NationStates Jolt Archive

Colorodo is working on a bill that if signed into law would allow men to avoid paying child support if their ex duped them into raising a kid who isn't theirs. This only seems fair to me. Why should a man be forced to pay for a kid that's not even his just because his cheating ex got knocked up by another guy? Why has it taken this long to even start debating the law?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_5312721,00.html

Why does it even need to be a law? You're only required to support your kids. If the kid isn't yours, the law should already cover that, no?

Colorodo is working on a bill that if signed into law would allow men to avoid paying child support if their ex duped them into raising a kid who isn't theirs. This only seems fair to me. Why should a man be forced to pay for a kid that's not even his just because his cheating ex got knocked up by another guy? Why has it taken this long to even start debating the law?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_5312721,00.html

I'm kind of torn here. I understand the biological father feeling like he's been had on this, but on the other hand, does he feel nothing for those kids? He helped raise them, didn't he? Does he want to just cut all ties with them now because he's found that the biological link he thought he had with them doesn't exist? That's kid of assholish if you ask me. Just because their mom dicked him over doesn't mean those kids think of someone else as daddy now, after all. It's the kids who are supposed to be the main concern here, after all.

Colorodo is working on a bill that if signed into law would allow men to avoid paying child support if their ex duped them into raising a kid who isn't theirs. This only seems fair to me. Why should a man be forced to pay for a kid that's not even his just because his cheating ex got knocked up by another guy? Why has it taken this long to even start debating the law?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_5312721,00.html

I support this legislation.

Why does it even need to be a law? You're only required to support your kids. If the kid isn't yours, the law should already cover that, no?

Not in all states. In some states it can go like this. You get married, wife cheats, gets pregnant, you divorce the cheating whore and she still gets child support even if DNA proves it's not yours.

Not in all states. In some states it can go like this. You get married, wife cheats, gets pregnant, you divorce the cheating whore and she still gets child support even if DNA proves it's not yours.Simply because the child isn't yours biologically doesn't mean it isn't yours, unless of course, you're saying that people who adopt and then split up should never have to pay child support.

I'm kind of torn here. I understand the biological father feeling like he's been had on this, but on the other hand, does he feel nothing for those kids? He helped raise them, didn't he? Does he want to just cut all ties with them now because he's found that the biological link he thought he had with them doesn't exist? That's kid of assholish if you ask me. Just because their mom dicked him over doesn't mean those kids think of someone else as daddy now, after all. It's the kids who are supposed to be the main concern here, after all.

Assuming that they were married, he helped raise them and he knew that they weren't his, I'd fully support making him pay child support. But I could see certain situations where the father is tricked and shouldn't have to shoulder the responsiblity if he doesn't want to or if it had created a rift in the family.

I'm kind of torn here. I understand the biological father feeling like he's been had on this, but on the other hand, does he feel nothing for those kids? He helped raise them, didn't he? Does he want to just cut all ties with them now because he's found that the biological link he thought he had with them doesn't exist? That's kid of assholish if you ask me. Just because their mom dicked him over doesn't mean those kids think of someone else as daddy now, after all. It's the kids who are supposed to be the main concern here, after all.

You're right on many points here, however, child support can be a huge burden on someone who has to pay it. If the child were truly theirs, it would make perfect sense to have to pay it. However, if the child isn't theirs, there should be no [I]legal/i] obligation to pay.

However, based on what you've said, it would make sense, to me, that someone would still pay some money to help support the kid, even if it's not as much as would legally be required.

I'm kind of torn here. I understand the biological father feeling like he's been had on this, but on the other hand, does he feel nothing for those kids? He helped raise them, didn't he? Does he want to just cut all ties with them now because he's found that the biological link he thought he had with them doesn't exist? That's kid of assholish if you ask me. Just because their mom dicked him over doesn't mean those kids think of someone else as daddy now, after all. It's the kids who are supposed to be the main concern here, after all.

a good person would probably support children he loves regardless of the link between them and its biological basis or lack thereof.

That said, the law should not legislate away my ability to be an asshole. The law should not tell me to support children that are not mine. The law shouldn't tell me how much I should support other people's children.

If I chose to do so good, if I don't...maybe I'm an asshole But the law shouldn't prevent me from being an asshole.

Not in all states. In some states it can go like this. You get married, wife cheats, gets pregnant, you divorce the cheating whore and she still gets child support even if DNA proves it's not yours.

Only in four states (Georgia, Florida, Maryland and Ohio have laws that protect men who prove they are not biological fathers). I'm a little torn, too, but remember, the bill does not say that he has to stop paying child support, only that he can petition for a release from the obligation after proving that he's not the father. The guy has to initiate the action. certainly if he loves the kid but can't stay married to the mother, he can continue to pay support.

I'm kind of torn here. I understand the biological father feeling like he's been had on this, but on the other hand, does he feel nothing for those kids? He helped raise them, didn't he? Does he want to just cut all ties with them now because he's found that the biological link he thought he had with them doesn't exist? That's kid of assholish if you ask me. Just because their mom dicked him over doesn't mean those kids think of someone else as daddy now, after all. It's the kids who are supposed to be the main concern here, after all.


I think there is a deep, instinctive aversion to using your resources to care for someone else's genetic investment.

Assuming that they were married, he helped raise them and he knew that they weren't his, I'd fully support making him pay child support. But I could see certain situations where the father is tricked and shouldn't have to shoulder the responsiblity if he doesn't want to or if it had created a rift in the family.

I'm all about going after the biological father and making him foot the bill--maybe even make him responsible for what the jilted dad currently owes and paying some from now on. But there's more than biology to fatherhood, and it seems to me that this "father" is being really shitty toward two innocent kids he apparently thought were his for a while. The kids don't deserve that treatment. The wife, sure, but not the kids.

Simply because the child isn't yours biologically doesn't mean it isn't yours, unless of course, you're saying that people who adopt and then split up should never have to pay child support.

There is a big difference here. Under the abortion circumstance, it is assumed that both parents chose to support the child, under the topics circumstance, the father was tricked into supporting the child.

