Connecting Singles^® Forums 100% Free Online Dating

Hi Mychelle

Goodness this is a tricky one.

I do not agree with the judges decision, I think this man has been treated very unfairly.

Child support is such a tough topic, people associate it with contact with their children and they are two separate matters entirely, one does not guarantee the other.

The DNA test prove he is not the bioloigical father and her statement of 'having no memory of an affair' is somewhat weak.

She either did or she did not.

This does, though, raise another question, how dependable are DNA tests?

I will be interested in Sexy Attorney's view on this, I am sure it will be witty, but factual.

I had twins myself and I know what it costs to bring them up!! Probably more than twice a single child!!

I think it is disgusting for a woman to say she forgot. Wow how many man did she sleep with, and I think the judge was very unfair to accept such a statement. I would have said that if you do not remember, then bear the consequences.

On the other hand, if I was the man, and I could afford it, I might have volunteered helping with the expense of the twins just for their sake.

This is a good point, if the husband has a bond with these children and they only know him as a father, then the husband may well want to provide voluntarily, but that should be his choice and his choice alone, no judge should enforce that.

Also, if this man is not the father, and he wants to move on and he wants a family of his own, then he will want to support his own.

There are many aspects to this case, and I cannot believe a judge made a judgement such as this.

But then it is the US. And anything is possible.

Well said Sommerauer! we've seen too much comedy on tv ...when everybody knows a person committed murder but he goes scotch free. Thank got they got him for robbery eventually

This is for Springer snow

In Portugal there is this presumption that the father of the kids is the one who is married to the mother at the moment of birth or conception. Must be the same everywhere.
It seems like he didn't rebut this presumption immediately but acted as their real father and was recognised as such in all circumstances.
If he decided to do ADN exame, it seems to me that he had always been suspicious. Why do the ADN only at the moment he is to pay their pension? The fact that he did assume the parenting by not rebutting, makes him the legal father and this position is enhanced by the fact that the biological father is uncertain.
If i was the judge, he'd have to pay!

Hi Cris

I find your response interesting.

It is hard to make a clear view on this, as there is so little to go on.

In the UK, if a couple part, the father will be asked to pay, the only way a DNA would be asked for, in this instance if his name was not on the birth certificate, to prove that he was not, I repeat, not the father, this is what DNA does, prove that a father is not the biological father.

Again in the UK, if a couple were marrried at the time of the child's/children's birth, then automatically the male is registered as the child's father.

Child support would not be ordered for a man who is not the biological father, because it is unfair.

Why should he support children that are not his?

I would not want to be forced to do so, it should be a voluntary decision if he has a bond with those children.

This is a clear sign of how women can screw men financially, I feel for this man, if he has been ordered to pay for these children and they are not his own.

How then, if he wants his own child, is he to go on and provide for said child.

If he has been misled into believing these twins are his, that is unfair.

He may not have been suspicious, the courts could have ordered that the test be done.

We do not know that, that is why it is hard to give a view on this.

He could have been suspicious all along, they were not his. It may have been the cause of the divorce, we do not know.

Maybe Mychelle will tell us more.

I agree with Sommer, the choice should have been his.
However, it would be interesting to know how many years he was married to this woman and supported the twins as his own.

I am interested in this too Karma, because of how Cris has highlighted it, a point that was raised by her very good self.

However, I do still feel that if he is not the father, then he should not be forced to pay.

No, the ADN exame is not done ramdomly precisely because of the presumption. The father should bother as to rebut the presumption.
The only way he can be free from the payment is to prove that the only reason he married and sticked with her was because of the kids...that were later proved not to be his. So, the question is: Were the kids the reason why he married and sticked with her? What if there were no kids?
Finding that he was not the father is a valid cause for divorce.

If she states that she didn't know that he was not the father, there is no default in here. Somebody needs to come and prove that she knew that he was not the father...then yes, she will be proved in fault. You may have a quick adventure and get pregnant without considering that it could have happened. Prove her wrong!

