Child Support Nightmare
Geri and sometimes Brian
seems men can be f**ked even without having sex. Hopefully common sense will
prevail.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-041502dads.story
April 15, 2002
DNA Shakes Up Child Support Law
Rights: System is challenged by men forced to pay for children who are not
theirs.
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI, Times Staff Writer
Advances in DNA testing have liberated convicts from death row and helped clear
up scores of unsolved mysteries, but they have been slower to release men from
obligations to pay child support in cases where the tests show they are not the
biological father.
Instead of resolving some of those cases, DNA has plunged the area of child
support and paternal obligation into complicated new debate over the law and
issues as profound as what it means to be a father.
Bert Riddick's three children cram into one room in his brother-in-law's house
in Carson because Riddick is required by a court order to pay child support for
a girl he has never met and who is not his own. The result is that Riddick
cannot afford to provide for his biological children.
A similar order sent Dennis Caron to an Ohio jail for 30 days because he
refused to pay child support for a boy who DNA tests showed was not his own.
And in the case of Carnell Smith of Decatur, Ga., a $120,000 child-support bill
for an ex-girlfriend's offspring who did not belong to him caused Smith to
double-check the paternity of his wife's new baby with another DNA test.
"Ninety-nine point nine-nine-nine percent mine," Smith said proudly.
The three men share more than a legal dilemma. They belong to a loose-knit
movement of fathers who are gradually reshaping child-support laws in state
after state so that men who can prove they did not father children can avoid
paying for them.
In doing so, they have raised new issues about the legal system's role in
defining the rights and responsibilities of those men who are deemed fathers by
the courts, only to have those rulings later challenged by new scientific
evidence.
Assemblyman Roderick Wright (D-Los Angeles), author of a paternity reform bill
slated to be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, said
payments sometimes take a hefty chunk of a man's earnings.
"It ain't his baby and we know it ain't his baby and here we're hitting him for
60% of his salary," Wright said. "In any other area of law, if that happened,
that would be fraud. We'd be going out and screaming bloody murder."
But while Wright highlights the injustice of forcing men to pay support for
children who are not their own, some child-support advocates see a different
danger. They say Wright's bill and similar ones in a dozen other states can
harm children by letting men who have acted as fathers for years escape their
obligations.
"It's one of those things where the science has given us the ability to do
something we maybe shouldn't do," said Paula Roberts of the Center for Law and
Social Policy in Washington.
"What you're saying is that all a man is, in terms of a father to a child, is a
sperm donor. . . . We think that's really bad social policy."
The dilemma is created by legal tradition that holds that once a court has
ruled that a man is the father of the child, the judgment must stand. If the
man does not protest quickly enough, his only recourse is to pay support until
the child turns 18.
The number of men affected could be large, especially because child-support
orders are often entered without the man appearing in court.
Wright cites statistics from a 1999 study by the American Assn. of Blood Banks.
That study found that of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine the
paternity of children, 30% excluded the subject tested as being the father.
In some cases, courts can order children to submit blood or tissue samples for
DNA testing, but rules regarding when and how those tests may be used vary from
state to state.
"This is a clash between jurisprudence concepts rooted in English common law of
a judgment being inviolate, versus 21st century science that has shown, well,
sometimes we were wrong," said Steven Eldred, a deputy district attorney in
Fresno County's child-support office. "This is a hot issue. Every state is
going to have to deal with this."
Several already have. Eight states have passed laws allowing men armed with DNA
evidence to challenge paternity judgments. Legislation is making its way
through at least four others, including California. Ohio's law passed its
Legislature two years ago with only one dissenting vote.
"People just said, 'Hey, gee, this is common sense,' " said Caron, a
45-year-old corporate recruiter who lives outside of Columbus and lobbied for
the bill. "Why should some guy get the shaft like this when he isn't the
father?"
After a protracted divorce and custody battle, Caron in 1997 found through DNA
testing that he was not the child's father. After testifying before the Ohio
Legislature about the need for paternity reform, Caron was sentenced to 30 days
in jail for refusing to pay child support. He was released when his ex-wife's
new husband adopted the child.
Congressmen Referred Constituents for Help
The experience made him a child-support celebrity, and calls began coming in
from desperate men. Caron says some congressmen have referred constituents to
him for help. Caron's experience in Ohio gave Carnell Smith hope.
The 41-year-old engineer read about Caron on the Internet after becoming
embroiled in his own child-support battle. For years, Smith said, he helped
raise the daughter of a former girlfriend who had told him the child was his.
But parishioners at his church advised him to demand a DNA test after the woman
pressed him for child support.
In April 2000, Smith said, he was excluded as the father by a DNA test. But the
judge ordered him to pay anyway. It was then that he took to the Internet,
reasoning that there must be other men in his situation. He found Caron and
obtained a copy of Ohio's legislation, which he carried to the home of his
assemblyman in Decatur.
Georgia's law passed both houses of the Legislature earlier this year, and the
two bodies are working to reconcile technical issues. Smith, meanwhile, has
started an online group to spread what he calls "anti-paternity fraud" statutes
across the country.
"I've declared war on this issue," said Smith, estimating that he has spoken to
nearly 1,000 people. "I want to make sure my son doesn't face this same
system."
Both Smith and Caron had acted as the children's fathers before discovering
that they had no biological connection and refusing to pay child support. That
troubles many critics of the new statutes. They argue that being a father is
more about acting as one than producing a genetic match.
"You cannot have guys who functioned as some kid's father for 12 years going in
and saying, because of some test, all right, I'm off the hook," said attorney
Jenny Skoble, director of the child-support project at the Harriet Buhai Center
for Family Law in Los Angeles.
"Yes, for the guy who's acted as the father of a child for 12 years who finds
out that he's not the dad, it's a drag to have to pay the child support. But
it's more of a drag for the child to lose the only father he or she has ever
known," she said.
Smith said child-support advocates like Skoble miss the point.
"Once the problem has already happened, it's like throwing a cluster bomb in
the room—everybody's going to be hurt," he said.
"But two people are walking away with no responsibility at all—the biological
mother and the biological father. They had their fun, now they walk away."
In the summer of 2000, the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, a
nonprofit group that proposes legislation to be adopted by states, wrestled
with the question of whether men who are not biological fathers should pay
child support.
Roberts, of the Center for Law and Social Policy, said the group agonized over
the issue. It ultimately concluded that after a child's second birthday, the
harm of losing a father would outweigh the harm of a man paying to support a
child who was not his own.
"We concluded there was always going to be a set of cases where, no matter how
you came down, you were going to feel badly," Roberts said. "But if your focus
was on the child, at the end of the day you decided the adults in this
relationship are just going to have to suck it up."