For the abortion analogy to be true, the mother must have gone behind the father's back to secure the abortion and then expect the father to support it after she adopted.

courts have ruled in various places that if you have been supporting a child for a significant amount of time as its father then you must continue doing so even if you find out that you are not the child's father.

its always seemed a bit nutz to me. it should be enough for him to end any relationship with the child as soon as he finds out the truth. but the state wants to have someone pay for the child so the man stays on the hook.

wrong wrong wrong

there was a woman in albuquerque who didnt just have her ex husband pay for a child that wasnt his, she had him pay for a child that didnt exist! she pretended to have a baby, forged both a birth certificate and dna test and made him pay child support for 5 years. it only ended about a year ago when a judge finally required her to bring the child to court. she tried to pass off a strange child as her own and got busted for it.

I'm all about going after the biological father and making him foot the bill--maybe even make him responsible for what the jilted dad currently owes and paying some from now on. But there's more than biology to fatherhood, and it seems to me that this "father" is being really shitty toward two innocent kids he apparently thought were his for a while. The kids don't deserve that treatment. The wife, sure, but not the kids.

It's hard. I guess this is why things like this go to court. Any single all encompassing answer is going to screw somebody over at some point that didn't deserve it.

I think there is a deep, instinctive aversion to using your resources to care for someone else's genetic investment.

Part of it has to do with your knowledge of it, certainly. When I got married, my now ex-wife had a son who was five, and I certainly didn't begrudge any money spent on him. In fact, when we split, the amount we agreed on for child support took him into account, even though it wasn't written into the divorce decree, and I still got visitation with him until he decided to stop coming when he was fifteen. I'd certainly feel more strongly if my ex had gotten pregnant with someone else and told me it was mine and I discovered later that it wasn't. But that shouldn't negate the relationship that father built with those kids--there's more to being a parent than genetics. It just seems to me that this father is using this fact to lash out at his ex, but he's not considering that the kids are the ones who are being hurt by it.

courts have ruled in various places that if you have been supporting a child for a significant amount of time as its father then you must continue doing so even if you find out that you are not the child's father.

its always seemed a bit nutz to me. it should be enough for him to end any relationship with the child as soon as he finds out the truth. but the state wants to have someone pay for the child so the man stays on the hook.

wrong wrong wrong

there was a woman in albuquerque who didnt just have her ex husband pay for a child that wasnt his, she had him pay for a child that didnt exist! she pretended to have a baby, forged both a birth certificate and dna test and made him pay child support for 5 years. it only ended about a year ago when a judge finally required her to bring the child to court. she tried to pass off a strange child as her own and got busted for it.

Well, sure, you can always find the ones who abuse the living daylights out of the system, the welfare families with three Cadillacs and home theatres and all that crap. They should pay the penalty when found out, but you cannot tar every divorced mother with that brush.

As has been said, there's potential here for harming the children, who are the innocents in this case. That's why I'm torn.

The issue is all about the child. If the child is raised as yours, no matter the biology of the matter, you are the legal guardian. By divorcing the mother, you are still obliged to care for the child. That's the state of the law in most jurisdictions. Just because the child is not genetically yours (say, a sperm donor was used because of infertility), does not nullify your responsibility to the child. Unfortunately, this new law is endemic of a system in which a child is seen as a pawn in a relationship, and the subsequent divorce, rather than as an end in him/herself. If you would like to examine aspects of the masculinist agenda regarding child custody and spousal support, I think the two are intimately related. I guess I'm trying to say that we still have a pretty disfunctional society and legal system when it comes to children and fathers.

There is a big difference here. Under the abortion circumstance, it is assumed that both parents chose to support the child, under the topics circumstance, the father was tricked into supporting the child.

For the abortion analogy to be true, the mother must have gone behind the father's back to secure the abortion and then expect the father to support it after she adopted.I disagree. He agreed to support the child at some point after he found out she was pregnant. If it was his child biologically, he wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

Part of it has to do with your knowledge of it, certainly. When I got married, my now ex-wife had a son who was five, and I certainly didn't begrudge any money spent on him. In fact, when we split, the amount we agreed on for child support took him into account, even though it wasn't written into the divorce decree, and I still got visitation with him until he decided to stop coming when he was fifteen. I'd certainly feel more strongly if my ex had gotten pregnant with someone else and told me it was mine and I discovered later that it wasn't. But that shouldn't negate the relationship that father built with those kids--there's more to being a parent than genetics. It just seems to me that this father is using this fact to lash out at his ex, but he's not considering that the kids are the ones who are being hurt by it.

You knowingly chose to raise that boy. A guy who's been tricked into raising someone else's kid is the victim of fraud.

It's not like this kid is now without support. The biological father can and should be held responsible for future payments.

a good person would probably support children he loves regardless of the link between them and its biological basis or lack thereof.

That said, the law should not legislate away my ability to be an asshole. The law should not tell me to support children that are not mine. The law shouldn't tell me how much I should support other people's children.

If I chose to do so good, if I don't...maybe I'm an asshole But the law shouldn't prevent me from being an asshole.

I understand that--that's why I said I'm torn on this. At the very least, I'd like to see the state step in with some sort of program to protect the kids financially if the biological father can't be found, and I'd also want to make sure that the former father understands that if he takes this step, he's gone from their lives as far as any rights or privileges are concerned--no visitation, no choices over medical decisions, nothing. The cut works both ways.

I had a girl trick me into thinking that she had my kid. If I had signed anything at all acknowledging that it was mine, then apparently the State of Utah could garnish my wages even if after the DNA test showed that it wasn't mine.

I had a girl trick me into thinking that she had my kid. If I had signed anything at all acknowledging that it was mine, then apparently the State of Utah could garnish my wages even if after the DNA test showed that it wasn't mine.
If you're not married it's always a good idea to get the paternity test ASAP. Maybe it's a good idea even if you are married.

If you're not married it's always a good idea to get the paternity test ASAP. Maybe it's a good idea even if you are married.

Now that's a sad thought.

How many states even allow DNA tests in paternity cases, anyway? I'm pretty sure there's a lot of red tape.

Now that's a sad thought.

We're a sad species.

Colorodo is working on a bill that if signed into law would allow men to avoid paying child support if their ex duped them into raising a kid who isn't theirs. This only seems fair to me. Why should a man be forced to pay for a kid that's not even his just because his cheating ex got knocked up by another guy? Why has it taken this long to even start debating the law?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_5312721,00.html

I like the bill. If she lied, deliberately, she should be required to be paying back everything, that's fraud.

If you're not married it's always a good idea to get the paternity test ASAP. Maybe it's a good idea even if you are married.

yep
it's a long story I dont want to get into but, damn, people you really trust can be completely scandelous, so even though it doesnt seem plausible... trust no one!

We're a sad species.