Yes, if they find the bilogical father he will obviously have to pay an amount but i don't believe that the legal father should walk away like that. What did he do? He acted as a father and everybody, including his wife believed he was. This is very important for the kids. Don't we always talk about "the interest of the child"? Yes, the source of the pension is also in the interest of the child.

randomly*
should have bothered*

etc

Do you believe that now that he found out he was not the father, the real father has to restitute all what the legal father has spent in the past? NO, there is no retroactivity!
And yes, we need some more elements on this case. Many things were taken into account. And i'd avaliate the wife's conduct throughout the marriege as to analyse if she was of a cheating nature. Her dedication in the marriege, his conduct in the marriege, saying who was the main guilty of the divorce, etc should be taken into account.

Law is different in the UK.

To be free of payment is to not be the biolical father. Nothing to do with the marriage, the marriage is a separate entity from the provision of the children.

The test proves that he is not the father, according to Mychelle's post, therefore under UK law, that would free him from all responsibility. The marriage and why they married would not come into it. Child support, child contact and a divorce are three separate events and coures to deal with. If the mother is not willing to provide details of who is the biological father, it is unfair for her to expect a court to squeeze money out of a man who is not.

Of course the interest of the child is paramount, and that interest should be protected, any decent, loving human being would honour that, but seriously, I put this question to men out there, would you want to be forced to pay for a child that is not yours?

No, there are not many that would, there are many that may want to, that is a different matter. She knows who the father is, the slim chance that she would not know, then she has been a busy lady, the only proof is the test and her being honest about it.

So far there is a test that says no.

Her word seems to have been good enough, not even a test has overidden that information.

I feel for him, if he has been ordered to pay for children that are not his children.

If he enters a new relationship, falls in love, wants to plan to have children, with new partner, would you be happy about that? If the judge has ordered the test, then the results are plain in front of his very eyes, it is a foolish judgement, in my opinion, a very foolish one. One that will build resentment, if the case is how Mychelle describes it.

ANd resentment is never in the best interests of the children, if the judge ordered the test, then he knew that the test was within the guidelines of the law, how then is it fair that the test proved he was not the father, yet still orders him to pay.

Men out there, I would start to get concerned, this is a clear case that any woman could trap you into alot more, you could end up with 18 years of a finacial burden that should be anothers.

I feel for you guys. I really do.

When it comes to child support,, how the marriage broke down is irrelevant.

If he has sued her for divorce on grounds of adultery, the judge will stamp the piece of paper. Lawyers are there to seperate emotional attachments and decide the best course of action, divorce is not any way indicative of whether a man should support the children.

Assets from the marriage are taken into consideration, broken down and split accordingly, the children are dealt with under a separate paper, if there is no dispute about who has residency of the children, and the father is not disputing parenthood, then that is easy. He will have to pay child support and that is the law.

Here the father has disputed parentage, his role in those children's lives, the test has been done, proven that he is not the biological father and he still has to pay?

So any woman can go out, shag as many blokes as she likes, get pregnant, to whoever, and the poor bastard that is married to her, has to pay, and take care of children, that are not his?

Nope, never right in my eyes, I would be his defending counsel, based on the facts that are presented to me.

Ah good evening/morning Rebel.
Just a yawn?

Well, well.

Love your contribution to this.

I must say you have excelled yourself here.

The retroactivity question is very open, because it has to be assumed all the time that he did not know that those were not his children, in which case he was cheated...but I doubt that any court will give him anything. Also because probably she does not have the money anyway!!

The second part of your comment has things which, in my opinion, should not bear on the final decision. Whether the wife was of a bad character or not, or in turn if he was a bad character does not change facts...either he is or he is not the father. The only situation which might bear on the judgement is if she had the children before they were married, and he knew that she had such children from another unknown guy, and he accepted to marry her and take care of everyone. Only then would he not be allowed to walk out scotch free from the marriage and abandon his responsibilities....on the basis that his wife could have found another supporter, or made other arrangements at the time of marriage.

But it is not taken into account Cris.

Clearly, the judge has ordered that he pay for children that are not his.

Unfairly.

Case closed, one that I do not agree with.
There aint a godamm thing I could do about it, but it makes a great discussion.

There is no way that I, would want money off a man who was proven not to be the father of my children. I would not be able to take it, in fact, I would not even have taken it to court.

Many discussions and tears could be saved if they would make it as a normal procedure after birth to test the parents DNA to confirm their stATUS and avoid any further discussions. But it needs political input, and I haven't seen any intelligent politician since decades - they all extinct.