child support (32)
You know who really pays the price, the children.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ccincy: You know who really pays the price, the children.
Of course the children end up paying the price while mom and dad agrue over "who did it".........
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ccincy: You know who really pays the price, the children.
yes. sad and true.
but, that is no excuse to not put the work in to find the actual father, and no excuse to make the person who is not the father responsible, even if the actual one cannot be found.
------ This thread is Archived ------
pikengren: i just saw some interesting opinions about men being forced to pay child support for children that are not his.
words like responsibility were being thrown around loosely.
i think it is a supreme injustice.
i do not think they go after men that do not pay for their own children enough.
but to hold someone else responsible for children that are not his has no logic whatsoever.
it was the responsibility of the mother to not have children by another man during her marriage.
if that does happen, it is the responsibility of the mother to go after the actual father.
if she doesn't know who the father is, it is her responsibility to find out.
it is not for the law to say,"well, you are here, and it would take less work to just take the money from you",
and slap a tremendous financial burden on someone that is only guilty of being the victim of infidelity and lies.
so they punish him for her bad behavior, she gets rewarded for it, and we call this justice?
and then have the nerve to throw around words like responsibility?
they must be frickin high.
Wow, this is the first time I've seen something like this..My suggestion would be for the man to get a DNA test to prove he "isnt" the father..If he does then it should be unconstitutional for any court to force him to pay.words like responsibility were being thrown around loosely.
i think it is a supreme injustice.
i do not think they go after men that do not pay for their own children enough.
but to hold someone else responsible for children that are not his has no logic whatsoever.
it was the responsibility of the mother to not have children by another man during her marriage.
if that does happen, it is the responsibility of the mother to go after the actual father.
if she doesn't know who the father is, it is her responsibility to find out.
it is not for the law to say,"well, you are here, and it would take less work to just take the money from you",
and slap a tremendous financial burden on someone that is only guilty of being the victim of infidelity and lies.
so they punish him for her bad behavior, she gets rewarded for it, and we call this justice?
and then have the nerve to throw around words like responsibility?
they must be frickin high.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Swissblueeyes: Wow, this is the first time I've seen something like this..My suggestion would be for the man to get a DNA test to prove he "isnt" the father..If he does then it should be unconstitutional for any court to force him to pay.
the cases i saw, a dna test was done, and the guy was proven to not be the father, and forced to pay anyway. unbelievable.
------ This thread is Archived ------
pikengren: the cases i saw, a dna test was done, and the guy was proven to not be the father, and forced to pay anyway. unbelievable.
Wow..This proves to me the child support system is messed up..They dont enforce very well the real fathers to pay who dont marry the mums, but they go after guys who arent the fathers to pay for kids that arent theirs?? whew..pretty bad for sure.------ This thread is Archived ------
pikengren: didn't they do a dna test?
I don't know I was very young at the time.I only heard my mom and stepdad discussing the whole situation.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ccincy: I don't know I was very young at the time.I only heard my mom and stepdad discussing the whole situation.
ah.
i don't think that sounds any more fair. it should take more than the testimony of a few of his buddies to disprove fatherhood.
------ This thread is Archived ------
pikengren: ah.
i don't think that sounds any more fair. it should take more than the testimony of a few of his buddies to disprove fatherhood.
i don't think that sounds any more fair. it should take more than the testimony of a few of his buddies to disprove fatherhood.
I know you would think so.
------ This thread is Archived ------
If a man knows for a fact the child is not his and he agrees to or offers to help with the child's expenses it is his responsibility to provide for that child.
------ This thread is Archived ------
It's actually not that uncommon. Most courts will hold the man who raised, supported, and cared for the child(ren) as the one who is legally responsible for the child(ren). No matter what the DNA test proves or disproves.
In the courts eyes, if a man has accepted responsibility for a child who is not his biologically and yet the child calls him "Dad," then they will demand child support for that child.