We ought to struggle to rise above it.

How many states even allow DNA tests in paternity cases, anyway? I'm pretty sure there's a lot of red tape.

I think you can get a paternity test most anywhere, the question is, if you do prove the kid's not yours, only four states allow the guy off the hook for child support.

We ought to struggle to rise above it.

isn't skepticism better than false hope?

Well, sure, you can always find the ones who abuse the living daylights out of the system, the welfare families with three Cadillacs and home theatres and all that crap. They should pay the penalty when found out, but you cannot tar every divorced mother with that brush.

As has been said, there's potential here for harming the children, who are the innocents in this case. That's why I'm torn.

there is big potential for harming the children.

im still not torn. if a man is willing to walk away from a child he has raised for a number of years just because he is not the child's father, he should go and not be allowed to look back.

if he stays, he should be declared the child's legal father.

We ought to struggle to rise above it.

To some extent we have and we continue to do so, but I believe that there is only so far above it that we can go.

I disagree. He agreed to support the child at some point after he found out she was pregnant. If it was his child biologically, he wouldn't have a choice in the matter.


The point being that his decision is a result of fraud, and decisions that are made under coersion and fraud are not binding.

Well I'm just glad I'm snipped now. If my wife gets pregnant, I wont need a DNA test to determine if it's mine or not.

isn't skepticism better than false hope?

To some extent we have and we continue to do so, but I believe that there is only so far above it that we can go.

I just think it's pretty grim, advocating routine paternity tests. If you distrust her that much, guys, why are you even with her?

And anyway, routine paternity tests will just lead to mandatory maternity tests, and then trans-gendered people will want them, and then Rev Haggerty will insist on one, and the next thing you know, someone is molesting a garden gnome on Neesika's front lawn. :D

I just think it's pretty grim, advocating routine paternity tests. If you distrust her that much, guys, why are you even with her?

And anyway, routine paternity tests will just lead to mandatory maternity tests, and then trans-gendered people will want them, and then Rev Haggerty will insist on one, and the next thing you know, someone is molesting a garden gnome on Neesika's front lawn. :D

That's hot.

The point being that his decision is a result of fraud, and decisions that are made under coersion and fraud are not binding.I don't see where the coercion is.
I don't see how it would be remotely considered to be fraud unless during the pregnancy the woman specifically told the guy that the baby was biologically his.

I just think it's pretty grim, advocating routine paternity tests. If you distrust her that much, guys, why are you even with her?

And anyway, routine paternity tests will just lead to mandatory maternity tests, and then trans-gendered people will want them, and then Rev Haggerty will insist on one, and the next thing you know, someone is molesting a garden gnome on Neesika's front lawn. :D

It is grim but I have no faith in humanity. I may be able to rise above such things but there is no way to make someone else do it.

The hussy I was with when that all went down was a good con artist. Very good. I was also young and naive and liked getting a lot of tail so I didnt question her trustworhtyness when we got together.

My wife now is completely trustworthy as I waited many years of being with her to even commit to her!

ANd that was pretty hot.

It is grim but I have no faith in humanity. I may be able to rise above such things but there is no way to make someone else do it.

The hussy I was with when that all went down was a good con artist. Very good. I was also young and naive and liked getting a lot of tail so I didnt question her trustworhtyness when we got together.

My wife now is completely trustworthy as I waited many years of being with her to even commit to her!

ANd that was pretty hot.

I suppose, not being male, I can't really appreciate what it's like getting involved with a deceitful woman who uses sex as a way to get what she wants. I've been with a few gals who were deceitful in their own way - children wouldn't ever enter into it, naturally. I congratulate you on your present circumstances.

And Neesika will be pleased her sig has warmed your ... uhm ... anyway, she'll be pleased.

I don't see where the coercion is.
I don't see how it would be remotely considered to be fraud unless the woman specifically told the guy that the baby was biologically his.


If my wife got pregnant (and I wasnt snipped), I would assume that it was mine (unless I knew she was sleeping around); If she never said otherwise, I would consider that fraud because, obviously, she knows that I will most likely think its mine.

I don't see where the coercion is.
I don't see how it would be remotely considered to be fraud unless during the pregnancy the woman specifically told the guy that the baby was biologically his.

I can agree with this, but I would also say that there is a definitive assumption concerning the biological link between the child and father.

Hmm. An interesting issue and not totally unfamiliar to me.

Just for comparison, let me describe in sort how things are handled here... Basically only the biological parent (mother OR father) is legally responsible to provide for a child. And that means legally responsible. There are many cases where the step-parent actually takes part voluntarily in one manner or another - sometimes financial - even after divorce, after learning to love the kids. Nowadays "neo families" as we call them are more common than "nuclear families", after all. Meaning It's more common to have a family with "his" children and/or "her" children from a previous, erm... engagement than having actually children biologically shared.

Yea, yea... we frak around...

But as the law goes, it is perfectly clear. You have a biological kid under 18, you pay. If you are unable to pay even the absolute minimum amount (currently around 120 E or 150 USD per month), the social security will pay it for you to the parent who has primary custody.

So, just out of curiosity, does your local system (be it US or something other) guarantee at least a basic alimony for the non-primary custodian? Can he/she be held responsible for any alimony debts to the CPS if he/she has not been released of the duty by a court decision for insuccifient income. Or what?

Joona

P.S. As for the law described in the opening post. That should be self-evident and not even require a separate law as the law already states that a biological parent is responsible. Or doesn't it?

As for the law described in the opening post. That should be self-evident and not even require a separate law as the law already states that a biological parent is responsible. Or doesn't it?

The law may state - it probably does - that paternity doesn't matter.

I suppose, not being male, I can't really appreciate what it's like getting involved with a deceitful woman who uses sex as a way to get what she wants. I've been with a few gals who were deceitful in their own way - children wouldn't ever enter into it, naturally. I congratulate you on your present circumstances.

And Neesika will be pleased her sig has warmed your ... uhm ... anyway, she'll be pleased.

It was a slap in the face and hurt me deeply. But I did learn to watch my back a bit better.

Neesika warms my everything.

Oops... I might have made a terminology mistake there. I am not a native Anglo, after all. By "alimony" I by no means referred to ex spousal support as in for the ex. As for an adult who you have divorced. There is no way in hell such would be legally required here in any circumstance.

I just meant the duty of supporting your bio offspring at least financially if he/she/it is not living primarily in your custody and is below the age of consent.

