined as taking responsibility....except when it's not.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's biology OR it's "taking responsibility", and if it's the former, then no amount of responsibility I have given makes me the father. If it's the second, regardless of my genetics, if I haven't taken responsibility, i'm not the father.

Law can not operate the way you suggest.

Law can and does operate in the way I suggest. It always has.

Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong or arbitrary with having a "default option." The biological parents are the "default" legal parents. In the absence of some other situation, they will be legally obligated to the child. If someone else takes the legal responsibilities on, then the new person becomes the legal parent. This is the way the law works.

Now, we could certainly argue over whether or not the biological parents should be the default legal parents, or should have to take on that responsibility willingly, but the decision to take on that responsibility, in all cases, should be permanent.

OK, fine. If that's the way you want to define it, we'll define parenthood as taking on legal responsibility for the child.

Therefore, if a man impregnates a woman, and refuses to take legal responsibility, he's not the father.

Technically not true, under the law, which apparently has always been "arbitrary and subjective", according to you. The biological parents are the default legal parents, in the absence of someone else taking on that legal responsibility. If someone else takes on that legal responsibility, they become the legal parents.

The problem is you keep shifting where the "taking responsibility" comes in. Either it's that second his sperm hits the egg, or it's when he makes direct ovetures to make it clear he intends to take responsibility.

One

or

the

other

Or, one is the default, and the other is a possibility.

You have heard of defaults, have you not?

It is most certainly not.

Then neither is this. Both are cases in which the law is conditional. Depending on the situation, the treatment of a legal concept is different.

One is an act of self defense. One is not.

And in this case, someone else takes on legal responsibility. In the other case, no one does.

You fail to recognize what I mean. Let me elaborate.

The law is based on the circumstances of fact. If the circumstances of fact meet the criteria of the law, the law comes into play. If it does not, then it does not.

If you shoot a man in the back of the head, it is either always murder, or it's always not.

If you destroy someone's home without the consent of the owner, it is either always destruction of property, or it's always not.

If you physically force a woman to have sex with you without her consent, it is either always rape, or it's always not.

If you respond to what you reasonably believe is a threat to your life, it is either always self defense, or it's always not.

It's a crime if the circumstances meet the requisite facts. If they don't, it isn't.

If a woman gives birth to a child you are biologically linked to yet you have taken no affirmative steps to assert your willingness to provide for the child, you are either ALWAYS the father, or you are ALWAYS not.

Your answer is "sometimes you are, and sometimes you're not".

no no no, wrong. The law doesn't work that way. Either you ARE, or you are NOT. Either you murdered someone, or you did not. Either you raped somoene, or you did not. Either you have diminished mental capacity, or you do not. Either you are the father, or you are not.

Whatever it is, whatever the law defines fatherhood as, it MUST be CONSISTENT in the application of that definition.

If an individual meets the requirements of the definition of being a father, then he is a legal father.

If he does not, then he is not.

There is no "sometimes you are, and sometimes you're not" You either meet the legal definition, or you do not.

If the law says "absent a formal legal adoption or surrogacy agreement, whoever biologically conceived the child is a parent of that child, with all legal rights and responsibilities of parenthood", then absent a formal legal adoption or surrogacy agreement, whoever biologically conceived the child is a parent of that child, with all legal rights and responsibilities of parenthood. And, absent a formal legal adoption or surrogacy agreement, if someone did not biologically conceive the child, then that individual is not a parent of that child, with none of the legal rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

If the law says "whoever takes overt steps to ensure the welfare of the child is a parent of that child, with all the legal rights and responsibilities of parenthood" then whoever takes overt steps to ensure the welfare of the child is the parent with all the legal rights and responsibilities of parenthood. And if someone did not take overt steps to ensure the welfare of the child, then that individual is not a parent of that child, with none of the legal rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

That's the way the law should work, that's the way it works in all other situations. You either are, or you are not. There's never "sometimes". If there is, then it's bad law.

No! That should be his decision, not his obligation!

Law can and does operate in the way I suggest

In such instances I am not in favor of the law operating in such a mannor. I thought that would be abundantly clear by now.

The law has in the past operated in a LOT of ways we would agree to be improper. Law must, by necessity, not operate in the way you suggest. When it does, it is bad law. The law is not immune from being wrong. It doesn't mean we should support it when it is.

What you are arguing for is the legal equivalent of "well, she was asking for it" exception to rape. If an individual was forced into having sex it's rape. If that individual wasn't, it isn't (oversimplification to be sure, but convenient for these circumstances). The "default position" you advocate is as stupid as saying, in default if you force a woman to have sex with you it's rape, unless she was dressed like a slut.

As before, the answer is very simply and relatively painless.

If you are SO afraid of having to be a parent, get yourself cut.

As before, the answer is very simply and relatively painless.

If you are SO afraid of having to be a parent, get yourself cut.

Your answer is total bullshit in context. In this example the man seems perfectly willing, even glad, to support his own biological child. Why would he get a vacectomy when he appears willing, and happy, to father a child, and support the child he fathered?

Your answer is total bullshit in context. In this example the man seems perfectly willing, even glad, to support his own biological child. Why would he get a vacectomy when he appears willing, and happy, to father a child, and support the child he fathered?

Guys willing to be a father don't bitch about being trapped and persecuted.

If you raised that child for several years, lived with being called dad, you would walk away saying "fuck off kid you are not mine!"

Rather hard core and it's easy to bitch about the situation until you are faced with it.

If there is a deep enough relation between the man and the child, he should be and act like is father. But at this point, he should also have the legal guard of the child and the women should pay him a rent since she proved not being to much trust worthy...

But, for you women on there, keep it mind learning your not the father of a child is like having the hospital calling 4 years later telling you they switched by mistake. Except that the man will now see is ex-wife misbehavior every time he looks the child in the eyes.

Guys willing to be a father don't bitch about being trapped and persecuted.

You are missing an important qualified. A guy may be willing to father HIS OWN CHILD.

It's a tough question. certainly someone may wish to be a father of his OWN child, one that is genetically his offspring, and not just father a child "in general". Otherwise why not adopt? A person can fully want to be a parent to his own offspring, and not just a father in general.

If you raised that child for several years, lived with being called dad, you would walk away saying "fuck off kid you are not mine!"

Rather hard core and it's easy to bitch about the situation until you are faced with it.

It does get trickier as to how that father would feel later if he finds out it isn't his. But feelings are irrelevant to this discussion. This is about law, what is LEGALLY required to do. He would perhaps be a shitty person if he didn't WILLINGLY take part in the life of the child he helped raise, but that's absolutly and totally irrelevant to what he should be LEGALLY required to do. And painting those who would say he should not have a LEGAL requirement (totally abstract whether he would have an emotional, or should have a moral obligation) as "bastards" or "vile" or anything else just makes an appeal to emotion.

This isn't about what the person is like as a person, it's not about his morality, it's not about his FEELINGS. It's about law.

You fail to recognize what I mean. Let me elaborate.

No, I see what you mean. And it ignores the law as it stands.

The law is based on the circumstances of fact. If the circumstances of fact meet the criteria of the law, the law comes into play. If it does not, then it does not.

Indeed. What I am saying is no different.

If you shoot a man in the back of the head, it is either always murder, or it's always not.

Wrong. If you shoot a man in the back of the head "execution style", it is murder. If you are playing with a gun and accidentally shoot him in the back of the head, it is manslaughter, at most. If the man is threatening you, and turns around to grab a weapon, and you shoot him, it is self defense.

The law is conditional here. It depends on the particular situation in which you pull the trigger.

If you destroy someone's home without the consent of the owner, it is either always destruction of property, or it's always not.

Again, not always. For instance, if the owner is not known and has not dealt with the home in years, the owner has little legal recourse. In fact, the house may be condemned or squatters may take possession of it. If, on the other hand, the person is currently living in the house and can be reached, destroying the home is illegal.

If you physically force a woman to have sex with you without her consent, it is either always rape, or it's always not.

This is true, but it is very different from your other situations. You put in the conditionals here. To compare it to the rest of your situations, you would have to say, "If you have sex with a woman, it is either always rape, or it's always not." That would obviously be wrong. You need the situational descriptors, which you included here but have left out of every other example thus far.

If you respond to what you reasonably believe is a threat to your life, it is either always self defense, or it's always not.

Once again, this time, you have added the situational descriptors.

This is the same as saying, "If you take on responsibility for a child, you are either always that child's legal parent or you always are not."

If a woman gives birth to a child you are biologically linked to yet you have taken no affirmative steps to assert your willingness to provide for the child, you are either ALWAYS the father, or you are ALWAYS not.

Once again, this keeps adoption from happening. In reality, you are always the father, at the outset. However, under the conditional that someone else takes that responsibility on, you no longer are.

no no no, wrong. The law doesn't work that way.

Yes, it does. And always has. There are all sorts of situational laws. In some places, a man and woman who live as married for a number of years are legally married, even without signing a marriage contract. That is a situational law. Two people who live together are not ALWAYS married, because they do not ALWAYS meet the conditional. Two people who do meet the conditional are married.

The same thing is true here. The law is situational, and applies differently in different situations, but applies equally to the same situation ALWAYS.

Whatever it is, whatever the law defines fatherhood as, it MUST be CONSISTENT in the application of that definition.

And it is. Any person who parents a child is the default legal parent. Any person who willingly takes on legal custody of a child and raises that child is a legal parent and, once this has occurred, supercedes the default.

In such instances I am not in favor of the law operating in such a mannor. I thought that would be abundantly clear by now.

Then you aren't in favor of the law period. Either that, or you are in favor of fining women for shooting alligators that invade their homes and endanger their lives. Either the law can be situational, or it cannot. Right?

What you are arguing for is the legal equivalent of "well, she was asking for it" exception to rape. If an individual was forced into having sex it's rape. If that individual wasn't, it isn't (oversimplification to be sure, but convenient for these circumstances). The "default position" you advocate is as stupid as saying, in default if you force a woman to have sex with you it's rape, unless she was dressed like a slut.

No, it isn't anything even close to that. What I am arguing for is similar to laws like, "Unless certain conditions are met, a person who rearends another is at fault in an accident." There is a default condition (the person who runs into the other is at fault). However, there are other conditions that can change that outcome. For instance, if the person in front break-checks, or veered in front of the person in the rear, etc.

In this case, the default is that the biological parents are the legal parents. However, if a specific conditional is met - that another has taken on that responsibility and lived up to it for quite some time, that person is now the legal parent.

In this case, the default is that the biological parents are the legal parents. However, if a specific conditional is met - that another has taken on that responsibility and lived up to it for quite some time, that person is now the legal parent.

In interests of time I'll just respond to this for now.

What happens 10 years later when the biological father comes back and says "I was never consulted, never given a chance to take responsibility, and my child was taken from me?"

"If you take on responsibility for a child, you are either always that child's legal parent or you always are not."

Great, that's fine. Now where's responsibility begin? Is it at conception? Or overt act?

If it's conception, then the one who impregnated the woman has taken responsibility, and he therefore is ALWAYS the child's father. The one who raised it was pre-empted, and never took original responsibility, therefore he is always NOT the father. In this case, conception implied responsibility, biological father was the first to take responsibility, his taking of responsibility preempts the other "father"

If it's overt act, then the biological father never overtly took responsibility. And based on your OWN words "if you take on responsibility for that child", was never done. Therefore, biology alone never is.

However, under the conditional that someone else takes that responsibility on, you no longer are.


Right there, that's where I have the problem. That's it exactly. Being a parent has legal rights, and legal responsibilities. Nobody can co-opt MY RIGHTS. ONLY I can give up my rights. ONLY I can chose to do so.

As you have said many times, a child has no rights until it exists. A child isn't until it is. Therefore the mother's partner can not take responsibility for a child that isn't born yet. Only AFTER it is born can that responsibility be asserted. The problem is, in this "default position" the INSTANT it is born the biological father is the father, before the "non biological father" can assert any willingness to provide for it. Any assertions while the child was in the womb are irrelevant, you've argued that yourself. YOu can't assert responsibility and rights to an entity that doesn't exist. Only after it's born can you do so. And the second it's born, your "default" kicks in and the biological father is presumed the father.