An example: An ex-colleague was going through a not-so amicable divorce. She had two young boys; one of whom was her soon-to-be ex's child. She was counting on the courts to give her only sole legal and physical custody of the child who was "theirs."
She was quite shocked when the judge ordered 50/50 legal and physical custody of both children. When she pointed out to the judge that her oldest child was not her ex-husbands', the judge stated that since the child called him Daddy and that Daddy had supported him financially, physically and emotionally, then the child was his as surely as the child they made together.
In the courts eyes, if a man has accepted responsibility for a child who is not his biologically and yet the child calls him "Dad," then they will demand child support for that child.
An example: An ex-colleague was going through a not-so amicable divorce. She had two young boys; one of whom was her soon-to-be ex's child. She was counting on the courts to give her only sole legal and physical custody of the child who was "theirs."
She was quite shocked when the judge ordered 50/50 legal and physical custody of both children. When she pointed out to the judge that her oldest child was not her ex-husbands', the judge stated that since the child called him Daddy and that Daddy had supported him financially, physically and emotionally, then the child was his as surely as the child they made together.
------ This thread is Archived ------
amahlala: It's actually not that uncommon. Most courts will hold the man who raised, supported, and cared for the child(ren) as the one who is legally responsible for the child(ren). No matter what the DNA test proves or disproves.
In the courts eyes, if a man has accepted responsibility for a child who is not his biologically and yet the child calls him "Dad," then they will demand child support for that child.
An example: An ex-colleague was going through a not-so amicable divorce. She had two young boys; one of whom was her soon-to-be ex's child. She was counting on the courts to give her only sole legal and physical custody of the child who was "theirs."
She was quite shocked when the judge ordered 50/50 legal and physical custody of both children. When she pointed out to the judge that her oldest child was not her ex-husbands', the judge stated that since the child called him Daddy and that Daddy had supported him financially, physically and emotionally, then the child was his as surely as the child they made together.
In the courts eyes, if a man has accepted responsibility for a child who is not his biologically and yet the child calls him "Dad," then they will demand child support for that child.
An example: An ex-colleague was going through a not-so amicable divorce. She had two young boys; one of whom was her soon-to-be ex's child. She was counting on the courts to give her only sole legal and physical custody of the child who was "theirs."
She was quite shocked when the judge ordered 50/50 legal and physical custody of both children. When she pointed out to the judge that her oldest child was not her ex-husbands', the judge stated that since the child called him Daddy and that Daddy had supported him financially, physically and emotionally, then the child was his as surely as the child they made together.
i think if a guy wants to take responsibility for a child that is not his, he is a great guy for doing so.
but, i don't think that he should by default.
"oh, good job for paying for someone elses kids for all these years, and as a reward for being a good guy, you get to continue to do so, even though the relationship didn't work out."
if a guy thinks a kid is his for five years, loves him/her, supports him/her, and then finds out it is not his because his wife was unfaithful, he should not have to pay.
would it be cold hearted to turn your back on a child that you treated as your own?
absolutely. but that is a whole different subject.
he should not be forced to pay by the courts if it is not his kid.
he accepted responsibility for what he thought was his child with what he thought was a faithful wife.
if she does not tell him at the beginning that it is not his child, that is wrong in so many ways.
------ This thread is Archived ------
pikengren: i think if a guy wants to take responsibility for a child that is not his, he is a great guy for doing so.
but, i don't think that he should by default.
"oh, good job for paying for someone elses kids for all these years, and as a reward for being a good guy, you get to continue to do so, even though the relationship didn't work out."
if a guy thinks a kid is his for five years, loves him/her, supports him/her, and then finds out it is not his because his wife was unfaithful, he should not have to pay.
would it be cold hearted to turn your back on a child that you treated as your own?
absolutely. but that is a whole different subject.
he should not be forced to pay by the courts if it is not his kid.
he accepted responsibility for what he thought was his child with what he thought was a faithful wife.
if she does not tell him at the beginning that it is not his child, that is wrong in so many ways.
but, i don't think that he should by default.