Joona

If my wife got pregnant (and I wasnt snipped), I would assume that it was mine (unless I knew she was sleeping around); If she never said otherwise, I would consider that fraud because, obviously, she knows that I will most likely think its mine.

I can agree with this, but I would also say that there is a definitive assumption concerning the biological link between the child and father.There might be an assumption that the child will turn out to have a certain hair color or be heterosexual, but we don't allow fathers to cease supporting their children if these assumptions turn out to be wrong. Why is biology a more valid reason?

This should be a federal law. And the ex-wives should possibly be tried for fraud. (Well, they did con the husband out of money)

The law may state - it probably does - that paternity doesn't matter.

Hmm. That is most curious, but understandable. And note that our law makes no difference between sexes. Hence my rather awkward sounding overly PC use of "parent" and "he/she". Whatever actual difference there is due to different genders (ie. a mother can hardly claim a kid she gave birth to isn't hers - not that a father could either, we living in GATTACA nowadays), that is no business for a legislation.

Joona

There might be an assumption that the child will turn out to have a certain hair color or be heterosexual, but we don't allow fathers to cease supporting their children if these assumptions turn out to be wrong. Why is biology a more valid reason?


Because my wife can stop herself from having kids with other people. If she has sex with someone else and wants to keep the resulting child then she can raise it with that other dude because they obviously werent so worried about having children together.

Personally I dont want kids. I resolved never to have kids and got snipped. I shouldnt have to pay for a kid that I never wanted. If I raised that kid for a while and then later found out it wasnt mine I'm sure I would continue to raise it as if it were - still I dont think that it shoudl be the law for a man to be responsible for a child he was tricked into raising as his own if he no longer wishes it. It may be a dickish thing for that guy to do but I think it shoudl be his right to cut off his connection with her and the child if he wants without a monetary penalty.

Because my wife can stop herself from having kids with other people. If she has sex with someone else and wants to keep the resulting child then she can raise it with that other dude because they obviously werent so worried about having children together. I agree that the biological father should be the first source of child support. However, I fail to see why not being the biological father would absolve somebody completely, in instances such as when the biological father can't be found.

I agree that the biological father should be the first source of child support. However, I fail to see why not being the biological father would absolve somebody completely, in instances such as when the biological father can't be found.


If you agree to raise a kid with someone because it is yours but find out later that it isnt, then that agreement should not be binding. A person should be responsible for the offspring they bring into this world and the people they want to take care of. I dont see why you would say the biological parent shoudl be the first source of child support if you dont see what the genetic makeup of a kid has to do with how a parent feels about said kid.

Are you talking about years after the kid was born and the parent just finding out or all cases?

If you agree to raise a kid with someone because it is yours but find out later that it isnt, then that agreement should not be binding. A person should be responsible for the offspring they bring into this world and the people they want to take care of.I agree, and in this instance, the father initially agreed to take care of the kid. I don't see why he should be able to back out of it.

I dont see why you would say the biological parent shoudl be the first source of child support if you dont see what the genetic makeup of a kid has to do with how a parent feels about said kid. I think the biological parent should be the first source of child support because they created the child. However, if a man agrees to take care of a child, I don't see why he should be able to back out. How the man feels about the kid doesn't matter; there are plenty of biological fathers who want nothing to do with their children but have to pay child support anyway.

Are you talking about years after the kid was born and the parent just finding out or all cases?The former; what other cases would there be?

I'm kind of torn here. I understand the biological father feeling like he's been had on this, but on the other hand, does he feel nothing for those kids? He helped raise them, didn't he? Does he want to just cut all ties with them now because he's found that the biological link he thought he had with them doesn't exist? That's kid of assholish if you ask me. Just because their mom dicked him over doesn't mean those kids think of someone else as daddy now, after all. It's the kids who are supposed to be the main concern here, after all.

Sorry Nazz, I'm not buying your argument. These are breeders, after all. It's all about furthering the line.

Why does it even need to be a law? You're only required to support your kids. If the kid isn't yours, the law should already cover that, no?

You would think that.

masculinist agenda regarding child custody and spousal support, I think the two are intimately related. I guess I'm trying to say that we still have a pretty disfunctional society and legal system when it comes to children and fathers.

...yadda yadda bull.

Yes, We DO have a dysfunctional society in that issue. The male is ALWAYS left holding the shorter stik in custody cases, or were you born and raised in a barrel?

"Masculinist agenda"? WTF? To modify a quote from the great playwright and philosopher Voltaire: "I don't mind my women being bitches, I will still defend their right to be bitches to my death."

But you're pushing it. Didn't you ever think that there might be mistreated, heartbroken fathers reading your stuff there? Sheesh.

Joona

Why is it woman never have to pay child support?

Why is it woman never have to pay child support?

Because this (Northern European) society of ours is run by tank tread lesbians and moominmammas. That's why.

MEN! FIGHT for your RIGHT... to be beer guzzling couch potatoes and watching formula 1 and ice hockey! Oh yes.. remember to fart occasionally, too.

Be all you can be. Be a MAN! (just don't join the military cos you can't watch hockey on a couch in the boonies). Military is for pussies, not for Real Men (TM).

Joona

Because this (Northern European) society of ours is run by tank tread lesbians and moominmammas. That's why.


I don't live in Northern Europe, and I don't know what a moominmamma is.

Why is it woman never have to pay child support?

They do, occasionally, despite what you hear from so-called mens rights advocates. If the male gets domiciliary custody of the children, which does happen, then the female pays child support. It's not a gender thing--it's a custody thing.

I think there is a deep, instinctive aversion to using your resources to care for someone else's genetic investment.

how about the biological fathers responsibility to support his offspring?

he gets a pass?

and the guy that got duped gets the burden...i call bullshit.

that said,i raised a girl from infancy,that was not mine,but i knew it going in,she was pregnant(my new girl friend from a previous relationship..he freaked and ran )she did not want an abortion.

we eventually got married,i raised her from birth...i love her to death,my wife and i had another child after my "daughter" was born.
she knows i am not her bio father,and she lives with me in the summer when she is back from college..we are best friends.
my wife and i divorced 10 years ago,and both the kids lived with me since.

my ex and i are very close still and 1 day she said,you know i could go after her bio father for back support and win to help you with the bills for college and whatnot.
i said no way...pride maybe..but i dont want money fom some creep,to help me with someone i love.
i would and did sacrifice everything for her...because i love her.

she contacted him as i imagined she would(kids have to know at some point)and the creep broke her heart and didn't even want to meet her.
she wanted nothing other then to meet her bio dad....what a pos.

that almost made me tell my ex...you know what..go ahead and screw the jerk and we will donate the money to an orphanage or something.

so i guess,it is a tricky situation,i know i could never turn my back emotionally or financially on my daughter,even if i was "duped',but that's just me..i would not judge another for thinking differently.
i will say that the biological father does have a responsibility to his offspring,i just did not want anything from the asshole.
my girl did..some type of anything resembling caring..but he could not manage even that.

rant off

I don't see where the coercion is.
I don't see how it would be remotely considered to be fraud unless during the pregnancy the woman specifically told the guy that the baby was biologically his.