Texas and West Virginia adopted laws modeled on the conference's
recommendation, requiring that men have only two years after the birth of a
child to challenge paternity in child-support cases, Roberts said. But other
states, including Ohio, Maryland and Alabama, do not have limits on when a man
can challenge a paternity judgment.
Nor does Wright's bill in California, although it would not allow the
contesting of paternity if the man had previously admitted it in court while
represented by an attorney.
Wright said he tailored his bill to apply to men who never appeared in court to
fight their child support orders—sometimes because they were not properly
served, a common problem in California child support—and only later discover
that they are being billed for a child who is not their own.
In other words, the legislation is written to help men like Bert Riddick.
Riddick said he was just about to leave on a business trip in 1991 when he
found out that an ex-girlfriend had named him as the father of her newborn
child. His then-fiancee had received the summons at their home and hid it in
anger. Riddick went on his trip and missed the hearing.
When the district attorney's office began to garnish his wages, Riddick pleaded
for relief, but was told there was nothing he could do.
As the bills mounted, Riddick could not support his new, growing family. His
car was repossessed. His new wife went on welfare after having their second
child. They were evicted from the Torrance house they rented and moved in with
the wife's brother. And Riddick began going from job to job, enjoying a full
paycheck for a few weeks before the child support office found he had new
employment and began to garnish his wages.
After Riddick was featured in a Times series on problems with child support in
Los Angeles, his phone began to ring. He became a fixture on television news
magazine shows and assembled a list of other men in his circumstance. But he
was unable to escape the child-support debt.
Learned About Others While Searching Web
Last year, he found out about Caron, Smith and others while searching the
Internet. He contacted Wright, who has backed several fathers' rights bills.
Riddick and two other activists secured a midsummer meeting with a key Wright
aide in a Burbank hotel.
"I know it's complicated," Riddick said of the issues. "The women's rights
groups still have this thing where they start the speech with 'the best
interests of the child.' My response to that is, the best interests of whose
child? My children are suffering now."
Roberts, of the Center for Law and Social Policy, acknowledged that, like many
DNA cases, Riddick's is a tough one. Still, she said, the fault is his for
missing that hearing 11 years ago.
"This is the ultimate Solomon's baby situation," Roberts said. "There is no way
that someone is going to come out not feeling they've been wronged."
Geri
http://www.repealthesodatax.com/
(Help fight this stupid tax!)
http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/2002-04-11/sidecar.html/1/index.html
(Pretty funny.)
Didi
If people (men OR women) don't want to be "shafted" for support for a child
whom paternity would *ever* be a question, then they shouldn't be having
irresponsible sex to begin with.
It's sad when children have become nothing more than financial pawns in our
society. What happened to loving and raising children?
--
Didi
Mother of 4, Step-mother of 1
"Children, perfection, and sanity. You can only have 2 out of 3."
Anonymous
Mika
"Didi" <didi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3GBv8.31322$V44.337@rwcrnsc53...
> My feeling is this:
>
> If people (men OR women) don't want to be "shafted" for support for a
child
> whom paternity would *ever* be a question, then they shouldn't be having
> irresponsible sex to begin with.
Didi I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly. If a man doesn't want to be
shafted for support to a child that isn't his, obviously he isn't the one
having irresponsible sex. The wife or girlfriend is. So if DNA proves it
isn't his child, then he shouldn't be forced to support it. I guess I'm just
looking for some clarification on what you mean.
> It's sad when children have become nothing more than financial pawns in
our
> society. What happened to loving and raising children?
I agree with you on this.
Mika
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>My feeling is this:
>
>If people (men OR women) don't want to be "shafted" for support for a child
>whom paternity would *ever* be a question, then they shouldn't be having
>irresponsible sex to begin with.
>
>It's sad when children have become nothing more than financial pawns in our
>society. What happened to loving and raising children?
>--
There have always been people who didn't care for children. There
have always been people who used children as pawns.
And there have always been people like you and me (and my
g-g-grandfather, who raised 21 children, some his, some SKs, some
grandkids, and some neighbors' kids), who found this to be extremely
abhorrant behavior.
Kitten
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much. - Chris Wall
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle
or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life
hands you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it.
-- Ty Murray
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Anne Robotti
>
> If people (men OR women) don't want to be "shafted" for support for a
child
> whom paternity would *ever* be a question, then they shouldn't be having
> irresponsible sex to begin with.
>
> It's sad when children have become nothing more than financial pawns in
our
> society. What happened to loving and raising children?
But Didi, it's not really that simple. How come the "first family" of a
woman who slept around should take precedence over the family of a man who's
*not* the biological father of the child?
I'm all for people owning up to their responsibilities to the children they
bring into the world. I don't buy the whole "she tricked me into it" line of
crap - keep it zipped. But if you legitimately *didn't* father the child,
why *should* you pay for somebody else's mistake for 18 years while they go
off scott-free to repeat it?!
Anne
Mika
"Anne Robotti" <arob...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:ubtt5g7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> But Didi, it's not really that simple. How come the "first family" of a
> woman who slept around should take precedence over the family of a man
who's
> *not* the biological father of the child?
>
> I'm all for people owning up to their responsibilities to the children
they
> bring into the world. I don't buy the whole "she tricked me into it" line
of
> crap - keep it zipped. But if you legitimately *didn't* father the child,
> why *should* you pay for somebody else's mistake for 18 years while they
go
> off scott-free to repeat it?!
I agree with you Anne. Maybe I'm a bit cold-hearted about this but I don't
think a man should have to pay for a child that is not his from the day he
finds out. Regardless how long he has been paying/supporting prior to
finding out. Sometimes it take years for the lies to come out. Chances are
if a man has been supporting a child for X#of years then all of a sudden
finds out that it isn't his, he is gonna feel a lot of resentment. Maybe not
intentionally but it will be there.
That article mentioned something about not letting a man off if he has been
the only father the child has know for years because it will *harm* the
child. What is going to do more harm, having a man resent and ultimately
reject the child because he is forced to continue paying even though the
child isn't his? Or give the man a choice? If he chooses to continue the
support then he is more likely to not reject the child.
I could tell of personal experience in this area but I don't know who lurks
and I don't want to tip my hand. Since the other person doesn't know that I
know. But I will share it if the truth ever comes out.
Mika
Didi
> But Didi, it's not really that simple. How come the "first family" of a
woman who slept around should take precedence over the family of a man who's
*not* the biological father of the child?
I agree that there are no cut and dry answers to this dilemma. I guess
that, in reading the article, I was reacting to the fact that the majority
of these men used for this argument were affected by children conceived in
relationships where they weren't married to begin with. Now, I'm not going
to pretend to have been a virgin when I married (although I *did* lose my
virginity to my first husband and hadn't had sex with any other men until
after our separation -- made up for lost time afterwards....;) ), BUT, if
men (or women, though this particular issue obviously deals more with the
men as it's difficult to argue maternity) are going to have sex, whether
married or not, they are going to be taking a risk of making babies. If
they are not married, or if there is a question about a woman's
faithfulness, then paternity should be established as soon as the baby's
born -- not years down the line when they don't feel like supporting the
child any longer. Or, when they have a sudden inspiration that the child
may not actually be theirs.