The problem with that is, the result of what you are saying is, you are a father of your child unless someone else decides to be a father for your child. No, wrong. I as a father have certain legal responsibilities. I as a father have certain legal rights. NO private individual can abdicate my legal responsibilities. No private individual can co-op my rights. You can not force me to give up my rights as a parent. You can not force me to abdicate my responsibities as a parent.

If a third party (the non biological male who raises the child) acts in such a way that takes my rights, that abdicates my responsibilities, then they are not rights, they are not responsibilities. Your actions can not chose, for me, whether I will excercise my rights. Your actions can not chose, for me, whether I will be legally bound by my obligations.

If we follow your proposition, that the biological father is the father and that fatherhood has some legal rights, but the biological father ceases to be the father, ceases to have those legal rights, you have basically said that a third party can take the rights away from another person.

That is fundamentally wrong.

If my rights and responsibilities of a father are triggered by my biological conception of the child, and if I am made unaware of those rights, and someone else takes responsibility for that child, under your scheme, that person has denied me the ability to exercise my rights when and if I become aware of them.

WRONG, ALWAYS WRONG. YOU can not deny me the ability to exercise my rights. If the "default position" is that the male who conceived is the father, then the INSTANT that this child is born I am granted certain rights and responsibilities regardless of whether I am aware of them or not. By your logic, the actions of a third party, a private civilian can take away from me my rights to my child.

That can not stand. You can not chose for me whether I have rights or not. Only I, ONLY I may chose whether I shall exercise my rights once I am made aware of them. And if I have certain rights to a child at the instant of its birth then no private individual may take them from me.

The entire premise in decisions like Miranda is that an individual's rights do not disappear simply because that individual is unaware of them. If that child birthed is my child because I conceived it, then I have certain rights. Under your scheme, what you are allowing is for another man (or woman) to come in and take my rights away from me, and give them to himself (or herself). You can't do that. You can't deny me the ability to exercise my rights.

If I am the "default father" due to my genes, and I have not WILLINGLY GIVEN UP THOSE RIGHTS, you CAN NOT take them from me. They are mine, to be excersised when I wish to. Your "default position" becomes a WHOLE lot more problematic once legal rights are introduced.

If I have a legal right, it's mine, and ONLY I may chose to give it up. Adoption is me chosing to. Legal abandonment is me chosing to. But if I am unaware of it, then I can not give it up, therefore they are always mine, and I may assert them at any time once I am aware of them.

Therefore, if I am granted legal rights as the child's father the moment it is born then I am the father, nobody else. And nobody else can co-opt my position as father without my consent. Therefore regardless of what the woman's husband did, I never gave up my rights. Therefore, they're STILL MINE. If I am the father as default, I am given rights as default, and if I have not directly, conciously, overtly given up those rights then that husband, even if he loves that child, even if he cares for it greatly, even if he has spent a fortune raising it, is not the father. I am.

In individual may willingly give up his rights. Likewise the courts may, in certain circumstances, remove those rights. But neither happened here. There is no evidence that the biological father conceded his rights, there is no evidence in fact that he even KNEW he was a rather, but once again, if you have a right, that right exists, whether you are aware of it or not. An 18 year old may vote, even if he doesn't know it. A pregnant woman may get an abortion, even if she doesn't know it.

Likewise no court in this example has TAKEN those rights from him, in fact it would have no basis for it. He has not been unfit, he has not failed to meet the obligation he was aware of. In fact he did nothing.

The biological father did not give up his default rights, and the courts never took it from him. So he still has them. And if he still has them, then nobody can take them away from him.

The minute you put me in a position where I have certain rights "by default" those rights simply don't just go away, otherwise they're not rights. No person, without the force of law, can decide whether or not my rights exists. Only I, or a court can. So if I am the father of my biological baby "by default" the moment is born, and I don't CHOSE to adbidcate my legal rights as that baby's father, and no court with the force of law takes them away from me, then I CONTINUE to be that baby's father, even if I am unaware of it. And if I am the father, he is not. Therefore he has no obligation, even if he WANTED it. He can't assert rights he doesn't have. And the only way for him to HAVE those rights, is if they got taken from me, and they hadn't. I never gave them up, and no court took them away. Therefore I always had them. And if I always had them, he never did.

And if we remove from this argument your idea of "default position", then genetics don't matter at all, ever. If you include the default fatherhood, and recognize fatherhood has certain rights, then the "default father" REMAINS the father, as you can't take those rights away. If you remove the default fatherhood position, then genetics simply never matter, and no one can be held to be responsible for a child he or she did not state he or she was willing to take care of.

I voted no, but I'd go a bit further. If the mother lied about the man being father just so she could collect the child support and then later the alleged father discovers that he isn't, I think the mother should be ordered to pay the man back what he had paid.

I voted no, but I'd go a bit further. If the mother lied about the man being father just so she could collect the child support and then later the alleged father discovers that he isn't, I think the mother should be ordered to pay the man back what he had paid.

Yeah thats great not only take away the income of the second parent from the child but also take away the mothers ability to feed and cloth it :rolleyes:

I would not be opposed to fraud charges when the child is 18 + and no longer a Dependant but the life of the child is more important then the father being payed back

Yeah thats great not only take away the income of the second parent from the child but also take away the mothers ability to feed and cloth it :rolleyes:

I would not be opposed to fraud charges when the child is 18 + and no longer a Dependant but the life of the child is more important then the father being payed back

You know what, I'm in fact willing to take this one further. If the mother made knowing misrepresentation as to the father of the child, the male may still be required to pay support for that child EVEN THOUGH he now KNOWS he is not the father.

Up until he is 18 I will actually concede that I would be just fine with the father being made to support his non biological child.

Provided that the minute he turns 18 the father is entitled to a fraud suit against the mother to recover every single cent of it. Let's make sure the child is provided for. And when he is no longer a child, let's reimburse the individual for his costs due to the fraud.

In interests of time I'll just respond to this for now.

What happens 10 years later when the biological father comes back and says "I was never consulted, never given a chance to take responsibility, and my child was taken from me?"

That man is in a very unfortunate position. But to take that child away from his parents, at this point, would be detrimental to the child. As such, that man has lost custody. Depending on the child, allowing him visitation and such could be a good thing.

Great, that's fine. Now where's responsibility begin? Is it at conception? Or overt act?

It cannot possibly be at conception, as discussed in the other thread. There is no child at conception. Responsibility can begin, depending on the situation, either at birth, or at overt act. Both are possible qualifiers for legal parenthood.

This is no different from the fact that, depending on the situation, the same action may be murder or may not be or the fact that, depending on the situation, rearending someone may be your fault or may not be.

The problem with that is, the result of what you are saying is, you are a father of your child unless someone else decides to be a father for your child.

....and you do not contest that action at the time.

With most legal actions, there is a certain window in which a claim must be filed or the person looses standing to make such a claim. Even those that require knowledge of the action require any person bring suit to essentiall prove that he did not know at the time, a rather difficult proposition indeed. This is true even when the welfare of a child is not at stake.

When the welfare of a child is at stake, the law is necessarily fuzzier. Why? Because it is impossible to make a law that covers all possible cases and still provides for the welfare of the child. This is why child custody laws have guidelines, rather than set laws. In the case of a divorce, for example, a child may end up in the joint custody of both parents, in full custody of a single parent, or mostly in custody of one parent, with some rights and responsibilities given to the other. The law basically says that the judge deciding this should provide for the welfare of the child, at his or her discretion.

I voted no, but I'd go a bit further. If the mother lied about the man being father just so she could collect the child support and then later the alleged father discovers that he isn't, I think the mother should be ordered to pay the man back what he had paid.

We aren't talking about a case in which any child support has been paid.

What is it with all these people who can't read the OP?


You know what, I'm in fact willing to take this one further. If the mother made knowing misrepresentation as to the father of the child, the male may still be required to pay support for that child EVEN THOUGH he now KNOWS he is not the father.

Up until he is 18 I will actually concede that I would be just fine with the father being made to support his non biological child.

Provided that the minute he turns 18 the father is entitled to a fraud suit against the mother to recover every single cent of it. Let's make sure the child is provided for. And when he is no longer a child, let's reimburse the individual for his costs due to the fraud.

This makes no sense. You are suing the mother for money paid to the child. If the man is entitled to get the money back from anyone at all, it could only be the child, as it is the child that was entitled to that money, not the mother.

Your example would be like my contractor example. If my friend lies to me about a contractor's background, and I contract with that person and pay them, but then find out that my friend lied to me, can I sue my friend for the money I paid to the contractor? Of course not!

That man is in a very unfortunate position. But to take that child away from his parents, at this point, would be detrimental to the child. As such, that man has lost custody. Depending on the child, allowing him visitation and such could be a good thing.



It cannot possibly be at conception, as discussed in the other thread. There is no child at conception. Responsibility can begin, depending on the situation, either at birth, or at overt act. Both are possible qualifiers for legal parenthood.

This is no different from the fact that, depending on the situation, the same action may be murder or may not be or the fact that, depending on the situation, rearending someone may be your fault or may not be.


[QUOTE]
....and you do not contest that action at the time.

With most legal actions, there is a certain window in which a claim must be filed or the person looses standing to make such a claim. Even those that require knowledge of the action require any person bring suit to essentiall prove that he did not know at the time, a rather difficult proposition indeed. This is true even when the welfare of a child is not at stake.

That ONLY holds if the individual KNOWS to contest. Much like adverse possession, you can not adversly posess land from someone who does not know, and has no reasonable reason to suspect, that he owns it. I agree with you, IF THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER KNOWS AND DOES NOTHING.

If in the case where he simply DOES NOT KNOW, and HAD NO REASON TO KNOW, he had no reason to contest.

This makes no sense. You are suing the mother for money paid to the child. If the man is entitled to get the money back from anyone at all, it could only be the child, as it is the child that was entitled to that money, not the mother.

Your example would be like my contractor example. If my friend lies to me about a contractor's background, and I contract with that person and pay them, but then find out that my friend lied to me, can I sue my friend for the money I paid to the contractor? Of course not!

In fact, you are wrong. A fraud claim does not require you pay money to the person who defrauded you. Your assumption is incorrect. All fraud matters is that one party made knowing misrepresentation and the other party relied on that misrepresentation.

It doesn't matter who RECEIVED the money (or whatever) as a result of the fraud. If party A makes a fraudulant statement to party B, and party B relies on that and makes a deal with party C, party A most DEFINITLY can be sued for fraud.

In your example, you would be able to sue your friend for fraud. You are under the assumption that a fruad claim is only valid if you sue the person who received money from you. That is not the case, it is not the case AT ALL. A fraud claim is a suit against the person who DECEIVED YOU into giving up the money, even if you gave it to a third party.

That ONLY holds if the individual KNOWS to contest.

That depends. In most cases, this is true, but it is not true in all cases. For instance, squatter laws in many places allow a person to gain rights to a property even when the owner does not know they are there. If the squatter has been on that property for a certain period of time, and the owner has done nothing about it - whether the owner is aware of the situation or not - the squatter gains rights to the home and the owner loses them.

In addition, the statute of limitations on many crimes holds even if the victim is unaware that the crime has been committed.

In fact, you are wrong. A fraud claim does not require you pay money to the person who defrauded you. Your assumption is incorrect. All fraud matters is that one party made knowing misrepresentation and the other party relied on that misrepresentation.

...and gaining from that misrepresentation. If the person who lies to you gains nothing from that lie, then it is just a lie - not fraud.

It doesn't matter who RECEIVED the money (or whatever) as a result of the fraud. If party A makes a fraudulant statement to party B, and party B relies on that and makes a deal with party C, party A most DEFINITLY can be sued for fraud.

Only if party A benefits from said statement and Party B can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that party A was aware that the statement was untrue. Now, if party C paid party A to make such a statement, you certainly could sue party A for fraud. Otherwise, it's just an unfortunate situation.

In your example, you would be able to sue your friend for fraud. You are under the assumption that a fruad claim is only valid if you sue the person who received money from you. That is not the case, it is not the case AT ALL. A fraud claim is a suit against the person who DECEIVED YOU into giving up the money, even if you gave it to a third party.

No, I wouldn't. First of all, I would have no ability to prove that my friend was aware that her statement was incorrect. Second of all, my friend gained nothing from the situation (unless the guy paid her to say it, in which case it not only becomes fraud, but becomes conspiracy to commit fraud).