Fraud is a knowing misrepresentation of material fact. Fraud need not be a flat out lie, intentionally withholding material information can be fraud through ommission.

I agree that the biological father should be the first source of child support. However, I fail to see why not being the biological father would absolve somebody completely, in instances such as when the biological father can't be found.

because he's not the father and never agreed to take care of a child that was not biologically his.

I think there is a deep, instinctive aversion to using your resources to care for someone else's genetic investment.
As someone who is using their resources to care for someone else's genetic investment, I can tell you that you think wrong.

I disagree with the proposed law. When you marry someone you are voluntarily making undertakings. If you dont want to abide by the undertakings entailed in marriage it's up to you to negotiate an 'opt out', if you dont, then that's your own mistake, it is not something the state should be required to sort out for you.

Not knowing your spouse is accumulating debts (and even if they lie and tell you they are not) does not negate your obligations to those debts - legally fraud has not occured because you have contracted voluntarily both with your spouse and with the state to incur obligations in respect of the marriage. It should be assumed as a legal fact that where a child is born into a marriage, both spouses have legal rights and obligations in respect of the child. In the absence of reasonable pre-nuptial agreement to the contrary the law should hold that a child of a marriage is for legal purposes the off-spring of both parties to the marriage, just as in the absence of a pre-nuptual debts and earnings accruing during a marriage should vest with both partners. Remember a marriage is a voluntary contract and choosing to enter one unconditionally is agreeing to the obligations associated with marriage. So far as I am concerned a person married to a mother at the time of a child's birth, unless there is some prior agreement between the parties that is acceptable to the state, is for legal purposes a parent of that child. Not only can they be obliged to support the child, they also have the same legal rights to sue for custody. A 'duped father' should stand as much chance of gaining custody and and the mother of paying child support as vice versa. Both parties are agreeing to such a condition at the time of their marriage unless they specifically contract out of the condition.

The courts and law have no business rescuing someone from a contractual obligation that is well known, breaches no law, and is entered into voluntarily, just because the party decides after the fact that they no longer wish to uphold their obligations at law.

I disagree with the proposed law. When you marry someone you are voluntarily making undertakings. If you dont want to abide by the undertakings entailed in marriage it's up to you to negotiate an 'opt out', if you dont, then that's your own mistake, it is not something the state should be required to sort out for you.

Is it your proposition that a man who marries a woman agrees to provide for whatever offspring she may have even if it is not his?

Does the contract of marriage require a husband to take care of all his wife's future children regardless of whether or not he was the one who impregnated her?

If you are going to discuss law of contract I suggest you review law of fraud, and how it voids a contract.

Is it your proposition that a man who marries a woman agrees to provide for whatever offspring she may have even if it is not his?
Yes,

Does the contract of marriage require a husband to take care of all his wife's future children regardless of whether or not he was the one who impregnated her?
No, only children that are born during the term of the marriage, and only where the contract doesnt expressly stipulate an 'opt out' in regards to the particular obligation.

If you are going to discuss law of contract I suggest you review law of fraud, and how it voids a contract.
Law of fraud doesnt apply in such a case because both parties have expressly contracted to take on certain liabilities in regards to each other. Deception is not necessarily fraud, if I promise to respect you in the morning but instead go and brag to all my mates about what a hot little totty you were before proceeding to move onto your sibling and this is what I intended when I told you otherwise, that doesnt constitute fraud. The knowledge of the child's paternity and any deception in regards to it is irrelevent because the contracted obligation isnt to 'only support a child if it is either mine or I'm told it's not and I agree to support it anyway'. No fraud has occured because by entering into the marriage the husband is agreeing to incur obligations to any child born of the marriage whether or not it is his.

Law of fraud doesnt apply in such a case because both parties have expressly contracted to take on certain liabilities in regards to each other.

expressly? At what point does a husband expressly agree to take care of children that are not his? Where is this contract? Where's this written? How is this expressly stated at all?


Deception is not necessarily fraud,

No, willful misrepresentation of material fact upon which another party reasonably relied is fraud. Intentionally with holding the fact that the biological father of the child may be another man is a material fact which may factor into the decision of the husband to support the child.

Ergo withholding that information is fraud.

if I promise to respect you in the morning but instead go and brag to all my mates about what a hot little totty you were before proceeding to move onto your sibling and this is what I intended when I told you otherwise, that doesnt constitute fraud.

No, because there's no reasonable reliance on that. If you show me what reliance there was, and how one could recover based on that reliance, and can show me that you willfully misrepresented to me, then yes, that would be fraud.


The knowledge of the child's paternity and any deception in regards to it is irrelevent because the contracted obligation isnt to 'only support a child if it is either mine or I'm told it's not and I agree to support it anyway'. No fraud has occured because by entering into the marriage the husband is agreeing to incur obligations to any child born of the marriage whether or not it is his.

No he is not and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

expressly? At what point does a husband expressly agree to take care of children that are not his? Where is this contract? Where's this written? How is this expressly stated at all?
The husband agrees when he goes through with the marriage, the marriage is the contract and the particulars of the contract can be found in various legislation and common law.

No, willful misrepresentation of material fact upon which another party reasonably relied is fraud. Intentionally with holding the fact that the biological father of the child may be another man is a material fact which may factor into the decision of the husband to support the child.

Ergo withholding that information is fraud.
US Common law adopted from English common law has until very recently held that any child born in wedlock is legitimate (ie the legal child of both parties to the marriage), and this is still the case in the majority of US states. This means that a man is required to support any child born to his wife regardless of the biological parentage of the child. In other words, even if the wife states "this is not your child" the husband is legally required to provide for the child. The husband has in such circumstances no decision to make, so there is no reliance. He could know as a matter of fact that is not his and it makes not a jot of difference under the common law doctrine I refer to. The obligation to support the child is not in such cases one the husband has any capacity to reject. Until recently this was the case throughout the US, and currently it continues to be the case in the majority of states.