Applied to our lives, how would you feel if you and Chuck were getting
divorced, and suddenly he starts questioning paternity of Brooke, Charlie,
and little Victoria? Regardless of the situation, it would seem pretty
slimy of him to start that business at that time, wouldn't you think?
FWIW, I have always doubted DH's paternity of SD. BM was fooling around on
him throughout their marriage, they were already having severe marital
problems when she was conceived, and SD doesn't look *anything* like either
of her parents. Being incredibly stupid and insensitive one day while we
were dating, I asked DH about it. He said that he believes that she is his
daughter, and he would never question it, legally -- she would always be his
daughter. I've accepted that fact. Though....I guess that I'll always
wonder, myself, silently.
--
Didi
Mother of 4, Step-mother of 1
"Children, perfection, and sanity. You can only have 2 out of 3."
Anonymous
"Anne Robotti" <arob...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:ubtt5g7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Didi" <didi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3GBv8.31322$V44.337@rwcrnsc53...
> > My feeling is this:
> >
> > If people (men OR women) don't want to be "shafted" for support for a
> child
> > whom paternity would *ever* be a question, then they shouldn't be having
> > irresponsible sex to begin with.
> >
> > It's sad when children have become nothing more than financial pawns in
> our
> > society. What happened to loving and raising children?
>
Didi
>Maybe I'm a bit cold-hearted about this but I don't think a man should have
to pay for a child that is not his from the day he finds out. Regardless how
long he has been paying/supporting prior to finding out. Sometimes it take
years for the lies to come out.
O.k., applying this situation to your life, how would your DH feel/behave if
he suddenly found out that SD16 is not his?
Now, he has raised her, fed her, clothed her, loved her for the last 16
years. Would she be any less of a daughter to him all of a sudden? How
would she feel about him questioning her paternity after all of this time?
Wasn't your DH's last child conceived at a suspicious time for his
relationship with BM? Did he ever legally question paternity? Wouldn't it
seem shitty of him to do so 11 years after the fact?
Those are my questions about the whole issue.....
Tracey
>obviously deals more with the men as it's difficult to
>argue maternity) are going to have sex, whether married
>or not, they are going to be taking a risk of making babies.
This is true, Didi. I don't think many people will argue
with this.
>If they are not married, or if there is a question about
>a woman's faithfulness, then paternity should be estab-
>lished as soon as the baby's born -- not years down the
>line when they don't feel like supporting the child any
>longer. Or, when they have a sudden inspiration that the
>child may not actually be theirs.
Here's where I'm gonna disagree. First, just because a
man has made the choice to have sex with a woman DOES
NOT obligate him to support a baby *unless that baby
is his.* If the baby is his, sure, he has the obligation
to support it. But just because he *could* have been
the one to impregnate the woman doesn't mean he should
have to support a child that isn't his. Second, what if
there are no indications that the woman isn't/wasn't
faithful? I'll tell you, *I* sure didn't know about
my husband's affair the minute it started. You can't
always tell if a woman is being faithful, you know.
>Applied to our lives, how would you feel if you and
>Chuck were getting divorced, and suddenly he starts
>questioning paternity of Brooke, Charlie, and little
>Victoria? Regardless of the situation, it would seem
>pretty slimy of him to start that business at that
>time, wouldn't you think?
I'm speaking (obviously) only for myself, but I can't
say that I would make a negative judgment on a person
who, during a divorce, would want to have paternity
either proved or disproved. Now, if it were to happen
to *me*, I've got to admit that my original reaction
would almost positively be anger, just because *I*
know I have never cheated on my husband. But, I'm
very much hoping that I would come to understand that
my hypothetically-almost-to-be-divorced husband might
not have that same certainty. I hope that eventually
I would come to understand that it might have seemed
like a perfectly logical thing for him to do.
Tracey
Tracey
>your DH feel/behave if he suddenly found out that SD16
>is not his?
I don't have the foggiest, Didi, but I also don't think
that that is the point. There are going to be men who
will continue to support the children and be their dad,
no matter the biological truth of the matter. That doesn't
mean that *every* man should be held legally responsible
in the same manner.
I don't like the trends nowadays, myself. Stepparents
being held financially responsible for children after
a divorce, families being made financially responsible
for *adult* children, men being made to pay child support
for children who aren't theirs. I'm seeing lots of laws
that seem to take responsibility and obligation away
from the people who just won't live up to them and
give them to people who aren't responsible for the
choices made and, quite frankly, I think that sucks
little blue bunnies.
Tracey
Vicki Robinson
<I'm speaking (obviously) only for myself, but I can't
<say that I would make a negative judgment on a person
<who, during a divorce, would want to have paternity
<either proved or disproved. Now, if it were to happen
<to *me*, I've got to admit that my original reaction
<would almost positively be anger, just because *I*
<know I have never cheated on my husband. But, I'm
<very much hoping that I would come to understand that
<my hypothetically-almost-to-be-divorced husband might
<not have that same certainty. I hope that eventually
<I would come to understand that it might have seemed
<like a perfectly logical thing for him to do.
But what about the kids, who for years have regarded their mom's
husband as their father? The husband (even not knowing that he's not
the biodad) has functioned as a father, caring for "his" kids. The
kids are innocent in this, they've bonded with him and love him - he's
their Daddy. And now Daddy is allowed to say "Hey, sorry, I know it's
been 15 years, but it turns out that you're not my biological child,
even though you are my child in every way *but* biological; you love
me, you depend on me and we've had 15 great years, but now I'm walking
out of your life. Don't call."?
I can see both sides of this, and I am particularly sensitive because
my stepkids are adopted, and DH's ex invited him to leave before the
kids' adoptions were finalized. He's finalizing them now[*], 11 years
later, but all this time he's been paying support and visiting kids
who were in no way his responsibility. Not legally, not biologically.
But he loves them, they love him. He would NEVER consider just saying
"Hey, guys, Mom never filed the papers, so I guess I'm off the hook!
See ya."
Vicki
[*] Yes, my husband is in the process of adopting children with his
ex-wife.
--
Family and Divorce Mediation Resources
http://xcski.com/~mediator/
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
<snipped>
>
>FWIW, I have always doubted DH's paternity of SD. BM was fooling around on
>him throughout their marriage, they were already having severe marital
>problems when she was conceived, and SD doesn't look *anything* like either
>of her parents. Being incredibly stupid and insensitive one day while we
>were dating, I asked DH about it. He said that he believes that she is his
>daughter, and he would never question it, legally -- she would always be his
>daughter. I've accepted that fact. Though....I guess that I'll always
>wonder, myself, silently.