Likewise, a husband or boyfriend would be rather hard-pressed to prove that a mother did not know the child was his. In fact, if she did know, he'd probably know too, since it would mean that they did not have sex at any point that could have resulted in this particular child. Second of all, the mother gains nothing from this. The *child* is granted support, which the father, at the outset, agrees to give.

...and gaining from that misrepresentation. If the person who lies to you gains nothing from that lie, then it is just a lie - not fraud.

Once again, incorrect. This is where you are simply put, wrong.

Definition of fraud:

FRAUD occurs when all of the following elements exist:

an individual or an organization intentionally makes an untrue representation about an important fact or event;

the untrue representation is believed by the victim (the person or organization to whom the representation has been made);

the victim relies upon and acts upon the untrue representation;

the victim suffers loss of money and/or property as a result of relying upon and acting upon the untrue representation.

That's it. There is NO NEED to prove that the individual who made the fraudulant statement in ANY WAY benefited from that statement. AT ALL, EVER.

The one who made the fraudulant statement does not need to benefit from the statement for the victim to collect damages.

Just stop arguing this point, you're wrong. This is what I do, I am absolutly, 100% positive, you DO NOT NEED to benefit from your fraudulant statement.



Only if party A benefits from said statement

Once again, wrong

and Party B can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt

Stop, stop right there. We're talking about lawsuits here. Lawsuits are civil law, not criminal. The standard of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is not the standard of civil law. You're obviously ignorant when you're talking about standards of civil fraud claims when you don't know the standard of proof necessary in those claims. It is, for the record "prove, more likely than not"

that party A was aware that the statement was untrue.

Again, wrong.


No, I wouldn't. First of all, I would have no ability to prove that my friend was aware that her statement was incorrect.

Well that's the kicker yes, you'd have to prove he knew he was wrong.

Second of all, my friend gained nothing from the situation

Does

not

matter

look it up.

Likewise, a husband or boyfriend would be rather hard-pressed to prove that a mother did not know the child was his.

It doesn't matter. Presumably, the mother knew she had SEX with someone who wasn't her husband, and presumably knew that this sex COULD result in pregnancy. And presumably she knew WHEN she did, and that given the time frame it was possible. Fraud doesn't require an overt LIE, it requires intentional misrepresentation. If she did not in any way indicate that the child MIGHT NOT be his, she knowlingly misrepresented the situation. That's enough.

Second of all, the mother gains nothing from this. The *child* is granted support, which the father, at the outset, agrees to give.

Does

Not

Matter

If the mother knowingly misrepresented material facts, even if she didn't know the TRUTH, she knew the POSSIBILITY, and did not come forward with it, that's enough to substantiate.

You want caselaw that disproves your statement that the defendant needed to have had material gain? OK

First Equity Corp. v. Standard and Poor

Fraud is a knowing misrepresentation of material facts upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied, and that reliance cost him. The defendant need not benefit from that statement.

Knowing misrepresentation can manifest EITHER as an overt lie OR a covert failure to disclose facts that he/she had a duty to disclose.

The only way you can argue that it isn't fraud is if the wife didn't know she had sex with another man 9 months ago OR if you want to claim that the wife is under no duty to disclose the fact that the child she's about to give birth to might not be her husband's.

I think either one of those is a hard sell.

Once again, incorrect. This is where you are simply put, wrong.

I'm willing to admit that you may be right. It's not the way I understand the law, but I haven't exactly had intimate dealings with the law on fraud.

Of course, the issue of demonstrating that the person who "defrauded" you was aware that they were giving you untrue information still remains a problem.

Stop, stop right there. We're talking about lawsuits here. Lawsuits are civil law, not criminal. The standard of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is not the standard of civil law. You're obviously ignorant when you're talking about standards of civil fraud claims when you don't know the standard of proof necessary in those claims. It is, for the record "prove, more likely than not"

Those two things are logically equivalent. "Prove, more likely than not," is really the same thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It doesn't matter. Presumably, the mother knew she had SEX with someone who wasn't her husband, and presumably knew that this sex COULD result in pregnancy. And presumably she knew WHEN she did, and that given the time frame it was possible. Fraud doesn't require an overt LIE, it requires intentional misrepresentation. If she did not in any way indicate that the child MIGHT NOT be his, she knowlingly misrepresented the situation. That's enough.

So fraud doesn't have to be intentional? The mother may be absolutely convinced that the child is her husband's/boyfriend's, for any number of reasons. If she does not intentionally lie to him, the idea that it could be fraud is ridiculous.


The only way you can argue that it isn't fraud is if the wife didn't know she had sex with another man 9 months ago OR if you want to claim that the wife is under no duty to disclose the fact that the child she's about to give birth to might not be her husband's.

Maybe it wasn't 9 months ago. Maybe she had unprotected sex with her husband, but used multiple forms of birth control with the other guy. Maybe she had reason to believe that the other guy was sterile. Hell, maybe she was raped.

I would say that any judge ruling that an unintentional lie is fraud would be seriously wrong.

I didn't say we both sign the lease. I said *I* sign the lease.

Try again.

Ok - if you sign a lease in the knowlege the other person has no legal responsibility to pay the share they are offering then that is your choice.

This is still a poorer analogy than turning up and finding out the lease you signed does not reflect what you are getting.

You know what, I'm in fact willing to take this one further. If the mother made knowing misrepresentation as to the father of the child, the male may still be required to pay support for that child EVEN THOUGH he now KNOWS he is not the father.

Up until he is 18 I will actually concede that I would be just fine with the father being made to support his non biological child.

Provided that the minute he turns 18 the father is entitled to a fraud suit against the mother to recover every single cent of it. Let's make sure the child is provided for. And when he is no longer a child, let's reimburse the individual for his costs due to the fraud.

Personally I would prefer the income to be switched over to the real biological father and then the remaining (in this case 2 year balance) be able to be figured out or refunded or whatever after the kid reaches 18

The contract is only voided if the person you contracted with committed fraud. In this case, that did not happen. The parent entered into legal obligations to a child. The child did not commit fraud. As such, the contract is not voided.

Just because someone does not play an active part in a fraud does not mean they should continue to benefit from the fraud once it is discovered.

By your reasoning if a salesman comes to my door and fraudulently gets me to sign a contract with a company, then as long as the company was not aware of the salesmans actions then I should still be legally obliged to pay the company even after the fraud is discovered.

Or if someone buys something that is later found to be stolen property then they have no obligation to return it if they discover it was stolen - a charter for Fences everywhere!

If a man discovers that he is not the biological parent of a child should he have to continue to provide support for the child.

Say: A marriage breaks down, and during the divorce the man discovers their two year old kid was fathered by someone else. Should the man have to pay child support to provide for another mans child?
The woman was deceitful and is therefore responsible for her own actions, and any subsequent consequences. The agrieved man in this case shouldn't have to pay so much as a penny to support a child that is not his in the circumstances that you have described here.

If anything, the man should be able to sue the woman for her dishonest ways.

Sorry someone who lies is a liar, and someone that uses sex to financially improve thier situation is a whore in my book so lying whore isnt a terribly inaccurate description.

And ive YET to hear what people think the punishment for the female defrauding the male should be? (if its knowingly)
The choice of the word "whore" according to definition could be applied to this woman most certainly. It might not be my choice of words, but then I am not the agrieved man either. I am sure that I might find some appropriate words to use, if in fact I was the man in this situation.

whore (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861713075/definition.html)

2. an offensive term for somebody regarded as being sexually indiscriminate

3. an offensive term for somebody who is regarded as willing to set aside principles or personal integrity in order to obtain something, usually for selfish motives

As far as "punishment" is concerned, see my previous post.

If he's been the kid's father for two years, then it's not "another man's child." It's his.
Well, biologically he is certainly not the father and I believe that it would be interesting as to whether the court would agree with your assertion that the kid is automatically his, as you claim.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to say that any guy who would be pathetic enough to want to ditch his own kid for this kind of reason is definitely not a fellow who should ever associating with children.

So I'm torn.
Hyperbole reigns supreme? Did you stop for a minute and put yourself in the guy's shoes? Did you contemplate any feelings that he might have before you labelled him as "pathetic" and passing judgement on his future ability to be able to have an association with a child that really may be his and not some other man's?

My guess is that you didn't take that timeout and you jumped on this guy as if he were some kind of maggot.

Let's assume that this guy is a great guy, not some pathetic creature that you have envisioned. Let's assume that he is loving and caring but now he is faced with his wife wanting a divorce. He is heartbroken, and depressed, especially since his wife has been cheating on him with the biological father of the child. When he finds out that he is not the father and that his wife is having sex with the real father he is completely devestated.

His anger and bitterness turns to hatred and everytime he looks at the child that he thought was his, all he can see is the other man and he finds it totally unbearable. He decides to make a complete break from the whole situation, quits his job and leaves town, never to return.

You automatically sided with the woman, labelled the man "pathetic" and passed judgement on his future association with children. That speaks volumes to me, especially since this is a hypothetical situation.

Well its not so much has to, if they are not thebiological father and he has nothing to do with you then he has no obligation unless he chooses to, the same as if he wasnt the biological father but was the partner then he would have some klind of obligation.

hope that clears it up

This is definitely family court-material.

Without a legal precedent and a written requirement I'm not paying a dime to support the bastard child spawn from illegtimate sperm!

You know what, I'm in fact willing to take this one further. If the mother made knowing misrepresentation as to the father of the child, the male may still be required to pay support for that child EVEN THOUGH he now KNOWS he is not the father.

Up until he is 18 I will actually concede that I would be just fine with the father being made to support his non biological child.

Provided that the minute he turns 18 the father is entitled to a fraud suit against the mother to recover every single cent of it. Let's make sure the child is provided for. And when he is no longer a child, let's reimburse the individual for his costs due to the fraud.
If you do this however although you are benefiting the child in question you are harming any children the man might have from past or future relationships in the 18 year period of support due to hindering his ability to support his own children.

You are also harming the mans life for 18 years.

Personally given the expenses involved in a legal dispute over a couple years child support already paid I think it would be best if the years paid already were written off and the guy can just leave if he wishes.

Then go after the biological father. If the can't find the biological father then the child is in the exact same position as all the children birn to women outside of relationships who do not know the identity or location of the father. In none of those cases is any other man expeted to provide the care for the child unless he consents to in the knowlege that he is not the biological father.

No, I see what you mean. And it ignores the law as it stands.
If you are going to bring the case of how the law currently stands into a discussion on how it should stand to oppose a view you don't like then you forever lost all right to campaign against a law you dislike.

In no way can or should he be legally forced to pay anything. That's not to say that he shouldn't, just that you can't force him. Being cheated on by, or cheating on, a spouse is quite possibly one of if not the worst kinds of breaches of trust and betrayals imaginable. In the same rank as a crime. It's something that reaches down to the most ancient and basic levels of innate instinct. A one night stand is horrible enough, but it takes a very special, very despicable type of scum to do something like that more then once or long term. Let alone conceive a poor bastard child!

So I guess I could kind of understand why someone wouldn't or just couldn't anymore. Finding out that my wife cheated on me. It would be one of the worst things anyone could do to me. I don't even like to think about it... :/

Everyone seems to have looked past a very important fact about this scenario. There's a good chance that there'll be a divorce either following or preceding this type of revelation. And when you look at the fact that generally, without really good reason, men tend to be the losers in custody and visitation cases. (which I don't really disagree with) And that's even when the child is actually his biological child! It is WAY more then likely that he would never get to continue being a major part of the child's life anyway, if even any part at all.

So it's not like we're talking about him just getting up and leaving for no reason, or staying but refusing to pay for anything and ignoring the child.

Jeez, I know its a rather small sample, but as many women think the guy should be forced to pay as not. Thats weird, I thought it would be an overwhelming majority to not pay for both sexes.

Jeez, I know its a rather small sample, but as many women think the guy should be forced to pay as not. Thats weird, I thought it would be an overwhelming majority to not pay for both sexes.