No, because there's no reasonable reliance on that. If you show me what reliance there was, and how one could recover based on that reliance, and can show me that you willfully misrepresented to me, then yes, that would be fraud.
You seem to miss the point. My example was chosen precisely to demonstrate that there are cases in which misleading someone cannot be fraud because there isnt any reliance - the deception doesnt effect one's interests at law. Where the law requires that a man is for all legal purposes the father of any child born to his wife during the time of their marriage, and as such is legally obliged to support the child, even if he, his wife and the courts know as a matter of fact that he is not the biological father, it cannot be fraud to lie to him about the identity of the child's biological father. His legal position is identical whether or not he knows the child is not biologically his own.

No he is not and I challenge you to show me otherwise.
He is if he marries where the law requires that any child born to the marriage is legally his off-spring. This is the aspect of law that the legislation we are discussing is intended to repeal. If it were otherwise than I have stated we wouldnt be having this discussion. The whole point of the legislation we are discussing is to alter the very thing you wish to argue doesnt hold true. If as you seem to believe that were not the case in the absence of the legislation at issue, enacting the legislation would be rather pointless dont you think?

Law of fraud doesnt apply in such a case because both parties have expressly contracted to take on certain liabilities in regards to each other. Deception is not necessarily fraud, if I promise to respect you in the morning but instead go and brag to all my mates about what a hot little totty you were before proceeding to move onto your sibling and this is what I intended when I told you otherwise, that doesnt constitute fraud. The knowledge of the child's paternity and any deception in regards to it is irrelevent because the contracted obligation isnt to 'only support a child if it is either mine or I'm told it's not and I agree to support it anyway'. No fraud has occured because by entering into the marriage the husband is agreeing to incur obligations to any child born of the marriage whether or not it is his.

Does this apply the other way too? For example if the man sleeps around, has a kid with another woman, and wins custody of the child when it is born, is his wife bound to pay for the kid even though its not hers?

I don't live in Northern Europe, and I don't know what a moominmamma is.

I didn't presume you were. In fact I didn't presume anything. I was speaking about us and being self-ironic of this crazy place of shithouse rats as far as it comes to the subject of this thread. Like as in "we" not necessarily meaning "you". Peace, bro. Or sis if that's the case. Erm... hell... "pers"?.

"Moominmamma" is a half sarcastic, half endearing nick for president Tarja Halonen. After Tove Jansson's Moomin troll comics and the aggravatingly matronly, but still loved mom figure there.

Sorry OT.

Joona

There might be an assumption that the child will turn out to have a certain hair color or be heterosexual, but we don't allow fathers to cease supporting their children if these assumptions turn out to be wrong. Why is biology a more valid reason?

Biology is a valid reason because at it's core reproduction is about one's genes trying to survive into the next generation. It's in our instincts to try to pass our genes on. It's why we evolved a sex drive in the first place.

As someone who is using their resources to care for someone else's genetic investment, I can tell you that you think wrong.

We can override our instincts. For example, in A Natural History of Rape the author argues that men who are deprived of chances to procreate might be instinctively inclined to rape. Doesn't mean that they are compelled to rape. Doesn't mean they get excused if they do rape. Men in their late teens to early twenties have a natural tendency to fight among themselves. I guess in the old days it would help determine their hierarchy in the hunter/gatherer band, but today although they do fight among each other more than other age groups, it's still frowned upon and punished by law and many avoid fighting because of that.

The husband agrees when he goes through with the marriage, the marriage is the contract and the particulars of the contract can be found in various legislation and common law. It's assumed when a couple is married that they will have sex exclusively with one another. The contract of marriage, therefore, assumes that all offspring will be the biological children of both the man and woman. When she cheats she breaks the terms of the contract and voids it.

Oh Jesus frakkin christ. Marriages are "contracts" now? I remember an SF novel with that kind of scheme but for the love of Fnord I don't remember its name.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Sir Barry, all right.

Joona Metsäkustannus (inc)

He is if he marries where the law requires that any child born to the marriage is legally his off-spring. This is the aspect of law that the legislation we are discussing is intended to repeal. If it were otherwise than I have stated we wouldnt be having this discussion. The whole point of the legislation we are discussing is to alter the very thing you wish to argue doesnt hold true. If as you seem to believe that were not the case in the absence of the legislation at issue, enacting the legislation would be rather pointless dont you think?

Then your argument is purely nonsensical. You oppose this law because a man who marriess a woman assumes, through the marriage contract, that he will provide for all her offspring born in that marriage.

You support your argument by pointing to legislation that says so.

So you disagree with the change because the contract of marriage in your opinion requires him to support it. But the contract of marriage only requires him to do so because of current legislation.

So you can't argue that you shouldn't change the legislation because it would go against the contract of marriage because by the very definition of changing the law, the contract is changed too.

Fraud is a knowing misrepresentation of material fact. Fraud need not be a flat out lie, intentionally withholding material information can be fraud through ommission.Why should the child's biology be a material fact from a legal point of view?


because he's not the father and never agreed to take care of a child that was not biologically his.He might have never agreed to take care of a child that had brown hair but was biologically his, but he would be required to anyway. I don't see why biology is sufficient.

Biology is a valid reason because at it's core reproduction is about one's genes trying to survive into the next generation. It's in our instincts to try to pass our genes on. It's why we evolved a sex drive in the first place.Why should the law care about what our instincts are?

<snip>
Why should the law care about what our instincts are?

Because when laws work in harmony with human nature as much as possible laws tend to be humane, just, and easy for people to respect. Systems, such as communism, that run contrary to human instincts and human nature are doomed to failure.

Then your argument is purely nonsensical. You oppose this law because a man who marriess a woman assumes, through the marriage contract, that he will provide for all her offspring born in that marriage.

You support your argument by pointing to legislation that says so.

So you disagree with the change because the contract of marriage in your opinion requires him to support it. But the contract of marriage only requires him to do so because of current legislation.

So you can't argue that you shouldn't change the legislation because it would go against the contract of marriage because by the very definition of changing the law, the contract is changed too.

I thought a part of the marriage contract was remaining faithful to each other so if the women gets pregnent by another man she has breached the terms of the contract of marriage and so the man does not have any obligations to that child through the marraige contract.