Kudos to your DH. I'm impressed.
One of the things that really hurt me was when I found out that my own
father questioned whether or not I was his child. Aw, gee thanks,
Daddy.
Now, this is the man who talked my mother into *lying* to her parents
when she was 15yo, talked her into telling them she was pregnant so
that they could get married so he could use her as a draft dodge.
Then, when my grandparents wouldn't sign for her to get married at the
age of 15, he convinced her to marry him on her 16th bday (no parental
signatures needed then) and try to get pregnant right away. I was
born 9mo5days later. But every once in a while, I'd overhear how he
thought I was his brother's child, not his.
Your husband is way ahead of the game. He's putting SD's feelings
above any animosity he feels toward her mother.
Tracey
>But what about the kids, who for years have regarded
>their mom's husband as their father? The husband (even
>not knowing that he's not the biodad) has functioned as
>a father, caring for "his" kids. The kids are innocent
>in this, they've bonded with him and love him - he's their
>Daddy. And now Daddy is allowed to say "Hey, sorry, I
>know it's been 15 years, but it turns out that you're
>not my biological child, even though you are my child in
>every way *but* biological; you love me, you depend on me
>and we've had 15 great years, but now I'm walking out of
>your life. Don't call."?
I dunno, Vicki. I don't think I'm coldhearted about this,
but, legally, I believe the father would have every right
to do as you said above. I kind of doubt that very men
who are good fathers to the kids and who are bonded to
them and love them and the kids love the man are actually
going to do this. But I believe they would have the legal
right to do it if that's what they chose. Would I feel
sorry for the kids? Sure I would. But I'm not going to
automatically brand the guy a bastard if he chooses that
route.
>I can see both sides of this, and I am particularly
>sensitive because my stepkids are adopted, and DH's ex
>invited him to leave before the kids' adoptions were
>finalized. He's finalizing them now[*], 11 years later,
>but all this time he's been paying support and visiting
>kids who were in no way his responsibility. Not legally,
>not biologically. But he loves them, they love him. He
>would NEVER consider just saying "Hey, guys, Mom never
>filed the papers, so I guess I'm off the hook! See ya."
And I think that makes your husband a good man, bordering
on great. But it doesn't take away the fact that he legally
had that option, it was just one he didn't take.
I gotta go have lunch with daughter now, so I'll have
to think about something else I wanted to say, but just
can't put into words right now.
Tracey
Opus
>In a previous article, Tracey <rbran...@aol.com> said:
>
><I'm speaking (obviously) only for myself, but I can't
><say that I would make a negative judgment on a person
><who, during a divorce, would want to have paternity
><either proved or disproved. Now, if it were to happen
><to *me*, I've got to admit that my original reaction
><would almost positively be anger, just because *I*
><know I have never cheated on my husband. But, I'm
><very much hoping that I would come to understand that
><my hypothetically-almost-to-be-divorced husband might
><not have that same certainty. I hope that eventually
><I would come to understand that it might have seemed
><like a perfectly logical thing for him to do.
>
>But what about the kids, who for years have regarded their mom's
>husband as their father? The husband (even not knowing that he's not
>the biodad) has functioned as a father, caring for "his" kids. The
>kids are innocent in this, they've bonded with him and love him - he's
>their Daddy. And now Daddy is allowed to say "Hey, sorry, I know it's
>been 15 years, but it turns out that you're not my biological child,
>even though you are my child in every way *but* biological; you love
>me, you depend on me and we've had 15 great years, but now I'm walking
>out of your life. Don't call."?
Yea, Leagaly he can do that. He would also be a total dirt ball but
the law says you can. I have the same problem that you seem to have
with that but the law is the law. Sucks huh??
Jeff
Didi
> One of the things that really hurt me was when I found out that my own
father questioned whether or not I was his child. Aw, gee thanks, Daddy.
That's got to be painful for a child to hear -- at any age.
> Your husband is way ahead of the game. He's putting SD's feelings
above any animosity he feels toward her mother.
I know -- I love him so much!! He's very sensitive and very loving.....
Anne Robotti
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
news:3cbf2692...@news.moment.net...
>
> Kudos to your DH. I'm impressed.
>
> One of the things that really hurt me was when I found out that my own
> father questioned whether or not I was his child. Aw, gee thanks,
> Daddy.
See, I'll tell you something. Not that Chuck would ever question the
paternity of my kids, and of course it goes without saying that htey're both
his. But if they weren't biologically his, it wouldn't make a bit of
difference to him. He's completely and totally attached to both of them, and
they are to him too.
It's one of the reasons why I have trouble understanding BM. SD feels the
same way about him, and he did about her when she was little. BM did
everything she could to sabotage their relationship, it was *awful* the
stuff she pulled in the beginning. And not that I might not ever want to
kill Chuck with my bare hands, but I couldn't do that to my children, you
know?
Anne
Didi
> I don't like the trends nowadays, myself. Stepparents being held
financially responsible for children after a divorce, families being made
financially responsible for *adult* children, men being made to pay child
support for children who aren't theirs. I'm seeing lots of laws that seem to
take responsibility and obligation away from the people who just won't live
up to them and give them to people who aren't responsible for the choices
made and, quite frankly, I think that sucks little blue bunnies.
'Tis true -- it seems that many people try to shirk responsibilities across
the board in life. I agree that that sucks.
Perhaps, while this wouldn't solve the *entire* problem, whenever a child is
born out of wedlock there should be a legally required paternity test. That
way, there is never a question later in the child's life. In the event of a
woman who truly doesn't know who the father is, she would be exempt from CS
until she was able to prove, via a paternity test, that the child belongs to
a specific man. While this system places a whole lot more responsibility on
the woman, it also forces woman to name the right man or forfeit their right
to CS. Hmmm, though, what to do about men who get a woman pregnant and run
for the hills -- perhaps it would enable men to run from their
responsibilities until forced by a court of law to comply.... I don't know
what the answer is.
I guess, though, that I am not arguing the fact that men should not be
forced to pay CS for children that they did not father, biologically. I am
more questioning the motivation behind waiting years to prove paternity in
order to try to end CS.
And, what about adopted children? Biologically they don't belong to either
parent, so in the event of divorce, should they be tossed to the curb,
financially?
Just things to think about......
Anne Robotti
"Tracey" <rbran...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3CBF2851...@aol.com...
> I don't like the trends nowadays, myself. Stepparents
> being held financially responsible for children after
> a divorce, families being made financially responsible
> for *adult* children, men being made to pay child support
> for children who aren't theirs. I'm seeing lots of laws
> that seem to take responsibility and obligation away
> from the people who just won't live up to them and
> give them to people who aren't responsible for the
> choices made and, quite frankly, I think that sucks
> little blue bunnies.