There are two possibilities I can think of off the top of my head assuming the sample is representative:

1. Being unlikely to ever have to go through the possibility of raising a child they did not know was not theirs gives women a very different view than that of a man who without a DNA test can never guarentee the child is his. This view coming from absolute assurance of their own parentage makes it hard for them to empathise with someone who does not have such an assurance, and even less with someone who finds they are not the parent. They see that they will always love their child, but that is always in the knowlege that it is their child, and find it hard to see the emotions from a male perspective.

2. If you assume that humans are innately selfish creatures (face it - look about the world and evidence of this is not too hard to find.) then it makes a lot of sense. The woman in the scenario benefits, and the man in the scenario seriously loses out. When men look at it they probably put themselves in place of the guy who seriously loses out and think would they want to have that happen to them. When women look at it they probably put themselves in place of the woman, who has a lot to gain from the guy paying and loses out if the guy does not have to pay and it then becomes a balance of desiring the best for themselves and their offspring when it harms another person set against any moral view they have that they should not harm others. People all over the world are prepared to do things much worse than this to other people in order to benefit themselves and their own offspring at the expense of other people/other peoples offspring.

There are two possibilities I can think of off the top of my head assuming the sample is representative:

1. Being unlikely to ever have to go through the possibility of raising a child they did not know was not theirs gives women a very different view than that of a man who without a DNA test can never guarentee the child is his. This view coming from absolute assurance of their own parentage makes it hard for them to empathise with someone who does not have such an assurance, and even less with someone who finds they are not the parent. They see that they will always love their child, but that is always in the knowlege that it is their child, and find it hard to see the emotions from a male perspective.

2. If you assume that humans are innately selfish creatures (face it - look about the world and evidence of this is not too hard to find.) then it makes a lot of sense. The woman in the scenario benefits, and the man in the scenario seriously loses out. When men look at it they probably put themselves in place of the guy who seriously loses out and think would they want to have that happen to them. When women look at it they probably put themselves in place of the woman, who has a lot to gain from the guy paying and loses out if the guy does not have to pay and it then becomes a balance of desiring the best for themselves and their offspring when it harms another person set against any moral view they have that they should not harm others. People all over the world are prepared to do things much worse than this to other people in order to benefit themselves and their own offspring at the expense of other people/other peoples offspring.

I doubt many people would be able to deal with this objectivly enough.

I was just thinking, what makes judges want to serve in family courts because in most cases they have to make a shitty decision and pick a shitty option out a list of shitty options.

Everyone seems to have looked past a very important fact about this scenario. There's a good chance that there'll be a divorce either following or preceding this type of revelation. And when you look at the fact that generally, without really good reason, men tend to be the losers in custody and visitation cases. (which I don't really disagree with) And that's even when the child is actually his biological child! It is WAY more then likely that he would never get to continue being a major part of the child's life anyway, if even any part at all.

So it's not like we're talking about him just getting up and leaving for no reason, or staying but refusing to pay for anything and ignoring the child.
Actually I brought this up on page 7, and commented on how surpised I was that in 7 pages there was lots of talk about Deadbeat dads, when the original premise is the mother committing a Gross betrayal. No-one responded to that part of my post at all, but there has been lots more vitriol poured on the "deadbeat Dads" since then. Curiouser, and curiouser, to quote a cartoon star.

Actually I brought this up on page 7, and commented on how surpised I was that in 7 pages there was lots of talk about Deadbeat dads, when the original premise is the mother committing a Gross betrayal. No-one responded to that part of my post at all, but there has been lots more vitriol poured on the "deadbeat Dads" since then. Curiouser, and curiouser, to quote a cartoon star.
The point you raised has been responded to at length by myself and others.

The subject of this thread is the parents' obligations and responsibilities to the child in question. The fact that the mother may have behaved badly (though we really don't know enough to assume that from the OP) toward the father does not have anything to do with the issue of care for the CHILD.

If the mother and father have issues between them, that's a topic for another thread. This discussion, as I have understood it, is a discussion about the relationship between parent and child.

I doubt many people would be able to deal with this objectivly enough.

I was just thinking, what makes judges want to serve in family courts because in most cases they have to make a shitty decision and pick a shitty option out a list of shitty options.

Life is full of shitty situations, but that does not mean the person in a shitty situation should have the right to make another persons situation more shitty by committing fraud.

Life is full of shitty situations, but that does not mean the person in a shitty situation should have the right to make another persons situation more shitty by committing fraud.

I am in agreement with you on this one so no need to argue with me.

I'm willing to admit that you may be right. It's not the way I understand the law, but I haven't exactly had intimate dealings with the law on fraud.

I have, you can trust me on this one

Of course, the issue of demonstrating that the person who "defrauded" you was aware that they were giving you untrue information still remains a problem.

Yes and no. You seem stuck on the idea that the fraud has to be a LIE. It doesn't. Fraud can be an omission as well. Fraud is literally defined as "a knowing and willful misrepresentation of material fact". This misrepresentation of material fact CAN BE an overt lie, but it need not be. Knowing and willful misrepresentation can manifest by an intentional failure to disclose facts that one had a duty to disclose.

Me not telling you something I SHOULD tell you is also fraud, even if I didn't outright lie to you.


Those two things are logically equivalent. "Prove, more likely than not," is really the same thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

No, not at all, not even close. a burden of proof "more likely than not" is EXTREMELY different than a burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". Saying they are logically equivalent is fundamentally backwards, and is in direct contradiction to legal maxims. "beyond reasonable doubt" means "near certainty", "more likely than not" means just that.

Example. Let's say we have a standard deck of cards, 52 cards, 26 red, 26 black. Let's also say I take another card from an IDENTICAL deck, a black card, and insert it into the deck. Now the deck of cards is 53 cards, 26 red, 27 black. Now you randomly draw a card from the deck.

The odds of you drawing a red card is 26/53 or 49%.

The odds of you drawing a black card is 27/53 or 51%.

49% chance the card will be red, 51% chance the card will be black. Can you be certain beyond any reasonable doubt you're going to draw a black card? Of COURSE NOT, you only have a 51% chance, that's nowhere NEAR certainty, there's 26 red cards worth of reasonable doubt. Is it more likely than not? Sure, 51% to 49%, you're more likely to draw a black card then a red card.

"more likely than not" is that you're going to draw one of 27 black cards and not one of the 26 red cards

"beyond all reasonable doubt" means you're going to draw one of 99 black cards, and not the 1 red card..and even then it's arguable whether a 1% chance is still reasonable enough doubt.

That's the difference in criminal law v. civil law. Criminal law needs NEAR CERTAINTY to convicted, it needs to be "we are almost positive you did it". Civil law needs only "more likely than not", it needs to be only "well, you probably did it".

Don't say they're logically the same. Not even close.


So fraud doesn't have to be intentional? The mother may be absolutely convinced that the child is her husband's/boyfriend's, for any number of reasons. If she does not intentionally lie to him, the idea that it could be fraud is ridiculous.


Maybe it wasn't 9 months ago. Maybe she had unprotected sex with her husband, but used multiple forms of birth control with the other guy. Maybe she had reason to believe that the other guy was sterile. Hell, maybe she was raped.

Once again, you're confusing "lie" with "fraud". Fraud can manifest in a failure to disclose facts you had a duty to disclose. Now we can spin the hypothetical any way we want to. Maybe she blacked out. Maybe she was drugged, maybe she was raped, maybe the baby is severely premature and she counted wrong, maybe she was abducted by aliens who purged her memory. Hell maybe she's in a coma.

You can spin that all you want however I would posit that in the vast majority of instances when a woman gives birth to a child that is not her husband's she KNOWS that, at very least, there's a chance it might be his.

And in those instances, you'd have to argue that the wife had no duty to inform her husband that he might not be the father of her child. As much as arguing against the poor defensless child may be a problem, try arguing with a straight face that a wife has no duty to inform her husband of her infidelities which may have resulted in her pregnancy.

Go on, give it a shot.

I would say that any judge ruling that an unintentional lie is fraud would be seriously wrong.

I'd argue that there's no such thing as an unintentional lie as by definition a lie is a telling a knowing falsehood. Either you intended to speak an untruth, or you didn't know it was not true, in which case it's not a lie.

However once again, fraud need not be a lie, it may also be an intentional omission. ANd yes we can come up with hypotheticals in which the woman was absolutly, totally unaware of the CHANCE the baby she gave birth to was not the biological offspring of her husband, however I'd imagine that this is a very small circumstance, and in the vast majority...she was aware of that chance.

Just because someone does not play an active part in a fraud does not mean they should continue to benefit from the fraud once it is discovered.

If it is detrimental to them otherwise, they must be compensated.

By your reasoning if a salesman comes to my door and fraudulently gets me to sign a contract with a company, then as long as the company was not aware of the salesmans actions then I should still be legally obliged to pay the company even after the fraud is discovered.

The salesman works for the company, thus this is not a good example. Because the company chose the salesman to represent them, he does.

Or if someone buys something that is later found to be stolen property then they have no obligation to return it if they discover it was stolen - a charter for Fences everywhere!

This is already true, actually. As long as the buyer did not know that they were buying stolen property, they are not held responsible for the theft and generally cannot have that property taken from them without compensation. A buyer is only held in any way responsible for a theft if the buyer was aware that the property was stolen. Otherwise, they bought it, and it is lawfully theirs.


Well, biologically he is certainly not the father and I believe that it would be interesting as to whether the court would agree with your assertion that the kid is automatically his, as you claim.

The courts have agreed with that assertion, actually, quite a few times.

So I'm torn.
Hyperbole reigns supreme? Did you stop for a minute and put yourself in the guy's shoes? Did you contemplate any feelings that he might have before you labelled him as "pathetic" and passing judgement on his future ability to be able to have an association with a child that really may be his and not some other man's?

Any man who stops caring for a child that he supposedly loved because he finds out that the child is not related to him in the way he thought doesn't have normal human feelings. Love doesn't work for that. It doesn't disappear in a poof of smoke because you aren't related to someone.

When a child finds out he is adopted, does he automagically stop loving his parents? When a woman finds out that her sister is actually her cousin, but has just been raised as her sister, does she automagically stop loving her?

My guess is that you didn't take that timeout and you jumped on this guy as if he were some kind of maggot.

If that is the way he would treat a child, he *is* a maggot.

Let's assume that this guy is a great guy, not some pathetic creature that you have envisioned. Let's assume that he is loving and caring but now he is faced with his wife wanting a divorce. He is heartbroken, and depressed, especially since his wife has been cheating on him with the biological father of the child. When he finds out that he is not the father and that his wife is having sex with the real father he is completely devestated.

...and takes that out on the child.

His anger and bitterness turns to hatred and everytime he looks at the child that he thought was his, all he can see is the other man and he finds it totally unbearable. He decides to make a complete break from the whole situation, quits his job and leaves town, never to return.

Then he never really loved the child. If all of his interaction with that child are suddenly erased and replaced with the face of that child's father, he obviously never cared for the child in the first place.

You automatically sided with the woman, labelled the man "pathetic" and passed judgement on his future association with children. That speaks volumes to me, especially since this is a hypothetical situation.

Not the woman, the child. The woman is pretty scummy herself. The child, however, does not deserve to be abandoned because of the actions of his mother.


If you are going to bring the case of how the law currently stands into a discussion on how it should stand to oppose a view you don't like then you forever lost all right to campaign against a law you dislike.

We weren't talking about how it "should stand". Arthias said that the law must be this way, that it has to be this way. This is obviously not true because it is not currently this way, nor has it ever been this way.

In no way can or should he be legally forced to pay anything.

This is patently incorrect. Court cases of this type have almost always wound up with the father, biological or not, paying child support, whether he likes it or not. This is because, as far as the government is concerned, he is the legal parent of that child, and thus bears the legal responsibilities entailed.

Everyone seems to have looked past a very important fact about this scenario. There's a good chance that there'll be a divorce either following or preceding this type of revelation. And when you look at the fact that generally, without really good reason, men tend to be the losers in custody and visitation cases. (which I don't really disagree with) And that's even when the child is actually his biological child! It is WAY more then likely that he would never get to continue being a major part of the child's life anyway, if even any part at all.

Actually, that isn't likely in the least. People love to claim that men somehow get the short end of the stick in custody cases, because they look at the overall numbers. What they fail to realize, however, is that the vast majority of custody cases are not decided by the courts. The vast majority of court cases in the US result in joint custody. Of those that do not, women get custody about 60% of the time and men about 40% of the time (Jocabia has the exact numbers on this). This might be due to a slight inequity, or it could be that society still expects women to be closer to their children than men, so women are more likely to do so.