Is there a reason you have not brought this up in your argument, am I just misinterpretating the marriage vows?

Because when laws work in harmony with human nature as much as possible laws tend to be humane, just, and easy for people to respect.You might have a correlation there, but I don't see how you could demonstrate that the justness of the law is caused by its keeping in line with human nature.

I thought a part of the marriage contract was remaining faithful to each other so if the women gets pregnent by another man she has breached the terms of the contract of marriage and so the man does not have any obligations to that child through the marraige contract.

Is there a reason you have not brought this up in your argument, am I just misinterpretating the marriage vows?

The problem with that is that under law a breech of contract does not void the contract.

If I have an obligation under contract and you have an obligation under contract, and you breech your obligation, I am not freed from my obligation, I must still honor it (unless your breech has rendered me unable to do so, for instance you provide me with raw materials which I refine and sell you the refined goods, your failure to deliver me the raw materials renders me unable to fulfill my obligation).

Your breech does not free me from my obligation to you (or anyone else, unless, as I said, the breech renders me unable to do so). I can't get out of my obligation, I may only sue you for damages as a result of your breech.

Fraud on the other hand DOES break the contract. Or, to put it another way, since the agreement was not made but for the fraud, the contract didn't ever really exist.

if it isn't yours, you don't have to pay for it.

You might have a correlation there, but I don't see how you could demonstrate that the justness of the law is caused by its keeping in line with human nature.

I think part of how we decide if something is fair or just is instinctive. Certainly not the whole decision, but part. It's why we feel the visceral need to punish criminals.

The problem with that is that under law a breech of contract does not void the contract.

If I have an obligation under contract and you have an obligation under contract, and you breech your obligation, I am not freed from my obligation, I must still honor it (unless your breech has rendered me unable to do so, for instance you provide me with raw materials which I refine and sell you the refined goods, your failure to deliver me the raw materials renders me unable to fulfill my obligation).

Your breech does not free me from my obligation to you (or anyone else, unless, as I said, the breech renders me unable to do so). I can't get out of my obligation, I may only sue you for damages as a result of your breech.

Fraud on the other hand DOES break the contract. Or, to put it another way, since the agreement was not made but for the fraud, the contract didn't ever really exist.
Infidelity is grounds for divorce. Getting pregnant with another man's kid is, in other words, grounds for dissolving the marriage contract.

He might have never agreed to take care of a child that had brown hair but was biologically his, but he would be required to anyway. I don't see why biology is sufficient

He certainly agreed to take care of a child that was biologically his.

That has nothing to do with getting MARRIED mind you, he agreed to do so regardless of whether the mother was married to him or not.

He agreed to it the moment he put his penis in her vagina.

I think part of how we decide if something is fair or just is instinctive. Certainly not the whole decision, but part. It's why we feel the visceral need to punish criminals.I would say that the visceral need to punish criminals is simply instinctive.

He certainly agreed to take care of a child that was biologically his.

That has nothing to do with getting MARRIED mind you, he agreed to do so regardless of whether the mother was married to him or not.

He agreed to it the moment he put his penis in her vagina.And if putting his penis into her vagina implies that he will agree to take care of the child that occurs after the event, why shouldn't a marriage contract imply that he will take care of a child that is born after the marriage occurs?

Oh Jesus frakkin christ. Marriages are "contracts" now? I remember an SF novel with that kind of scheme but for the love of Fnord I don't remember its name.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Sir Barry, all right.

Joona Metsäkustannus (inc)

Marriages have always been contracts--some are just more detailed than others. What planet have you been living on?

Infidelity is grounds for divorce. Getting pregnant with another man's kid is, in other words, grounds for dissolving the marriage contract.

So are physical and mental abuse, but that doesn't change the responsibility for the children.

And if putting his penis into her vagina implies that he will agree to take care of the child that occurs after the event, why shouldn't a marriage contract imply that he will take care of a child that is born after the marriage occurs?

Because putting ones penis in another's vagina is causal, it leads to the possibility of a child being born, thus it is considered implicit acceptance of responsibility since the child is a direct potential consequence of your actions.

Getting married is not causal. Pregnancy and birth are not direct potential consequences of getting married. Me getting married will not, in any way, result in a child entering that relationship, AT ALL.

Sex implies taking responsibility for the child because the child is a direct potential consequence of having sex. Marriage does not imply taking responsibility for a child because the child is not a direct potential consequence of getting married.

The idea that marrying a woman implies taking responsibility for all children she will bare during the course of the marriage is equivalent to saying that getting into a cab with a pregnant woman implies taking responsibilities for all children she may give birth to in the cab. One has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with the other, and as such can not be considered an implication of anything.

Responsibility can only be applied if your actions are such to bring about the consequences. I take responsibility for biological children because my acts are what caused that child to exist. Me marrying someone did not result in that child existing.

I would say that the visceral need to punish criminals is simply instinctive.

<snip>

Yeah. That's what I was getting at. Our instincts partly decide what we think is just.

The problem with that is that under law a breech of contract does not void the contract.

If I have an obligation under contract and you have an obligation under contract, and you breech your obligation, I am not freed from my obligation, I must still honor it (unless your breech has rendered me unable to do so, for instance you provide me with raw materials which I refine and sell you the refined goods, your failure to deliver me the raw materials renders me unable to fulfill my obligation).

Your breech does not free me from my obligation to you (or anyone else, unless, as I said, the breech renders me unable to do so). I can't get out of my obligation, I may only sue you for damages as a result of your breech.

Fraud on the other hand DOES break the contract. Or, to put it another way, since the agreement was not made but for the fraud, the contract didn't ever really exist.

Cheers for the clarification

So are physical and mental abuse, but that doesn't change the responsibility for the children.

I'm arguing that since it's implicit in the marriage contract that each spouse will not fuck anyone else that infidelity voids the contract. Once the other guy's dick penetrates the wife's vagina the marriage contract has been broken and any child resulting from that act is concieved and born outside the marriage contract and has no link to the husband. He shouldn't be forced to take care of the newborn bastard. If he chooses to, great, but it should be his choice.

So are physical and mental abuse, but that doesn't change the responsibility for the children.

True. But why is the responsibility there at all in the case of the partner being unfaithful ? If a man makes another woman pregnant without his wifes consent, is his wife responsible for the offspring - or is that between the man and the impregnated woman ?