Nikki, where are you? Put this in hte archive because I love it. Yes, this
is exactly 100% how I feel.
And I love the "sucks like little blue bunnies" thing too, how exactly do
they suck?
Anne
Anne Robotti
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:a9n9qd$jht$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> But what about the kids, who for years have regarded their mom's
> husband as their father? The husband (even not knowing that he's not
> the biodad) has functioned as a father, caring for "his" kids. The
> kids are innocent in this, they've bonded with him and love him - he's
> their Daddy. And now Daddy is allowed to say "Hey, sorry, I know it's
> been 15 years, but it turns out that you're not my biological child,
> even though you are my child in every way *but* biological; you love
> me, you depend on me and we've had 15 great years, but now I'm walking
> out of your life. Don't call."?
That would suck. But it *still* doesn't make a man financially responsible
for children who aren't biologically his. Morally, emotionally, okay. But
not financially. And I bet, in this situaiton, you'd have a *lot* more
vindictive BMs than suddenly-outed-non-biofathers pushing the dad out of the
picture.
>
> I can see both sides of this, and I am particularly sensitive because
> my stepkids are adopted, and DH's ex invited him to leave before the
> kids' adoptions were finalized. He's finalizing them now[*], 11 years
> later, but all this time he's been paying support and visiting kids
> who were in no way his responsibility. Not legally, not biologically.
> But he loves them, they love him. He would NEVER consider just saying
> "Hey, guys, Mom never filed the papers, so I guess I'm off the hook!
> See ya."
>
But seriously, would most guys do that?
Anne
Anne Robotti
"Opus" <yo_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cecubukjfgroqq8tq...@4ax.com...
> Yea, Leagaly he can do that. He would also be a total dirt ball but
> the law says you can. I have the same problem that you seem to have
> with that but the law is the law. Sucks huh??
>
> Jeff
But Jeff, the point is, that right now that *isn't* the law. And it shoudl
be.
Anne
Didi
> Here's where I'm gonna disagree. First, just because a man has made the
choice to have sex with a woman DOES NOT obligate him to support a baby
*unless that baby is his.*
O.k., I agree, but he should clear that up as soon as the child is his. If
he's going to accept a woman's word when she delivers, then he should accept
her word years later.....
>If the baby is his, sure, he has the obligation to support it. But just
because he *could* have been the one to impregnate the woman doesn't mean he
should have to support a child that isn't his.
True, but he should clarify paternity from the start so that there is no
misunderstanding later -- after the child has grown to accept him as their
father.
>Second, what if there are no indications that the woman isn't/wasn't
faithful? I'll tell you, *I* sure didn't know about my husband's affair the
minute it started. You can't always tell if a woman is being faithful, you
know.
I can't argue *that* point although I kind of feel like the spouse usually
*knows* down deep that something is not right. Not having been through
marital infidelities myself, though, it's impossible for me to know for
certain. I know that my DH "knew" that BM was fooling around (the whole
Naval base knew) but didn't want to face reality, so he allowed it to go on
for quite awhile before he finally addressed the issue.
> I'm speaking (obviously) only for myself, but I can't say that I would
make a negative judgment on a person who, during a divorce, would want to
have paternity either proved or disproved. Now, if it were to happen to
*me*, I've got to admit that my original reaction would almost positively
be anger, just because *I* know I have never cheated on my husband. But, I'm
very much hoping that I would come to understand that my
hypothetically-almost-to-be-divorced husband might not have that same
certainty. I hope that eventually I would come to understand that it might
have seemed
like a perfectly logical thing for him to do.
I think that I would be pissed as h*ll, and I'm sure that the children would
be affected greatly, too.
Opus
So sorry,, need to read closer and/or get more sleep.
Sorry..
Jeff
>
>Anne
>
Mika
> Mika wrote:
>
> >Maybe I'm a bit cold-hearted about this but I don't think a man should
have
> to pay for a child that is not his from the day he finds out. Regardless
how
> long he has been paying/supporting prior to finding out. Sometimes it take
> years for the lies to come out.
>
> O.k., applying this situation to your life, how would your DH feel/behave
if
> he suddenly found out that SD16 is not his?
>
> Now, he has raised her, fed her, clothed her, loved her for the last 16
> years. Would she be any less of a daughter to him all of a sudden? How
> would she feel about him questioning her paternity after all of this time?
In her situation no, she would not be less of a daughter to him. But her
circumstances are so vastly different from the other girls that there is no
comparison. He has been virtually her only parent (excluding me) for nearly
all her life. He has a relationship and bond with her. If he found out that
she were not his BD he would most definitely continue to support her.
Especially since BM is nowhere to be found, if she is even still alive. In
MD's case he has no reason to question her paternity.
> Wasn't your DH's last child conceived at a suspicious time for his
> relationship with BM? Did he ever legally question paternity? Wouldn't
it
> seem shitty of him to do so 11 years after the fact?
Yes she was and this is what I was talking about when I said he should have
the choice to continue supporting her if he chooses rather than being
*FORCED* into supporting her. No he has not legally questioned it yet. He
may at some point though. I don't know. If he did find out that she isn't
his BD, it would explain about 90% of the relationship dynamics between
BM/SD and DH plus a ton of other stuff. He has nowhere near the bond or
relationship with her that he has with MD or even with SD14. Not only
because of the lack of time he gets to spend with her but also because of
the way BM sabotages the relationship. Things have happened, information
has come to light, lies have been exposed over the years that has caused him
to question paternity. Since all this information was not available at the
time of the divorce for him to question paternity then, I don't think it
would be shitty of him at all to do it now. He has every right to know if
it's his bio child or not. Just as he should have the right to support or
not support it if it isn't his regardless of when he finds out.
All I'm saying is, he should have the choice. I don't think a man should be
forced to support a child that is not his regardless of how old the child is
when he finds out. He should have the choice. A woman has the choice to
abort, give up for adoption or keep a child without the consent of the
father. Why shouldn't a man have the same choice to support or not support a
child that is not his?
Mika
Vicki Robinson
<> I can see both sides of this, and I am particularly sensitive because
<> my stepkids are adopted, and DH's ex invited him to leave before the
<> kids' adoptions were finalized. He's finalizing them now[*], 11 years
<> later, but all this time he's been paying support and visiting kids
<> who were in no way his responsibility. Not legally, not biologically.
<> But he loves them, they love him. He would NEVER consider just saying
<> "Hey, guys, Mom never filed the papers, so I guess I'm off the hook!
<> See ya."
<>
<But seriously, would most guys do that?
Geez, I hope to hell they would! What other choice is there? He
agreed to sponsor them into Canada, he fully intended to adopt them,
and the process got short-circuited when his wife asked him to move
out. But he never intended to leave those *kids*. He's just doing
what he set out to do in the first place.