Jeez, I know its a rather small sample, but as many women think the guy should be forced to pay as not. Thats weird, I thought it would be an overwhelming majority to not pay for both sexes.

Maybe it reveals that the women on this board are more likely to think about the child involved than the men on this board?


1. Being unlikely to ever have to go through the possibility of raising a child they did not know was not theirs gives women a very different view than that of a man who without a DNA test can never guarentee the child is his. This view coming from absolute assurance of their own parentage makes it hard for them to empathise with someone who does not have such an assurance, and even less with someone who finds they are not the parent. They see that they will always love their child, but that is always in the knowlege that it is their child, and find it hard to see the emotions from a male perspective.

I don't think that love is all that different for men and women. For most human beings, love is not contingent upon biological relation. I highly doubt that a few men who obviously don't know what love actually is represent all men. Personally, I have a higher opinion of men than that.

2. If you assume that humans are innately selfish creatures (face it - look about the world and evidence of this is not too hard to find.) then it makes a lot of sense. The woman in the scenario benefits, and the man in the scenario seriously loses out. When men look at it they probably put themselves in place of the guy who seriously loses out and think would they want to have that happen to them. When women look at it they probably put themselves in place of the woman, who has a lot to gain from the guy paying and loses out if the guy does not have to pay and it then becomes a balance of desiring the best for themselves and their offspring when it harms another person set against any moral view they have that they should not harm others. People all over the world are prepared to do things much worse than this to other people in order to benefit themselves and their own offspring at the expense of other people/other peoples offspring.

The woman doesn't benefit here. Not only is she going to be labeled all sorts of derogatory terms (many of which she would deserve), but she has to continue to deal with a man who hates her.

The child benefits by receiving adequate care. If the woman is benefitting from child support - using that money on herself, rather than on her child, then she is misusing it, and should be punished.


Yes and no. You seem stuck on the idea that the fraud has to be a LIE. It doesn't. Fraud can be an omission as well. Fraud is literally defined as "a knowing and willful misrepresentation of material fact". This misrepresentation of material fact CAN BE an overt lie, but it need not be. Knowing and willful misrepresentation can manifest by an intentional failure to disclose facts that one had a duty to disclose.

Interestingly enough, even in child custody cases, the courts have held that a person cannot be required to reveal their own sexual history, as doing so is an infringement of their right to privacy. So, this obviously isn't fraud, even by your definition.

And in those instances, you'd have to argue that the wife had no duty to inform her husband that he might not be the father of her child. As much as arguing against the poor defensless child may be a problem, try arguing with a straight face that a wife has no duty to inform her husband of her infidelities which may have resulted in her pregnancy.

Legally or morally? Morally, she absolutely has that duty. Legally, based on court precedent, she does not. Even where issues of parentage and child custody have come up, the courts have held that a person cannot be legally required to reveal their sexual history. The woman is not legally obligated to tell her husband if she cheated on him, any more than she is legally obligated to tell the man she slept with that she is married.

This is already true, actually. As long as the buyer did not know that they were buying stolen property, they are not held responsible for the theft and generally cannot have that property taken from them without compensation. A buyer is only held in any way responsible for a theft if the buyer was aware that the property was stolen. Otherwise, they bought it, and it is lawfully theirs.

Absolutly factually incorrect. A thief has never secured legal transfer of title, and under legal maxims, you can not sell what isn't yours. If the thief doesn't have title, then no title is transfered upon sale to a bona fide purchaser. Since no title is transfered, the purchaser doesn't own it.

You are right that taking your property requires compensation, however since a thief can not transfer title to you, you never received legal title of the item you purchased. Therefore it's not yours. Your property can not be taken without compensation, however if you purchase stolen goods, there is no transfer of title, since the thief never had title. Since there's no transfer of title, it's simply put, not your property, and can certainly be taken from you.

You can however, sue the thief for fraud and recover your money.

Honestly at this point you've gone past speculation and turned to making legal arguments that are simply wrong:

As a matter of case law and statute, in the United States of America, even if you are a bona fide purchaser, if a work of art is later found to be stolen, the work can be taken from the purchaser or unauthorized "owner".

Interestingly enough, even in child custody cases, the courts have held that a person cannot be required to reveal their own sexual history, as doing so is an infringement of their right to privacy. So, this obviously isn't fraud, even by your definition.

Factually dissimilar and thus irrelevant. Courts are matter of public record. She can not be required to give details of her privacy as matter of public record.

Once again we're not talking COURT here, so what a COURT can require is absolutly irrelevant. We're talking private fraud here.


Legally or morally? Morally, she absolutely has that duty. Legally, based on court precedent, she does not. Even where issues of parentage and child custody have come up, the courts have held that a person cannot be legally required to reveal their sexual history. The woman is not legally obligated to tell her husband if she cheated on him, any more than she is legally obligated to tell the man she slept with that she is married.

I didn't say "legal duty" I said duty. Let me clarify a bit.

You want me to enter into an obligation (as I said, it doesn't matter to WHOM that obligation is). This obligation will have a material cost. In other words you want me to give money to something.

You are also in possession of a fact. If this fact is of the sort that a reasonable person could conclude (not what YOU concluded, what a reasonable person could conclude) that if you told me this fact, it may change my mind, you have a duty to disclose.

If you are asking me to do something that will cost me, and you know something I don't, and this "something", if told to me, MAY (not WILL, just may) change my mind, you HAVE to tell me. If you don't, it's fraud.

Fraud is by definition knowing misrepresentation of material fact. If you know something I don't, and I may change my mind if you did tell me, you have a duty to disclose it. That is the fundamental basis of fraud law. As much as you want to plug your fingers in your ears and say "nope, it isn't", that doesn't change the fact. If you want me to do something that will cost me you MUST give full disclosure of ALL relevant facts. And frankly speaking, the fact that the kid might not be mine is pretty damned relevant.

There are two competing rights here, your right to privacy, and my right to have my property protected via full and honest disclosure of material facts. Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't assert your rights if you have willingly, knowingly, put both of us in a situation where the assertion of your rights may be detrimental to my own. If you want to keep your right to privacy, you can't ask me to enter into a financial obligation in which you would have to tell me private matters for full disclosure.

EITHER you keep your right to privacy, in which case you don't ask me to care for that child, OR if you ask me to care for that child, you MUST give full disclosure of material facts. That is fraud law. If you don't disclose EVERYTHING to me that MIGHT influence my choice, I can not form reasonable informed consent. If you don't want to disclose it, don't ask me.

That is your duty. If you fail in that duty, you have committed civil fraud. That is the essence of tort law, if you CHOSE to take on a duty, you MUST fulfill that duty. If you don't want to save lives, don't become a doctor. If you don't want to be responsibile for people slipping and falling on your stairs, don't invite them over. If you don't want to ensure your product is safe and won't kill people, don't sell the product. If you don't want to be sued for slandering someone, then don't talk about them.

But once you become a doctor, once you invite someone over, once you make a product, once you open your mouth, you WILLINGLY take on certain duties. You take on the duty to act as a good doctor, you take on the duty to ensure your stairs are safe, you take on the duty that your product won't cause harm, you take on the duty not to slander someone. And if you violate the duty you CHOSE to take on, and someone is harmed, you are liable for that harm. That is tort law.

If you don't want to disclose your privacy, don't put yourself into a position where you have a duty to. You didn't have to, you chose to. That is tort law. If you don't want to be in a position where you have to fulfil a particular duty, then do not put yourself in that position. Once you willingly do so, you have willingly waived the ability for you to assert your rights.

Absolutly factually incorrect. A thief has never secured legal transfer of title, and under legal maxims, you can not sell what isn't yours. If the thief doesn't have title, then no title is transfered upon sale to a bona fide purchaser. Since no title is transfered, the purchaser doesn't own it.

That is incorrect. I can't remember the exact term, but there is a legal construct in place to protect merchants which ensures that, if they bought something in good faith, they now own it.

Factually dissimilar and thus irrelevant. Courts are matter of public record. She can not be required to give details of her privacy as matter of public record.

Once again we're not talking COURT here, so what a COURT can require is absolutly irrelevant. We're talking private fraud here.

If she cannot be legally required to reveal her sexual history, which she cannot, then a fraud case cannot be based on her legal obligations to reveal it. There are none.

The cases I am referring to were not a matter of a woman revealing her sexual history in court, but revealing it to others in an attempt to find the father of her child.

*snip*

This argument would make sense if the woman sat down with the man and said, "I want you to take responsibility for this child. It's yours. Do it."

Unfortunately, this is generally not the case. The obligation that the man takes on is not to the woman, and it isn't from her asking him to take that obligation on. It is an obligation to the child that he willingly takes on. Perhaps he takes it on without all the facts, but he takes it on willingly nonetheless.

Fraud is by definition knowing misrepresentation of material fact. If you know something I don't, and I may change my mind if you did tell me, you have a duty to disclose it. That is the fundamental basis of fraud law. As much as you want to plug your fingers in your ears and say "nope, it isn't", that doesn't change the fact. If you want me to do something that will cost me you MUST give full disclosure of ALL relevant facts. And frankly speaking, the fact that the kid might not be mine is pretty damned relevant.

Really? So if you want to sign a contract with person B, and I know something about person B that you do not, but I don't tell you, that means that I can be sued for fraud?

Wow. There are a lot of Cingular customers out there who can sue me for fraud, because I didn't specifically tell them that Cingular gives bad service.

Why should a woman be allowed to cheat on a guy, fet pregnant and take the poor betrayed man's money to pay for some other man's kids braces?

That is incorrect. I can't remember the exact term, but there is a legal construct in place to protect merchants which ensures that, if they bought something in good faith, they now own it.

I do not believe this is true, and in fact quoted a passage that runs contrary to it, from:

http://www.artseditor.com/html/august00/aug00_law.shtml

What you are refering to is a good faith exception that exempts a merchant from being held criminally liable for trading in stolen goods if they, in good faith, did not believe them to be stolen.

That's something extremely different.



If she cannot be legally required to reveal her sexual history, which she cannot, then a fraud case cannot be based on her legal obligations to reveal it. There are none.

You are missing the key point, yet again. Let me restate. She has no obligation to do so unless she WILLINGLY PUTS HERSELF in a position where she has an obligation to.

You're so fond of default rules, let me put it in those terms. By default she doesn't have to. She does have to if she willingly puts herself in that position.


This argument would make sense if the woman sat down with the man and said, "I want you to take responsibility for this child. It's yours. Do it."

Unfortunately, this is generally not the case. The obligation that the man takes on is not to the woman,

Once again, doesn't matter whom the obligation is to. You keep ignoring that fact, even after you conceded it.

and it isn't from her asking him to take that obligation on. It is an obligation to the child that he willingly takes on. Perhaps he takes it on without all the facts, but he takes it on willingly nonetheless.

It's an obligation to HER child however, that makes all the difference to the world

Really? So if you want to sign a contract with person B, and I know something about person B that you do not, but I don't tell you, that means that I can be sued for fraud?

Wow. There are a lot of Cingular customers out there who can sue me for fraud, because I didn't specifically tell them that Cingular gives bad service.


Once again you are missing an extremely important fact. In fact, since you KEEP ignoring it, I have to assume you just willfully are avoiding it, or are subconsiously ignoring it, because I know you're not THAT dense.

In fact, you even quoted me and ignored it:

If you want me to do something

It involves DUTY. If I want to sign a contract with Cingular, you are not involved. You are, as the law describes you as "an unrelated third party". You have NOTHING to do with this situation, and therefore you have NO duty to intervene.

Example. Let's say I am sitting on a beach, and I see you swimming out there and start to drown. I have no obligation to do jack shit all. Why? Because I am an unvinvolved third party. I didn't make you start to drown, and I am not responsible for saving you. I have no duty to you, I can watch you die.

The lifeguard at the beach, on the other hand, DOES have a duty.

You are not under any obligation, you have no duty, to inform me of facts surrounding circumstances you are not involved in. You DO have a duty to inform me of facts surrounding circumstances you ARE involved in. The mother is undeniably involved, as is the potential father.