I'm arguing that since it's implicit in the marriage contract that each spouse will not fuck anyone else that infidelity voids the contract. Once the other guy's dick penetrates the wife's vagina the marriage contract has been broken and any child resulting from that act is concieved and born outside the marriage contract and has no link to the husband. He shouldn't be forced to take care of the newborn bastard. If he chooses to, great, but it should be his choice.

And my point is that if you're going to make this an argument over the abrogation of a contract, then you can't just leave it at infidelity. It's the wrong argument to make, because then you open up the possibility for any abrogation of the contract to have an effect of parental responsibility.

And it's not implicit in the marriage contract that each spouse will not fuck anyone else. There are thousands of open marriages right now in the US, if not millions, and if that's implicit, then those marriages would be abrogated.

Like I said way back in the beginning of this thread, I'm torn on this, because the ultimate consideration in any situation like this is the kids. If the guy who was duped is such a douche that he wants to cut off any relationship with the kids he helped raise, just to get back at his wife, then he should be able to--but the price should be that he's gone completely from their lives. No visitation, no parental rights, no say over medical care, nothing. He's excised completely. And the state, assuming the biological father can't be found and made to take financial responsibility, should step in and fill the gap.

Because putting ones penis in another's vagina is causal, it leads to the possibility of a child being born, thus it is considered implicit acceptance of responsibility since the child is a direct potential consequence of your actions.

Getting married is not causal. Pregnancy and birth are not direct potential consequences of getting married. Me getting married will not, in any way, result in a child entering that relationship, AT ALL.

Sex implies taking responsibility for the child because the child is a direct potential consequence of having sex. Marriage does not imply taking responsibility for a child because the child is not a direct potential consequence of getting married.

The idea that marrying a woman implies taking responsibility for all children she will bare during the course of the marriage is equivalent to saying that getting into a cab with a pregnant woman implies taking responsibilities for all children she may give birth to in the cab. One has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with the other, and as such can not be considered an implication of anything.

Responsibility can only be applied if your actions are such to bring about the consequences. I take responsibility for biological children because my acts are what caused that child to exist. Me marrying someone did not result in that child existing.There are plenty of actions undertaken by one person in a marriage that affect the other person in the marriage. For instance, money earned by one person in a marriage is split between both people in the event of a divorce. The care of children born in a marriage should be (and is, in most cases) the same.

Yeah. That's what I was getting at. Our instincts partly decide what we think is just.What of the instinct that children should be cared for?

<snip>

What of the instinct that children should be cared for?

Usually overridden by the instinct to save one's resources for one's own genetic investment. If you're arguing that a man is obligated to support the offspring of some random guy who fucked his wife then why not make Bank of America responsible for taking care of all bastard children? They certainly have more money than a bunch of random cuckolded husbands.

What this ignores is this - let's say that the roles were reversed. The man goes out, screws some random woman, the random woman gets pregnant, and the wife divorces the man. Would you put her on the hook for that child? Of course not. Therefore, it's illogical to put a man on the hook for a child that's not his. It's a double standard, and it should be codified into law that any man who learns that a child is not really his child is off the hook for raising him/her.

The exception is that he finds out the child isn't his and goes through the proceedings to adopt the child, although frankly any father who would do that should at least go for joint custody. Also, in the case of adoptions, both parents are going through the proceedings, so the child is theirs. That is not willful deception. This is a case of a man raising a child while he has no idea that someone else fathered the child. The man should be off the hook for that - legally. Involvement in that child's life should be voluntary, not forced. And the real biological father should be tracked down and made to pay. Plain and simple.

That said, I favor fathers' rights and encouraging fathers to be active in their children's lives. Some fathers give up on the idea of custody because they don't think they can get it; others just don't care to have it and may not ever see their kids, who just become an expense to them. Of course, other fathers write checks to their children's mothers, and the mothers turn around and spend it on themselves, which is why child support needs to go directly to things that children need. So the father doesn't just write a monthly check for $600 to the mother. Instead, he goes out and buys food, medical supplies, Band-Aids, Tylenol, clothes, etc. for the child. It could even be a system where the payer calls a store, sets aside an order to be picked up by the payee, pays for it over the phone, and the payee comes and picks it up. It's a bit complex, but frankly, pre-ordering groceries and stuff isn't a half-bad idea anyway regardless of the motivation. And it beats the hell out of simply praying that your irresponsible ex doesn't use that money to get her hair done or to pay his gambling debts.

But I digress. Fathers who are deceived should be off the hook, but they should be encouraged to take part in their children's lives, even if that means going out, finding the real father of the children, and making him fork over child support while the father that the children know takes the kids out mini-golfing.

There are plenty of actions undertaken by one person in a marriage that affect the other person in the marriage. For instance, money earned by one person in a marriage is split between both people in the event of a divorce. The care of children born in a marriage should be (and is, in most cases) the same.

Does that include then the children conceived by the father?

Usually overridden by the instinct to save one's resources for one's own genetic investment. If you're arguing that a man is obligated to support the offspring of some random guy who fucked his wife then why not make Bank of America responsible for taking care of all bastard children? They certainly have more money than a bunch of random cuckolded husbands.No, I'm saying that instinct alone isn't sufficient to determine what is just.

Does that include then the children conceived by the father?If the biological mother abandons the child and the father doesn't want to give it up for adoption, yes.

No, I'm saying that instinct alone isn't sufficient to determine what is just.

<snip>

I agree. I just think that it can't be disregarded entirely.

No, I'm saying that instinct alone isn't sufficient to determine what is just.

If the biological mother abandons the child and the father doesn't want to give it up for adoption, yes.

so the biological mother must abandon the child first? What if in the reverse case the biological father didn't know he was the father and had no opportunity to abandon?

so the biological mother must abandon the child first? What if in the reverse case the biological father didn't know he was the father and had no opportunity to abandon?If he doesn't know he's the father then he can hardly be held responsible for child support, in which case it's the equivalent to fleeing his obligations, from the perspective of who has to take care of the child.

If he doesn't know he's the father then he can hardly be held responsible for child support, in which case it's the equivalent to fleeing his obligations, from the perspective of who has to take care of the child.

but what if he woulod rather support his child but is ignorant of it?

but what if he woulod rather support his child but is ignorant of it?I suppose if he had sex with the woman and she had a baby and he wants to know if it's his, he could file a petition to have a paternity test. I would also think that the woman's husband who is pissed off that he has to pay for "someone else's" kid would be trying to track down the biological father anyway.