"oh, good job for paying for someone elses kids for all these years, and as a reward for being a good guy, you get to continue to do so, even though the relationship didn't work out."
if a guy thinks a kid is his for five years, loves him/her, supports him/her, and then finds out it is not his because his wife was unfaithful, he should not have to pay.
would it be cold hearted to turn your back on a child that you treated as your own?
absolutely. but that is a whole different subject.
he should not be forced to pay by the courts if it is not his kid.
he accepted responsibility for what he thought was his child with what he thought was a faithful wife.
if she does not tell him at the beginning that it is not his child, that is wrong in so many ways.
I was not disagreeing with you Pik; I pretty much agree with what you are saying, I was just pointing out an example that I knew of personally and that it does seem that it is something that is happening more and more.
------ This thread is Archived ------
amahlala: I was not disagreeing with you Pik; I pretty much agree with what you are saying, I was just pointing out an example that I knew of personally and that it does seem that it is something that is happening more and more.
oh, no, i didn't think you were.
i guess i am trying to look at situations where maybe it might be in order.
it just kind of seems that too many fathers get off of the hook for paying child support,
and the decent guys get screwed.
"oh, well you have a job and he doesn't"
is not sound logic.
the whole thing just
------ This thread is Archived ------
pikengren: oh, no, i didn't think you were.
i guess i am trying to look at situations where maybe it might be in order.
it just kind of seems that too many fathers get off of the hook for paying child support,
and the decent guys get screwed.
"oh, well you have a job and he doesn't"
is not sound logic.
the whole thing just
i guess i am trying to look at situations where maybe it might be in order.
it just kind of seems that too many fathers get off of the hook for paying child support,
and the decent guys get screwed.
"oh, well you have a job and he doesn't"
is not sound logic.
the whole thing just
To be honest, I would have loved to receive child support for my children. I believe it would have helped them a bit more, yet it did not happen for them. I willingly helped to support my stepchildren.
------ This thread is Archived ------
My ex is suing me for custody of our children ages 16, 14, and 11 because his new girlfriend does not want him to pay me child support, now my boys are confused and hurting worse than from our divorce! That is just as wrong as making a man pay for a child that is not his! It is however the children who suffer the most. In all circumstances!
------ This thread is Archived ------
amahlala: To be honest, I would have loved to receive child support for my children. I believe it would have helped them a bit more, yet it did not happen for them. I willingly helped to support my stepchildren.
can i ask why you didn't?
------ This thread is Archived ------
the children usually do suffer during a divorce.
one or both parties can't seem to get it together,
and is only worried about themselves.
one or both parties can't seem to get it together,
and is only worried about themselves.
------ This thread is Archived ------
pikengren: the cases i saw, a dna test was done, and the guy was proven to not be the father, and forced to pay anyway. unbelievable.
Cite the case please....Which court?
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
The weird and the random facts around the world
Why is this shameful?
Unions support Democrats!
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Ladies
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
the way you look
s*xual skills
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
1,077 Views
31 Comments
in CS Lounge
Created: Jul 2011
Last Viewed: Apr 23
Last Commented: Jul 2011
0 Likes
Related Forums
- I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- Why is this shameful?
- Unions support Democrats!
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- Ladies
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- the way you look
- s*xual skills
words like responsibility were being thrown around loosely.
i think it is a supreme injustice.
i do not think they go after men that do not pay for their own children enough.
but to hold someone else responsible for children that are not his has no logic whatsoever.
it was the responsibility of the mother to not have children by another man during her marriage.
if that does happen, it is the responsibility of the mother to go after the actual father.
if she doesn't know who the father is, it is her responsibility to find out.
it is not for the law to say,"well, you are here, and it would take less work to just take the money from you",
and slap a tremendous financial burden on someone that is only guilty of being the victim of infidelity and lies.
so they punish him for her bad behavior, she gets rewarded for it, and we call this justice?
and then have the nerve to throw around words like responsibility?
they must be frickin high.