The mother is not an unrelated third party, she is very much related to the entire circumstances. Therefore, since she is involved in the circumstances, she has a duty to disclose material facts related to those circumstances.

That is the crucial difference and you JUST KEEP MISSING IT. You don't have a duty to me regarding my cell phone service, YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED, you have no obligation.

The mother is involved, and she does have an obligation. Even if she doesn't sit down and say "you are going to take care of this child, yes?" She is directly involved in the circumstances between the husband and her child. She is not an unrelated third party. If she were, what she knew would be her choice or not whether to disclose. But she IS involved

I do not believe this is true, and in fact quoted a passage that runs contrary to it, from:

http://www.artseditor.com/html/august00/aug00_law.shtml

This isn't exactly a legal source.

You are missing the key point, yet again. Let me restate. She has no obligation to do so unless she WILLINGLY PUTS HERSELF in a position where she has an obligation to.

Incorrect, yet again. The courts have held that a woman who has put herself in a position where her obligation would otherwise be to reveal her sexual history still cannot be legally required to do so. The question came up with a Florida law that would force a woman who chose to put an infant up for adoption, but was unsure as to the parentage of her child, to reveal her full sexual history. It was found that she could not be required to do so. However, based on the law, she should have that obligation, as she should have to do everything in her power to find the biological father before such proceedings begin.

Once again, doesn't matter whom the obligation is to. You keep ignoring that fact, even after you conceded it.

Of course it matters who the obligation is to. I conceded that you can commit fraud by asking someone to enter an obligation with someone else.

However, a woman does not ask a man to enter into an obligation to the child. Generally, it is assumed, not asked for. This makes it more akin to the Cingular example I brought up earlier. I have information about the company that could very likely convince someone not to sign a contract with Cingular, but I may not offer that information. If they then sign a contract with Cingular, I have not committed fraud.

It's an obligation to HER child however, that makes all the difference to the world

So, if I'm related to someone who works for Cingular, and I don't reveal the information about them being shitty, I've committed fraud?

Once again you are missing an extremely important fact. In fact, since you KEEP ignoring it, I have to assume you just willfully are avoiding it, or are subconsiously ignoring it, because I know you're not THAT dense.

In fact, you even quoted me and ignored it:

I didn't ignore it. In fact, I specifically pointed out that a mother generally does not sit down and ask her husband to take on parental obligations to a child.

The mother is involved, and she does have an obligation. Even if she doesn't sit down and say "you are going to take care of this child, yes?" She is directly involved in the circumstances between the husband and her child. She is not an unrelated third party. If she were, what she knew would be her choice or not whether to disclose. But she IS involved

She is directly involved in some of the circumstances between them. She is not, however, directly involved in his option to take on parental obligations or those obligations, once they are made.

For a more analogous situation: Suppose a brother and sister are raised together. The eldest, the brother, knows that the sister is not the biological child of their mother. When that mother becomes old and needs care, both sign on to pay for her care, to be cosigners on her mortgate, etc. If the woman was aware that it was not her mother, she might decide not to help pay for it. The brother doesn't know if that information would make a difference or not, but never discloses it. Has he committed fraud?

No, he hasn't. She chose to take on an obligation to someone. If she specifically asked him, "Is this my mother," and he lied, then perhaps she would have a case. However, as a responsible adult, if her obligations were contingent upon blood relation, she should have taken appropriate steps to ensure that the blood relationship existed (just as, if a man's care of a child is entirely contingent upon blood relation, he should take the appropriate steps to ensure that that relation exists). He is obviously involved, since he is also taking on the care of this woman. He obviously has information that might change her mind. But he is under no legal obligation to reveal such information.

my "not exactly a legal source" so far trumps your non existant one I'm sorry to say.


So, if I'm related to someone who works for Cingular, and I don't reveal the information about them being shitty, I've committed fraud?

How does that in any way involve you in the transaction? At most it involves you with someone who is involved in it, but it doesn't pertain to you, involve your influence, and you play no direct role in the agreement of the contract

This whole argument boils down to that. Does the mother play any direct role in the agreement between husband and child (even if unspoken)?

You related to the cingular employee doesn't. you related to the person who signs the contract doesn't. You sitting on the side thinking to yourself "that dupe's getting himself involved in a shitty deal" doesn't. You play no direct role in the circumstances.

And in your nursing home example, once again, the brother does not play any direct role in the circumstances. You keep coming up with hypotheticals that you scoff at because you keep, over and over and over and over again ignore that fact. The brother doesn't play a direct role in the circumstances. You don't play a direct role in the circumstances of the cingular contract. Me sitting and watching you drown does not play a direct role in the circumstances.

the LIFEGUARD does, because that lifeguard has willingly taken on a legal duty and has thus directly involved himself in the circumstances of the welfare of those at the beach.

The only question that needs to be answered in ANY of this is "is the mother directly involved in the circumstances of her husband taking on legal responsibility for the child".

My contention is, that she is, because she is giving birth to it. I don't give birth to my brother, so I am not involved in whatever private deals he takes on with third parties.

I have no legal duty to you, so I can sit and watch you drown.

You have no involvement in the signing of a cingular contract, so what you know is irrelevant.

If you are able to demonstrate duty, everything else falls into place pretty quickly.

The only question is, is the mother directly involved in the circumstances. If she is, then she has a duty. If she is not, then she has no duty. To test for that duty you can use "substantial involvement" test. What it basically involves is a thought experiment. If you were to disappear, would the circumstances be altered?

You are friends with a cingular employee, your friendship does not affect the outcome. Were you to not exist, that would not be altered. If I were not to be, my presence would not shift the involvement between my brother and my mother. I didn't put you in the ocean where you are drowning, nor do I have a legal duty to rescue you, so if I never was, it wouldn't matter or affect you drowning in the ocean. I didn't do anything to put you there.

Can you extract the mother from these circumstances? No, because she was the one, at this point, who was carrying the child. Moreover, it was as a DIRECT result of HER actions (IE, having sex) that the circumstances depend on. She can not be abstracted out. Therefore, she's involved. If in the circumstnaces you described, if I never existed, that may well not at all alter the circumstances between brother and child.

If you never existed it would not alter the circumstances between cingular and the consumer.

If the mother never existed, the child didn't either. The circumstances are entirely dependant on her presence. You can not take her out of the equation without dramatically altering the circumstances. Ergo, she is part of the circumstances.

If your existance is largely irrelevant to the circumstances, then you are irrelevant to the circumstances (unless you have intentionally taken on the duty to be relevant). It's "but for" causation. If "but for" your presence, would the act have occured? Yes? Then your presence, your existance, is irrelevant, it would have happened anyway.

If no, then your presence IS relevant, and you are involved. The mother is involved.

Your argument about the siblings also involves whether a reasonable person would act in such a way to ensure genetic ties, or would a reasonable person assume it for that period, but that's somewhat abstract from this discussion.

Now I know the argument you're coming up with is "so the mother is therefore involved in everything that her child does for the rest of his life" and that is likewise wrong. Why? Because any other circumstances are irrelevant to the mother. We're not talking about circumstances arrising later, once the child has moved on the mother once again falls into the "unrelated third party" business. But we're not talking about later, we are talking specifically about agreements that resulted on, and as a direct result to, the child's birth. And on matters directly relating to the child's birth, you can not abstract the mother from it. Therefore she is involved in it.

And you keep talking about being forced to reveal her privacy. She's never forced ot do anything. Tort law isn't criminal law, there's no compulsion, she doesn't HAVE to. She merely is made to pay the concequences of her voluntary refusal.

And in your nursing home example, once again, the brother does not play any direct role in the circumstances.

He plays just as direct a role in the circumstances as a mother plays in the obligations between father and child.

Can you extract the mother from these circumstances? No, because she was the one, at this point, who was carrying the child. Moreover, it was as a DIRECT result of HER actions (IE, having sex) that the circumstances depend on. She can not be abstracted out. Therefore, she's involved. If in the circumstnaces you described, if I never existed, that may well not at all alter the circumstances between brother and child.

Let's go ahead and extract the mother, shall we? Suppose the mother dies during childbirth. She is no longer a part of the proceedings. Her husband takes on full custody of the child. Two years down the road, he finds out that the child may not be his and has a paternity test. Can he now remove himself from legal obligation to that child?

The mother *can* be removed from the situation, because the man's obligations are fully and completely to the child. She is withholding information that might change his mind, yes, but she could be gone and the situation would still stand.

The salesman works for the company, thus this is not a good example. Because the company chose the salesman to represent them, he does.

The company was unaware of the salesmans actions. Assume the salesman acted against company regulations. Hell - assume he was a freak who did not even work for the company but just liked frauding people, carrying around ilegally copies of the lease forms and convinging people to sign up for the company even though he was not employed by them.

The victim is still not bound by the lease when the fraud is discovered


Any man who stops caring for a child that he supposedly loved because he finds out that the child is not related to him in the way he thought doesn't have normal human feelings. Love doesn't work for that. It doesn't disappear in a poof of smoke because you aren't related to someone.
And love does not stay there forever and ever irregardless of changing circumstances.

When a child finds out he is adopted, does he automagically stop loving his parents?
I bet no adopted child has ever used the term "You're not my real mum/dad"
And I bet no adopted child has ever gone searching for their 'real' parents.

If a kid can see the difference then why can't you?


Not the woman, the child. The woman is pretty scummy herself. The child, however, does not deserve to be abandoned because of the actions of his mother.
And the man does not deserve to lose out because of the actions of the mother.


We weren't talking about how it "should stand". Arthias said that the law must be this way, that it has to be this way. This is obviously not true because it is not currently this way, nor has it ever been this way.
"Must" and "Has to" are just more emotive and firmer ways of saying "Should". I assume if the law in the US changes to ban abortions then you will not say "The law must allow women to have abortions"? Or if it changes to completely remove heabas corpus (spelling?) you will not say "The accused must have a fair trial"


Maybe it reveals that the women on this board are more likely to think about the child involved than the men on this board?
Why would the think of the child more than a man? Perhaps because when they put themselves in the womans position the child is biologically theirs?



The woman doesn't benefit here. Not only is she going to be labeled all sorts of derogatory terms (many of which she would deserve), but she has to continue to deal with a man who hates her.

The child benefits by receiving adequate care. If the woman is benefitting from child support - using that money on herself, rather than on her child, then she is misusing it, and should be punished.
I can't believe you somehow manage to find a way to seperate the womans finances from the child in this case.

Here - the woman has $500 in her wallet, and needs to spend $100 on food and clothes for the kid.

She spends $100 of her own money - she now has $400 in her walet and the kid has $100 of food and clothes.

She spends $100 of the guys money. She now has $500 in her wallet and the kid has $100 of foos and clothes.

The kid benefits equally in either case. The mother benefits in the case of the guy forking out instead of her as she is now $100 better off. It is the mother who benefits, not the child.

Let's go ahead and extract the mother, shall we? Suppose the mother dies during childbirth. She is no longer a part of the proceedings. Her husband takes on full custody of the child. Two years down the road, he finds out that the child may not be his and has a paternity test. Can he now remove himself from legal obligation to that child?

That wasn't what we were talking about. You can't take a point from one argument and insert it into another argument, it doesn't make sense. It's akin to saying "most comets are made of highly dense ice and that's why Rome fell".

We weren't talking about legal obligation to the child at this point, we were talking about fraud claims to the mother for failure to disclose. Two different things. We've already been around and around as to whether he should have legal obligation to the child, all your "default position" and my refutation of it.

This has nothing to do with that.

To answer your question it would have to do with when she had the obligation. Did she have the obligation before birth, or after? Easier to say after since, again, he didn't make the agremeent with the child until there was a child, and her death is simply happenstance. She can't be sued for fraud because she did nothing wrong, she died before she had the chance to.

This is wholey seperate from whether he should have legal obligation to it, as that is an entirely different argument. Please try to stick with one at a time.

Now if she should have said BEFORE she gave birth, and still didn't...then yes her ESTATE can be sued for damages, civil suits don't go away from death. Now again this is silly as he would have likely been the recipient of her estate, and you can't sue yourself.