Vicki
rebecca
> husband as their father? The husband (even not knowing that he's not
> the biodad) has functioned as a father, caring for "his" kids. The
> kids are innocent in this, they've bonded with him and love him - he's
> their Daddy. And now Daddy is allowed to say "Hey, sorry, I know it's
> been 15 years, but it turns out that you're not my biological child,
> even though you are my child in every way *but* biological; you love
> me, you depend on me and we've had 15 great years, but now I'm walking
> out of your life. Don't call."?
Yeah, but Vicki, all the law can do is make him hand over money, it can't
make him continue to be their father. And in this circumstance - where I
would want to encourage the man to stay engaged with children who aren't his
own - I would absolutely not require financial support. If the man's
invested enough to stay with the kids, he might be willing to support them,
but requiring it is just adding insult to injury. JMO.
rebecca
Mika
>BUT, if
> men (or women, though this particular issue obviously deals more with the
> men as it's difficult to argue maternity) are going to have sex, whether
> married or not, they are going to be taking a risk of making babies. If
> they are not married, or if there is a question about a woman's
> faithfulness, then paternity should be established as soon as the baby's
> born -- not years down the line when they don't feel like supporting the
> child any longer. Or, when they have a sudden inspiration that the child
> may not actually be theirs.
There may be no reason to question it at the time the baby is born. The
reason to question may not come till years down the road. If a man has built
a relationship with a child and has bonded with it, I really don't think he
would walk away. But it still should be his choice to do so.
Mika
Anne Robotti
> <>He would NEVER consider just saying
> <> "Hey, guys, Mom never filed the papers, so I guess I'm off the hook!
> <> See ya."
> <>
> <But seriously, would most guys do that?
>
>Geez, I hope to hell they would! What other choice is there? He
>agreed to sponsor them into Canada, he fully intended to adopt them,
>and the process got short-circuited when his wife asked him to move
>out. But he never intended to leave those *kids*. He's just doing
>what he set out to do in the first place.
Let's reread, shall we? I meant, would most guys say, "Hey, Mom never filed
the papers to I'm outta here!"
I don't believe most guys would.
Anne
Melissa
believed it and it ripped him apart. Of course anyone who has seen pictures of
SO and SS knows that SS is SO's kid, but it really had SO shook up.
Love,
Melissa
http://ryangiglierano.homestead.com/home.html
"Bad Spellers of the world UNTIE!"
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
<arob...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
>news:a9n9qd$jht$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
<snipped>
>>
>> I can see both sides of this, and I am particularly sensitive because
>> my stepkids are adopted, and DH's ex invited him to leave before the
>> kids' adoptions were finalized. He's finalizing them now[*], 11 years
>> later, but all this time he's been paying support and visiting kids
>> who were in no way his responsibility. Not legally, not biologically.
>> But he loves them, they love him. He would NEVER consider just saying
>> "Hey, guys, Mom never filed the papers, so I guess I'm off the hook!
>> See ya."
>>
>
>But seriously, would most guys do that?
>
Hard to tell what "most" guys would do. A lot of them would, but a
lot wouldn't, too.
Tracey
>whenever a child is born out of wedlock there should be
>a legally required paternity test. That way, there is
>never a question later in the child's life. In the event
>of a woman who truly doesn't know who the father is, she
>would be exempt from CS until she was able to prove,
>via a paternity test, that the child belongs to a specific
>bility on the woman, it also forces woman to name the right
>man or forfeit their right to CS.
Isn't that what paternity suits do? Maybe I come from
a contentious area, but I can't recall a single person
ever paying CS for a child without a paternity test and
a court order. Not to say they didn't help support the
baby before, but generally, at some point or another,
if the man and woman weren't married, there always a
came a time when things went 'down the tubes' rela-
tionshipwise with them and it *always* ended up in
court.
>Hmmm, though, what to do about men who get a woman
>pregnant and run for the hills -- perhaps it would
>enable men to run from their responsibilities until
>forced by a court of law to comply.... I don't know
>what the answer is.
There's not going to be an answer for it all. There
are going to be people who will dodge the issue and
work the system and do whatever they can to either
avoid paying CS or to get CS, no matter if it's the
bio-dad paying or not. What I hate are laws that pen-
alize people who are doing what they should be
doing, but still getting shafted.
>I guess, though, that I am not arguing the fact that
>men should not be forced to pay CS for children that
>they did not father, biologically. I am more ques-
>tioning the motivation behind waiting years to prove
>paternity in order to try to end CS.
I can't say all of the motivations, but I *know* there
are times when the truth doesn't come out until months
or years after the fact.
>And, what about adopted children? Biologically they
>don't belong to either parent, so in the event of divorce,
>should they be tossed to the curb, financially?
Apples and oranges, IMO. Adopting a child has an
understood if not downright stated financial obligation
attached. Vicki's husband is willing and knowingly
adding a legal obligation to financially support his
kids by going through with the adoption and he also
is well aware they are not biologically his. AFAIC,
the cases we're talking about would fall under the
same area as a false contract would. The man has
been operating under the assumption that the child
is his and has been fulfilling his financial obligation.
Since the basic premise of the contract (the children
are his) is false, then he doesn't have a financial
obligation anymore.
Tracey
Tracey
>how exactly do they suck?
Oh, they suck hard, Anne. Where have you been???
Tracey
Vicki Robinson
<Let's reread, shall we? I meant, would most guys say, "Hey, Mom never filed
<the papers to I'm outta here!"
<
<I don't believe most guys would.
Ah, I agree. (As I probably amply demonstrated.) But it sounds like
some of those guys in Geri's article were doing exactly that.
Tracey
>the child is his.
I'm a bit confused here, Didi. As soon as he suspects?
>If he's going to accept a woman's word when she delivers,
>then he should accept her word years later.....
I dunno, Didi. Let's say I jump my husband tonight when
he gets home from work. (Hmmm, sounds like a good idea!)
Then, tomorrow, when I go back to Kaneohe (Marine Corps
Base), I grab the cute little Navy Corpsman whose checking
out my finger and drag him into the supply closet and
have my way with him. Nine months from now, I have a
baby, and, unless I've told my husband, he would probably
not even have a clue about my tryst with that Navy Corpsman
and, thus, a paternity test would never cross his mind.
Just because I'm a good liar and he trusts me is no
reason for him to lose legal rights.
>True, but he should clarify paternity from the start so
>that there is no misunderstanding later -- after the child
>has grown to accept him as their father.
Okay, then. Let's do that. Every child that is born should
have a paternity test conducted before they leave the
hospital, whether the mother is married or single or what.
If she's single and doesn't or won't name the father,
then no CS ever. Do you think that's gonna fly? I can
see the outcry now. Heck, I've *heard* the outcry when
required paternity tests are discussed on other groups.
