http://voices.yahoo.com/presumed-fathers-act-man-pay-child-support-507695.html "Here's the kicker, if a blood test proves that you are not the father, whether the real father is made known by proof or not, then the presumed father must still pay child support. Also, if the biological father is made known to the court he will not be obligated to pay child support but the custody and visitation will be shared only between the biological parents involved. By law, a presumed father must pay child support." Is this a joke?
If I recall correctly, there was a case a couple of years ago where a man got thrown in jail for not paying child support but the catch is the child wasn't his. I don't recall the exact detail but it has to do with the well fair of the child. So the lesson of the story is, get dna tested even when you are 99.9% sure that the kid is your, because its impossible to get paternity over turn once you sign that you are the dad.
my understanding is that this goes beyond paternity, please someone tell me otherwise if its the case "So, this means that if a wife cheats on her husband and a baby is born during the time of the marriage the husband is legally the father." how the hell is this allowed to happen?
It's allowed to happen because what other options do we have? You look at child support as punishment for the parents when it is about helping the kid monetarily. We believe that kids should be paid for. If states had a high enough tax base maybe we could just pay for them through a public fund in cases where the presumed father is not the biological father and he doesn't want to have anything to do with the kid. Unfortunately, we don't have the money to set up and provide such a system, so we make the presumed father pay. But at least taxes are low!
Men will have to stand up for the reproductive rights soon . . . . For all the talk about equal rights. . . women have ZERO INTEREST in equal reproductive rights. They see Reproduction as their domain and plan to keep it that way. Rocket River
So hypothetically speaking ofcourse, if your wife cheats on you, falls pregnant, so the child isn't biologically yours, and then you get a divorce, you're still financially on the hook. Why doesnt the biological father foot the bill? The presumed father doesn't even hold visitation rights. "Also, if the biological father is made known to the court he will not be obligated to pay child support but the custody and visitation will be shared only between the biological parents involved." I've no issue with the biological parent having to take care, irrespective of marriage, but to suggest theres no other option? are you joking? Why not in circumstances where the biological father is known then responsibility at least get transfered over? Why should you have to absolutely destroy the lives of men in the previous situation and create completely unjust financial burdens when the wives aren't even being held accountable for their actions?
I'm not sure the context of that article, but in most states, the status of "presumed father" is rebuttable in court depending on how one came to be a "presumed father." Most of these types of laws were enacted in an era when paternity testing was not as reliable as it is today, so the law took extra measure to ensure that children would not end up being raised via state coffers. In most cases, as long as you can prove you aren't the biological father and haven't done anything stupid like sign the birth certificate or let the child live with you/provide for it in the past, you should probably be fine in most jurisdictions.
The concern is not for the mother or father, it is for the child. If you sign the birth certificate you are SOL. I know that is the case in Illinois atleast. There is extensive case law.
Why are we assuming the man that signed the birth certificate is the one more capable of financially supporting the child...? I mean, if it's truly about the child's best interest... What if the child was the product of a secret affair, discovered only after the certificate is signed impelling a divorce... and the ex-husband-to-be is barely getting by economically, while the biological father happens to be a millionaire...? Shouldn't - in the interest of the child - the signature on the certificate be nulled upon having a blood test and have all financial responsibility transferred over to the biological father...? The option should be there... Why compromise a man's quality of life so recklessly for something his wife did on the basis of illogical insistence by "the law"... when there are appropriate alternatives...?
It's a messed up system designed with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, child support itself is out of whack. Many women who receive child support simply use it to enhance their lifestyle, not because they actually have a need for money to support the child. Like most things that deal with our government/legal system, they come about to address a serious issue that needed addressing and slowly grow over time to become more burdensome and ridiculous.
I understand the intention, but I'm struggling to process how there aren't measures in place as Hmm mentioned. The fact that hypothetically, your wife can have an affair, get pregnant from another man, and the non-biological father be liable even if the biological father is known, not only that but also to be denied the rights of the biological parents is just a bridge too far imo. A husband should have the choice of whether or not he wants to financially support a b*stard child in the event of an affair, and the fact that they are legally obligated to is rediculous. Someone please correct me if my intepretation of this is wrong
He does have a choice; it just happens at a stage that most people don't expect it. Essentially, before you take any significant steps to assert your "fatherhood," you better make sure that the child is yours, if your wife has done anything to make you suspect that she's been cheating on you. If you're really that concerned, just have a test done every time your wife has a child. It doesn't exactly foster an atmosphere or trust and love, but money is on the line!
lol maybe the test should be a required part of originating the original birth certificate. Then it would not be so unromantic.
I would like to expand the thread to the whole child support arena. One of my pet peeves it to pretend that we can take care of the children of low wage workers by enforcement of child support laws. We need systems more like they have in Europe. Perhaps some of our Euro posters can contribute. With declining wages and especially minimum wages you just can't do siht by wasting money on legal procedures to make these folks support their kids.
I do not necessarily disagree with you. I can tell you, that when it comes to situations such as custody/child support the courts want simplicity and what will keep the court system from being clogged with litigation. Can you think of how congested the system would be with constant arguments over child support? Having said that, based on my practice of law, it makes perfect sense to me. However, I can see why to most people it seems absurd.
Do you have some research to substantiate this conclusion? I can tell you that many fathers are way behind on child support or simply do not pay it. Further, the women I met in law school while working on child support certainly needed it and were barely surviving with child support when they did get it.
The only part that doesn't really make sense to me would be not giving visitation rights to presumed fathers who pay child support. If my wife cheats on me and has a child and I raise that child for the next ten years only to discover it's not mine during a divorce, I don't think it's just to give visitation to some lowlife from 10 years ago over the guy who has been a father to the kid over the kid's entire life.
sounds so unjust and ridiculous that I would need proof that this actually happens, but perhaps in some wierd state or two.
This might have happened in the scope of human history with the right set of facts, but I have never heard of a presumed father who is paying child support not having visitation to a child absent abuse. The only thing we have for the assertion that this egregious thing has happened / is happening is a Yahoo Voices piece from 2007. Honestly, it probably doesn't make sense to you because a) it doesn't happen or b) there are some other circumstances you are not aware of that resulted in denial of visitation that if you knew about would make the situation make more sense.