"Must" and "Has to" are just more emotive and firmer ways of saying "Should". I assume if the law in the US changes to ban abortions then you will not say "The law must allow women to have abortions"? Or if it changes to completely remove heabas corpus (spelling?) you will not say "The accused must have a fair trial"

Bingo. When I say "must" it's not because the law has some inherent force that will drive it in one direction. I mean it must, as a matter of justice. It should, as a matter of fairness. Sometimes it doesn't, I believe that to be wrong.


Here - the woman has $500 in her wallet, and needs to spend $100 on food and clothes for the kid.

She spends $100 of her own money - she now has $400 in her walet and the kid has $100 of food and clothes.

She spends $100 of the guys money. She now has $500 in her wallet and the kid has $100 of foos and clothes.

The kid benefits equally in either case. The mother benefits in the case of the guy forking out instead of her as she is now $100 better off. It is the mother who benefits, not the child.

You know, there's a point here. If we are in a situation where the woman has enough to supply for the child and still retain a surplus, than any child care benefits she receives would result in further surplus.

Now I don't really have a problem with that in principle, as both parents should be made to pay for the child that is THEIRS. However what ultimitly happens in this scenario is the male who is not the biological father of the child ends up financing the mother's additional surplus.

The only way you can argue differently is if the mother would spend the additional surplus back to the child. In which case she's not gaining, but that only works if the mother doesn't end up with one cent more than she was not receiving child care, and it is only the child who gets more.

This is just a guess - and it might be totally off. But I think I have a gender-neutral answer to the reason why the male and female poll respondants give such different answers.

Assume the voting choice is influenced by three factors:

1. Some people see no reason why a man should support a child that is not theirs - they feel that any agreement to parent the child based on the belief the child was his are void on discovery the child is not his.

2. Some people feel that a man should have no reason to care wether the child is genetically his, and he should have to stick with his choice regardless. And that he should be bound by either/both the agreement he made and the love he has for the child.

3. Some people go 'Darwin' on this. When they put themselves in the position of their gender they want the law to protect the intrests of their genes above the interests of other peoples. Men would not want to pay on this point as it is harmful to their ability to provide for any children he has that are genetically his and it also hinders his chances of finding another mate as he will be broke - the man in this case acts without care for the welfare of the woman or the child that is not genetically his. Woman would want men to pay based on this option as their genes are provided for - their genetic child gets the best start in life and they are financially better off to consider supporting further children - the woman in this case has no regard for the mans welfare as long as she gets suport for her genetic child.


Lets assume the following percentage split - the same split for males and females:

50% vote based on Point 1.
10% vote based on Point 2.
40% vote based on Point 3.

For Females this would lead to 50% voting that the guy should not pay, while 50% vote the guy shoud pay - 10% from Point 1, and 40% from Point 2.

For males this would lead to 90% voting that the guy should not pay. 50% based on Point 1 and 40% from Point 3. And 10% will vote that he should pay, based on Point 2.

This would give:

Males: Pay/Don't Pay = 10/90
Females: Pay/Don't Pay = 50/50

not tooooo far from what we have at the moment


Pure speculation - but I think the three basis for vote choosing are fair representation of why people vote the way they do in this poll - and the % are the same for each gender, reflecting a similar moral spread between the genders.



The % were chosen based on:

the ~10% of men who voted yes are obviously not voting for selfish reasons, or for option 1 (duh...) which leaves the moral obligation in option 2.

the ~50% of women who voted no are not voting for selfish reasons, or for the benefit of the child - so it seems reasonable to assume they are voting for the justification in option 1.

Assuming ~10% of women voted yes on the same basis as men this leaves ~40%. The reason why these 40% vote to the mans detriment and the childs benefit I am specualting could e because in that situation the child will have their genes, and they want to protect/benefit their genes over and above the man and any offsring that are genetically his.

Assume 40% of men vote on the same darwin basis as women.

Bingo. When I say "must" it's not because the law has some inherent force that will drive it in one direction. I mean it must, as a matter of justice. It should, as a matter of fairness. Sometimes it doesn't, I believe that to be wrong.
Glad I got it right :)



The only way you can argue differently is if the mother would spend the additional surplus back to the child. In which case she's not gaining, but that only works if the mother doesn't end up with one cent more than she was not receiving child care, and it is only the child who gets more.

Even then the mother benefits by providing her genetic offspring with a better start - to the detriment of the man and any children he might have that are genetically his. Biology says she benefits.

Even then the mother benefits by providing her genetic offspring with a better start - to the detriment of the man and any children he might have that are genetically his. Biology says she benefits.

Oh well that's really irrelevant, once we start making arguments about "survival of genetics" we might as well throw them in a pit and let them resolve the issue by beating each other with sticks.

Oh well that's really irrelevant, once we start making arguments about "survival of genetics" we might as well throw them in a pit and let them resolve the issue by beating each other with sticks.

Given how many wars there are going on, and the horrors that people have shown that humans are prepared to commit to benefit themselves and their people, I have a pretty low view of how civilised the human race really is.

The point you raised has been responded to at length by myself and others.

The subject of this thread is the parents' obligations and responsibilities to the child in question. The fact that the mother may have behaved badly (though we really don't know enough to assume that from the OP) toward the father does not have anything to do with the issue of care for the CHILD.

If the mother and father have issues between them, that's a topic for another thread. This discussion, as I have understood it, is a discussion about the relationship between parent and child.
The man is this scenario is neither the father nor the parent of the child, although you are arguing that he is in fact both. In reality, the man was at best a care giver. The man should not be punished for the deceitful ways of his wife. It would be a total travesty of justice if the man was ordered to pay support. You have totally discounted the man in this circumstance and slapped labels on him while passing judgement as to his suitability for future associations with children. That is just so totally wrong.

Edit: The question for this thread is:

"Should a man have to support a child if he finds he is not the biological father?"

It is not:

Should a man want to support a child if he finds he is not the biological father?

You automatically assumed that he doesn't want to?

The man is this scenario is neither the father nor the parent of the child, although you are arguing that he is in fact both. In reality, the man was at best a care giver.

According to the OP, the man has been the child's father for two years.

If you are honestly suggesting that a man cannot be a father unless he contributed the sperm that help create a baby, then on behalf of my three adopted cousins and their father: Screw you. :D


The man should not be punished for the deceitful ways of his wife.

Once again, I am hard put to give a shit about the wants of any man who views it as a "punishment" to remain the father of a kid who has been his for two years. Are we really supposed to put the feelings of that kind of scum ahead of the welfare of children? I'm having a lot of trouble with that.


It would be a total travesty of justice if the man was ordered to pay support. You have totally discounted the man in this circumstance and slapped labels on him while passing judgement as to his suitability for future associations with children. That is just so totally wrong.

Actually, I haven't remotely "discounted" the man, since his actions were the focus of everything I've said in the scenario. I have pointed out that he's a shitty parent if he can cut a child out of his life after being its father for two years, and that's what I believe.

You don't have to share my opinion, but please don't cry about the fact that I have one and I share it when asked.



Edit: The question for this thread is:

"Should a man have to support a child if he finds he is not the biological father?"

And that is what I responded to. Please read my posts before you try to respond to them.



It is not:

Should a man want to support a child if he finds he is not the biological father?

You automatically assumed that he doesn't want to?
Actually, no I didn't. Again, please read my posts before you try to respond to me. It will save us both a lot of time.

Once again, I am hard put to give a shit about the wants of any man who views it as a "punishment" to remain the father of a kid who has been his for two years. Are we really supposed to put the feelings of that kind of scum ahead of the welfare of children? I'm having a lot of trouble with that.

Actually, I haven't remotely "discounted" the man, since his actions were the focus of everything I've said in the scenario. I have pointed out that he's a shitty parent if he can cut a child out of his life after being its father for two years, and that's what I believe.

What if he wants to be involved in the child's life, but the mother of the child cuts him out? Should he pay then? If the man has other children, what about their welfare? You have said that you addressed this issue previously. Can you point out which post?

It would be in the child's best interest for the biological parent, and the man who was grossly betrayed by his partner, to pay. That doesn't happen. Someone else said it, but I'll repeat it, as it hasn't been addressed. It is not just the child's wellbeing that has to be looked at. It's all about responsibilities, obligations, and fraud.

The carer of 2 years, cared due to false information. Law doesn't look at love, is he/she being a prick, when deciding who pays. Legally, he shouldn't pay money to the deadbeat Mum if he doesn't want to, especially if it would disadvantage children he had from another relationship.

Once again, I am hard put to give a shit about the wants of any man who views it as a "punishment" to remain the father of a kid who has been his for two years. Are we really supposed to put the feelings of that kind of scum ahead of the welfare of children? I'm having a lot of trouble with that.


Yes because your moral outrage is FAR more important than actual justice and not fineing an innocent man hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next 20 years.

If the child was legally recognised by him as his own child, he is legally the father. So yes, he has legal obligations towards the child in case of divorce.
He was led to legally recognize the child as his own under false pretenses and therefore according to civil law in most states he would not be bound by contract--he was deceived into the agreement, rendering the intial contract dissolved.

It would be in the child's best interest for the biological parent, and the man who was grossly betrayed by his partner, to pay. That doesn't happen. Someone else said it, but I'll repeat it, as it hasn't been addressed. It is not just the child's wellbeing that has to be looked at. It's all about responsibilities, obligations, and fraud.




I brought up that point as well. The most i saw being addressed on the matter of going after the biological father is that it would be "too hard" to do. ::eyeroll::

So does this mean if i have an affair with a married woman and she has my child and doesnt tell hubby, then after a year or two of sucessful deception then im off scott free? WOOHOO!!

I have a ton of hypotheticals that i would like answered for those that want to make men financially responsible for children that arnt genetically thiers.


At what point does this financial responsibility begin on the non genetic man?
#1 The day she discovers she is pregnant she tells hubby baby isnt his. He starts divorce proceedings based on this infidelity.

#2 The wife tells the hubby when she is 6 months pregnant that the child isnt his. He files for divorce before birth.

#3 During the throes of labor the woman screams at hubby that child isnt even his. Hubby wants divorce. Takes few weeks/months to get lawyer file papers etc.

#4 Wife tells hubby after 2 days that baby isnt his.

#5 Wife tells hubby after 3 weeks.

#6 Wife tells hubby after 3 months.

#7 After 6 months.

#8 After a year

#9 now to the circumstances in the OP..2 years.

What situation above is the magical # where you feel this guy is legally obligated to foot the bill for this child for the next 20 years?

Of course in my efforts to defend my position I miss the blatantly obvious.


Let's go ahead and extract the mother, shall we? Suppose the mother dies during childbirth. She is no longer a part of the proceedings. Her husband takes on full custody of the child. Two years down the road, he finds out that the child may not be his and has a paternity test. Can he now remove himself from legal obligation to that child?

Absolutly. In your example the mother is dead and the father has full custody of the child. As the child's one and only legal guardian he may give that child up for adoption, fully removing himself from legal obligation to the child, and as he had full custody, there would be no other guardian to contest it

This is however predicated on whether you can give a 2 year old up for adoption, which I honestly have no idea of.

He was led to legally recognize the child as his own under false pretenses and therefore according to civil law in most states he would not be bound by contract--he was deceived into the agreement, rendering the intial contract dissolved.

Technically untrue. He may have taken on obligations to the child based on misinformation from another, but his obligations are still to the *child*, not to the mother.

If I sign a contract with Person A because Person B told me a lie about them, the contract is not dissolved when I find out. This is because my contract is not with Person B, who lied to me, but with Person A, who has done nothing wrong.

Meanwhile, a contract is generally not going to be dissolved even if the other party to the contract did lie, unless that lie was in writing, as part of the contract.


What if he wants to be involved in the child's life, but the mother of the child cuts him out?

That would be illegal, unless there was some reason for the courts to completely remove his custody of the child.

If the man has other children, what about their welfare?

This is a silly question. If a man has a biological child that he is responsible for, and also has other children, is he allowed to stop meeting his obligations to one in favor of the others? If the man is legally responsible for several children, then he is legally responsible for all of them. If he cannot meet those responsibilities, then he should not have taken them on.

It would be in the child's best interest for the biological parent, and the man who was grossly betrayed by his partner, to pay.

No, it wouldn't.

The carer of 2 years, cared due to false information. Law doesn't look at love, is he/she being a prick, when deciding who pays.