>I can't argue *that* point although I kind of feel like
>the spouse usually *knows* down deep that something is
>not right.
Well, sure, Didi, I think a lot, if not most, spouses
know that something's not right when their spouse is
having an affair, but it's not as simple as making the
leap from 'Something's wrong' to 'That baby's not mine!!'
I won't say that I represent all people whose spouse
has had an affair, but if the issue hadn't been forced
by the OW, my husband's affair could have went on for
a loooooong time before I would have ever been able to
believe he was having one. If he had continued the way
he was going, it probably could have lasted for years.
And, while I won't say that I never thought of the
possibility, I had perfectly logical, sound reasoning
why an affair wasn't what was wrong.
>I think that I would be pissed as h*ll, and I'm sure
>that the children would be affected greatly, too.
I'm sure you would, and I'm sure the children would be
affected greatly, too. But I'm wondering something. Have
you ever been through an acrimonious divorce? Lots of
people act in ways and do things you would have never
thought possible when they're in the middle of a divorce.
Another point I'm wondering about is what about the
women? The men are being called names and their character
being called into question, why aren't the women getting
the same treatment? *I* think a woman who *knows* (and,
let's face it, she knows) the paternity of the child is
in question and still goes ahead and lets a guy who
might or might not be the father is way lower on the
ladder than the guy who pays and pays, not even knowing
there's a question as to paternity.
Tracey
Victoria...
> "Vicki Robinson" wrote in message..
choice. If a man decides to conceive a child that is *his* choice, although men
have less *choice* after conception than women do. Now, where it begins to get
a bit muddied is when/if a Mother is deceitful enough to name the wrong person
as the father.
In a perfect world people wouldn't lie, but we are not dealing with a perfect
world here. We have to deal with deception all of the time. I believe that
there are laws in place in *most* if not all states that cover the possibility
of a wife getting pregnant (with another man's child) while she is still
married. I believe that most states say that *legally* if a child is born
within a marriage then it is considered a child of the marriage, ergo, his
child. I believe that there are also provisions *in most states* that if a
husband decides to have a paternity test to *disprove* paternity at the time the
child is born, he may do so, and therefore *BM* may receive financial support
from the biological father of the child. Here is the next snag we run into....
what if the Husband, does or does not bond with this child, and then after
certain events come to light, he finds a question of paternity..... Do we go
back and *charge* BM for her deception? Do we go for back child support from
the *real* BF? Or is the "child of marriage" still the responsibility of the
Husband? I honestly think that this portion of the law should be looked at on a
case-by-case basis. I honestly don't see any cookie cutter answer, because there
are too many variables.
The following is my *opinion* only...One thing that I *do* think can be made in
a cookie cutter type deal, is if at any time a Man has *all of the information
in hand* and still decides to a *contractual obligation* of supporting the
child, at that point he should not be able to back out of his contractual
obligation. As an example, when Vicki's DH sent a support check *after* finding
out that the papers had not been finalized, he has then re-affirmed his
contractual obligation. If a man finds that a child is biologically not his,
and supports the child he is forming a contractual obligation to continue that
support. I believe that *most* if not all states provide a statute of
limitations based on when accurate information is made available. There are
many cases of toxic substances coming to light decades *after* exposure. The
statute of limitations does not protect the wrongdoer from his obligation to be
responsible based of the fact that he was able to *hide the truth* for long
enough, therefore I do not believe that a BM, should be protected for being a
good liar either. (and no, I am not equating children with a toxic substance,
it was just the first example that came to my mind where the statute of
limitations begins at a different starting date than the actual offence).
As a personal example, my DH has a brother that was born 20 months *after* his
Father was reported missing in action, and then finally reported as being killed
in action. They brought the flag to the family, and presented his medals, and
sword to the family. When the father came home (quite a pleasant surprise) from
being a POW for 4 years, he came home to find a toddler that "couldn't possibly"
be his. At that point he *decided* to take that child as his own, he raised
that child with all of the same advantages/disadvantages that the other children
have had. Do *I* believe that he had an obligation prior to him accepting the
child? NO, and neither did his mother, she was completely prepared for her
husband to *shun* the child, and possibly even divorce her. OTOH, do I believe
that the father *created* an obligation after accepting the child as his own?
H*ll YES!!! Because he *knew* what he was contracting to. I believe that full
knowledge in creating a contractual obligation is the key in this case, as (I
believe) it *should* be in all cases.
--
Victoria...
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him
who conquers his enemies;
for the hardest victory is over self. ~ Aristotle
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
Jennaii
>The
>>kids are innocent in this, they've bonded with him and love him - he's
>>their Daddy. And now Daddy is allowed to say "Hey, sorry, I know it's
>>been 15 years, but it turns out that you're not my biological child,
>>even though you are my child in every way *but* biological; you love
>>me, you depend on me and we've had 15 great years, but now I'm walking
>>out of your life. Don't call."?
Many parents use their own birth children as pawns after they divorce. I
guess, bearing this in mind, the above situation doesn't surprise me much...
"This time: gonna do it RIGHT!" -- Bob Seger
Jennaii
Didi
> Yes she was and this is what I was talking about when I said he should
have the choice to continue supporting her if he chooses rather than being
*FORCED* into supporting her. No he has not legally questioned it yet. He
may at some point though. I don't know.
O.k., but 11 years later seems like a shitty time to question paternity.
The circumstances were questionable -- at best -- when she was born. He
accepted the responsibility when she was born, regardless of the
circumstances. What could he hope to accomplish by questioning it now?
Aside from some life threatening health issue -- where genetics would need
to be considered -- what would he find out that he probably already knows
and has accepted all of these years?
These are the circumstances that I am balking at.
Didi
> >O.k., I agree, but he should clear that up as soon as
> >the child is his.
>
> I'm a bit confused here, Didi. As soon as he suspects?
My bad -- sometimes my fingers can't keep up with my thoughts!! ;)
I mean that when the child is born, he should automatically get a paternity
test -- referring to unmarried couples having children. As I think I said
(don't remember if I included this in my last post), I don't know truly how
to address married couples..... Your analogy is a hard one to address.....
Though, the Naval guy and the supply closet sounds kind of fun!!
<remembering to make DH get out his old Naval uniform tonight!!>
> Okay, then. Let's do that. Every child that is born should have a
paternity test conducted before they leave the hospital, whether the mother
is married or single or what. If she's single and doesn't or won't name the
father, then no CS ever. Do you think that's gonna fly? I can see the outcry
now. Heck, I've *heard* the outcry when
required paternity tests are discussed on other groups.
I realize that it's not a popular idea, but it sure would impact the number
of paternity questions plus get the ball rolling for CS from the start.