Yes, actually, it generally does. The actions and emotions of the parents are generally taken into account in custody and child support proceedings.

Legally, he shouldn't pay money to the deadbeat Mum if he doesn't want to, especially if it would disadvantage children he had from another relationship.

He doesn't pay money to the mother. He pays money to the child. His obligations, which he took on willingly, are to the child. If he has more children, in addition to this child, then he is responsible for all of them, just as he would be if the first child were biologically his.


I brought up that point as well. The most i saw being addressed on the matter of going after the biological father is that it would be "too hard" to do. ::eyeroll::

You obviously didn't read my posts. As I pointed out before, introducing a new man into the child's life as his father, especially if the biological father was unwilling to be an active part of the child's life, would be detrimental and disruptive. It would not be in the child's best interest.

I have a ton of hypotheticals that i would like answered for those that want to make men financially responsible for children that arnt genetically thiers.

We aren't making men responsible for them. The man does that himself. We are simply holding him to the responsibilities he took on.

What situation above is the magical # where you feel this guy is legally obligated to foot the bill for this child for the next 20 years?

20 years? He is only legally obligated to pay anything until the child is 18.

Meanwhile, it isn't a matter of a "magical number," although the courts could certainly place a specific amount of time on it. Most likely, we'd be looking at the same amount of time in which adoptive parents could "return" the children they take responsibility for. I'm not exactly sure what this time point is, but I wouldn't place it any further out than 6-8 months.


Absolutly. In your example the mother is dead and the father has full custody of the child. As the child's one and only legal guardian he may give that child up for adoption, fully removing himself from legal obligation to the child, and as he had full custody, there would be no other guardian to contest it

Giving a child up for adoption is not the same thing as just abandoning that child. By doing so, the parent is ensuring that the child is placed in the care of either new parents or an agency with the duty of finding new parents. The parents in question are put through quite a bit of scrutiny, so the chances that the child will not be provided for are slim.

This is quite different from the situation in which a parent removes legal obligations without passing them on to someone else.

This is however predicated on whether you can give a 2 year old up for adoption, which I honestly have no idea of.

You can give a child of any age up for adoption, assuming that you find a qualified agency/set of adoptive parents that will take on the legal responsibilities. Of course, up until such an agency/adult/couple is found, you still carry those legal responsibilties. You have no opportunity to dissolve them until someone else takes them on.

Hell no. Why should he?
Bingo
Why should he have to pay for something that happened because his wife decided to be a tramp?

we're not talking family bonds. We're not talking emotional connections. We're talking legal requirements here.

You may consider both parents your mothers for the purposes of your family life, but it doesn't mean both are in the purpose of law.

This needs to be read and re-read again and again by several posters in this thread until it sinks in.

I would personally have a low opinion of a man that walks out of the life of a child that depends on him, but that is meaningless when we are talking about legal obligations.

You can't legally force a person to be a present and involved parent, you can legally force them to be financially responsible.
If you need to LEGALLY FORCE someone to be responsible for their child, then all consideration of who is a good parent and who is in the child's life are obviously irrelevant.

Whether someone hates their deadbeat Dad or loves their adoptive Dad has nothing to do with who the law can and should hold legally financially responsible.

I have a ton of hypotheticals that i would like answered for those that want to make men financially responsible for children that arnt genetically thiers.


At what point does this financial responsibility begin on the non genetic man?
#1 The day she discovers she is pregnant she tells hubby baby isnt his. He starts divorce proceedings based on this infidelity.

#2 The wife tells the hubby when she is 6 months pregnant that the child isnt his. He files for divorce before birth.

#3 During the throes of labor the woman screams at hubby that child isnt even his. Hubby wants divorce. Takes few weeks/months to get lawyer file papers etc.

#4 Wife tells hubby after 2 days that baby isnt his.

#5 Wife tells hubby after 3 weeks.

#6 Wife tells hubby after 3 months.

#7 After 6 months.

#8 After a year

#9 now to the circumstances in the OP..2 years.

What situation above is the magical # where you feel this guy is legally obligated to foot the bill for this child for the next 20 years?
NONE of the above. He is not the father. He is not the adoptive father. At best he was a care giver and he was deceived for two years and nine months into believing he was the father.

Question for you. What would be the chances of this guy suing for custody and succeeding, given that he isn't the biological father, that he isn't the adoptive father, and that it would be unlikely that the mother would be ruled unfit as a mother based solely on the fact that she committed adultery?

This needs to be read and re-read again and again by several posters in this thread until it sinks in.

I would personally have a low opinion of a man that walks out of the life of a child that depends on him, but that is meaningless when we are talking about legal obligations.

You can't legally force a person to be a present and involved parent, you can legally force them to be financially responsible.
If you need to LEGALLY FORCE someone to be responsible for their child, then all consideration of who is a good parent and who is in the child's life are obviously irrelevant.

Whether someone hates their deadbeat Dad or loves their adoptive Dad has nothing to do with who the law can and should hold legally financially responsible.
The "deadbeat father" in this case, would be the man who impregnated the adulteress woman. The "scum" in this case is the man who impregnated a married woman, and he should be held responsible for his actions as much as the adulteress.

Giving a child up for adoption is not the same thing as just abandoning that child.

True.

That is not, however, what you asked.

You asked:

can he now remove himself from legal obligation to that child?

The answer, is yes. If you want to talk about abandonment then ask about abandonment, don't ask if he can "remove himself from legal obligation". If you wanted me to address a question one way, then ask it that way.

Moreover as I said before, that was a side answer, and regardless of the answer, it has nothing to do with a fraud claim.

one thing I can not understand, one thing I can not understand AT ALL, is that the same people in the "man's right to chose" thread who advocate a man should be held responsibile for the child he helped CONCEIVE have been absolutly and totally silent about the obligation of the biological father in this instance.

Amusing is all.

The fact that the mother may have behaved badly (though we really don't know enough to assume that from the OP) toward the father does not have anything to do with the issue of care for the CHILD.
The mother did behave badly toward her husband. That is obvious but you are soft peddling the woman's role. The woman had unprotected sex with another man, risking pregnancy (and succeeding) and STDs. I consider that pretty bad. Allowing her husband to believe that he was the father is also immoral, and I would even say cruel.

According to the OP, the man has been the child's father for two years.
The OP doesn't say that the man was the father. The man might have assumed that he was the father, but he was not.

If you are honestly suggesting that a man cannot be a father unless he contributed the sperm that help create a baby, then on behalf of my three adopted cousins and their father: Screw you. :D
I never suggested that at all. He obviously can't be the biological father, and he was never given the opportunity to be an adoptive father because he didn't find out that he wasn't the father until the divorce. At best, the man was a care giver and a father figure, nothing more.

Once again, I am hard put to give a shit about the wants of any man who views it as a "punishment" to remain the father of a kid who has been his for two years. Are we really supposed to put the feelings of that kind of scum ahead of the welfare of children? I'm having a lot of trouble with that.
The child never was his to begin with. You call the man "scum", yet it was the woman who created the circumstances with her adulteress ways. The woman put her feelings ahead of both her husband and the child she was to conceive by having unprotected sex with another man. The woman was selfish, careless, and totally dishonest, and yet you continue to berate the man. I see a definite pattern to your argument.

Actually, I haven't remotely "discounted" the man, since his actions were the focus of everything I've said in the scenario. I have pointed out that he's a shitty parent if he can cut a child out of his life after being its father for two years, and that's what I believe.
He never was the parent nor the father, and yes I really believe that you can't objectively look at the man's situation.

You don't have to share my opinion, but please don't cry about the fact that I have one and I share it when asked.
I obviously don't share your opinion and I am surely not crying about your opinion, but I reserve the right to call you on it.

And that is what I responded to. Please read my posts before you try to respond to them.
I have read your posts, hence the comments to same.

Actually, no I didn't. Again, please read my posts before you try to respond to me. It will save us both a lot of time.
I am sorry, I was wrong on this one point. I stand by the rest.

So does this mean if i have an affair with a married woman and she has my child and doesnt tell hubby, then after a year or two of sucessful deception then im off scott free? WOOHOO!!

I have a feeling that if the Shmuck dies then it will suddenly not be 'too hard' or 'too emotionally upsetting to introduce another parent' for them to track you down to pay maintenance.

Technically untrue. He may have taken on obligations to the child based on misinformation from another, but his obligations are still to the *child*, not to the mother.

If I sign a contract with Person A because Person B told me a lie about them, the contract is not dissolved when I find out. This is because my contract is not with Person B, who lied to me, but with Person A, who has done nothing wrong.

Meanwhile, a contract is generally not going to be dissolved even if the other party to the contract did lie, unless that lie was in writing, as part of the contract.
If Person B writes/words a contract for you to sign owing you responsibility to person A and lies about the conditions of the contract then the contract is void - even if Person A had no involvement at all.


This is a silly question. If a man has a biological child that he is responsible for, and also has other children, is he allowed to stop meeting his obligations to one in favor of the others? If the man is legally responsible for several children, then he is legally responsible for all of them. If he cannot meet those responsibilities, then he should not have taken them on.
Rememebr - he took one of the responsibilities on on a fraud. And the results of that fraud sure are not in the best intetests of his own children.


He doesn't pay money to the mother. He pays money to the child. His obligations, which he took on willingly, are to the child. If he has more children, in addition to this child, then he is responsible for all of them, just as he would be if the first child were biologically his.
I still don;t see how you can seperate the mothers and childs finances so easily:

as before:

Here - the woman has $500 in her wallet, and needs to spend $100 on food and clothes for the kid.

She spends $100 of her own money - she now has $400 in her walet and the kid has $100 of food and clothes.

She spends $100 of the guys money. She now has $500 in her wallet and the kid has $100 of food and clothes.

The kid benefits equally in either case. The mother benefits in the case of the guy forking out instead of her as she is now $100 better off. It is the mother who benefits, not the child.

What if he wants to be involved in the child's life, but the mother of the child cuts him out?
That would be illegal, unless there was some reason for the courts to completely remove his custody of the child.

What if she moves to California when before they lived in Florida? Or something similar to cut him out. He's allowed to visit, it will only cost a few $1000 each time he does so. Everyone except a certain few are avoiding talking about the deadbeat mum, it's all about deadbeat dads.


If the man has other children, what about their welfare?

This is a silly question. If a man has a biological child that he is responsible for, and also has other children, is he allowed to stop meeting his obligations to one in favor of the others? If the man is legally responsible for several children, then he is legally responsible for all of them. If he cannot meet those responsibilities, then he should not have taken them on.

It is not a silly question. There has been discussion about the child's welfare being so important, that the lied to carer seems to have no rights. I have introduced the fact that other children may be disadvantaged, and their welfare is important too, as child's right seem to be the only factor in some peoples minds.


It would be in the child's best interest for the biological parent, and the man who was grossly betrayed by his partner, to pay.

No, it wouldn't.

In cash terms, it would be. More money is better. We aren't talking visitation rights, we're talking who pays. Having 2 fathers would potentially mess the child up. That's not the point. We're talking who pays child support.

I had this reply mostly written, then real life interrupted for about 10 hours or so. I haven't read any more of the thread since, so sorry if some of this has been answered since. I'm also trying to do nested quotes for the 1st time and hope I have it correct. If not wait about ten minutes for the edit.

I have a feeling that if the Shmuck dies then it will suddenly not be 'too hard' or 'too emotionally upsetting to introduce another parent' for them to track you down to pay maintenance.

QFT

What if she moves to California when before they lived in Florida? Or something similar to cut him out. He's allowed to visit, it will only cost a few $1000 each time he does so. Everyone except a certain few are avoiding talking about the deadbeat mum, it's all about deadbeat dads.
And then the biological dad moves in with the "deadbeat mum", as you call her, and here is the poor schmuck still supporting a child he will rarely see, while the "deadbeat dad" gets it on with the poor schmuck's ex-wife. It is only a matter of time before the 2 year old would be told that his/her "real" daddy is living with him/her. The bottom line is that the poor schmuck gets stuck with the bill for his ex-wife's indiscretions, with little or no input into the child's upbringing.

If I was a the woman's cuckolded husband, and was ordered to pay support, I would ask for joint custody, and a limitation to the geographical movement of my ex-wife. Anything less would be totally unacceptable.