Come to think of it, though, what would Maury Povich have shows about if
paternity were established in the hospitals before babies went home with
their mothers?? ;)
> Well, sure, Didi, I think a lot, if not most, spouses know that
something's not right when their spouse is having an affair, but it's not as
simple as making the leap from 'Something's wrong' to 'That baby's not
mine!!'
Well, that's certainly true!
> I won't say that I represent all people whose spouse has had an affair,
but if the issue hadn't been forced by the OW, my husband's affair could
have went on for a loooooong time before I would have ever been able to
believe he was having one. If he had continued the way he was going, it
probably could have lasted for years. And, while I won't say that I never
thought of the possibility, I had perfectly logical, sound reasoning why an
affair wasn't what was wrong.
Denial is a very powerful coping mechanism!
>But I'm wondering something. Have you ever been through an acrimonious
divorce?
No, I haven't. My divorce was very amicable. My DH's divorce was,
obviously, acrimonious though I have only been around for the more recent
stuff.
> Another point I'm wondering about is what about the women? The men are
being called names and their character being called into question, why
aren't the women getting the same treatment? *I* think a woman who *knows*
(and, let's face it, she knows) the paternity of the child is in question
and still goes ahead and lets a guy who might or might not be the father is
way lower on the ladder than the guy who pays and pays, not even knowing
there's a question as to paternity.
Oh my -- I don't mean to imply AT ALL that I don't hold the mothers
responsible!! I have little-to-no respect for women who have children
indiscriminately, without regard for who the father is or how they are going
to care for them. That was why I propose that women should not be able to
collect *any* CS until they have proven who the father is. Otherwise, they
can literally name anyone, and unless the man protests, they are the
"father".
In one of your other responses you asked if paternity tests are a norm, but
my understanding is that they are only performed when requested as they are
expensive and are not always covered by insurance companies. That is
probably why the government hasn't stepped up to the plate to require
them -- it would be a HUGE financial undertaking with all of the babies
being born, particularly out of wedlock, nowadays.
rebecca
>
> > Okay, then. Let's do that. Every child that is born should have a
> paternity test conducted before they leave the hospital, whether the
mother
> is married or single or what. If she's single and doesn't or won't name
the
> father, then no CS ever. Do you think that's gonna fly? I can see the
outcry
> now. Heck, I've *heard* the outcry when
> required paternity tests are discussed on other groups.
>
> I realize that it's not a popular idea, but it sure would impact the
number
> of paternity questions plus get the ball rolling for CS from the start.
> Come to think of it, though, what would Maury Povich have shows about if
> paternity were established in the hospitals before babies went home with
> their mothers?? ;)
Just FYI - in California, if a single parent files for public assistance,
they are required to name the other bioparent. The state then goes after
that person for support. My brother's ex-girlfriend was collecting welfare
*while* he was completely supporting her and the child that she claimed was
his. When the state came calling when the kid was around 2, paternity test
proved there was no way in hell that my bro had fathered the child.
And for the record, he not only still supports that one, but the skanky
whore's other two kids as well. He continues to deal with the emotional
ramifications of bonding deeply with a child while being mislead about his
parentage, but what the f*ck, none of these children *have* any parent but
him. And all 3 kids know it (the oldest is about 9 now).
Not that I'm bitter about the bitch, or anything (-:
rebecca
Mika
> Mika wrote:
>
> > Yes she was and this is what I was talking about when I said he should
> have the choice to continue supporting her if he chooses rather than being
> *FORCED* into supporting her. No he has not legally questioned it yet. He
> may at some point though. I don't know.
>
> O.k., but 11 years later seems like a shitty time to question paternity.
> The circumstances were questionable -- at best -- when she was born. He
> accepted the responsibility when she was born, regardless of the
> circumstances. What could he hope to accomplish by questioning it now?
The *evidence* to support it didn't come out until years later. She lied and
deceived him and a lot of things didn't add up but not to the point of
causing him to question paternity *at that time*. Yeah he accepted
responsibility thinking she is his bio daughter. If he would have had the
evidence then that came out later, you can bet he would have had paternity
tests done. As far as what he hopes to accomplish now...well a it would give
him some answers to a lot of things that have happened over the years. It
would ease the doubt of "is she or isn't she". Would it make a difference in
the way he treats her? If it turned out that she were not his, it would
probably explain a lot of her behaviors and then he could deal with them
more appropriately. Would he want to walk away? I doubt it but there is the
possibility. There are circumstances that I can't get into right now so I
don't expect anyone here to understand why I say there is a possibility. So
please don't judge him as being a mean, horrible person who is trying to
walk away from his responsibilities. He's not. I think it's only fair
though, that he have the choice to continue supporting her or not to if it
turned out that she isn't his BD.
> Aside from some life threatening health issue -- where genetics would need
> to be considered -- what would he find out that he probably already knows
> and has accepted all of these years?
For him to know for sure if certain things that have happened are a result
of her not being his BD or if it's for some other reason. If they are a
result of her not being his bio child, he could handle things in a whole
different way that would probably me much more effective.
>
> These are the circumstances that I am balking at.
I understand this. But every situation is different and I think a man should
have the choice. It's no different than a woman being able to choose between
giving birth and aborting.
Mika
Mika
"Jennaii" <jen...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020418185804...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> Many parents use their own birth children as pawns after they divorce. I
> guess, bearing this in mind, the above situation doesn't surprise me
much...
Yes they do. And if the BM knows the child isn't the ex's bio child it can
get even uglier. Especially if he doesn't know or suspect until years later.
Mika
Didi
> Just FYI - in California, if a single parent files for public assistance,
they are required to name the other bioparent. The state then goes after
that person for support. My brother's ex-girlfriend was collecting welfare
*while* he was completely supporting her and the child that she claimed was
his. When the state came calling when the kid was around 2, paternity test
proved there was no way in hell that my bro had fathered the child.
I think that that is the same in my state (that in order to file for P.A.,
the women have to name a father for the state to go after), but what I'd
like to know is if the state *required* the paternity test and if they paid
for it as well? More curious than anything......
> And for the record, he not only still supports that one, but the skanky
whore's other two kids as well. He continues to deal with the emotional
ramifications of bonding deeply with a child while being mislead about his
parentage, but what the f*ck, none of these children *have* any parent but
him. And all 3 kids know it (the oldest is about 9 now).
>
> Not that I'm bitter about the bitch, or anything (-:
With very good reason -- she sounds like a skanky whore.....
Does your brother financially support them by choice, or is he forced to by
the state?
--
Didi
Mother of 4, Step-mother of 1
"Children, perfection, and sanity. You can only have 2 out of 3."
Anonymous
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:toJv8.16657$3z3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Didi" <didi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:edJv8.11929$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > > Okay, then. Let's do that. Every child that is born should have a
> > paternity test conducted before they leave the hospital, whether the
> mother
> > is married or single or what. If she's single and doesn't or won't name
> the
> > father, then no CS ever. Do you think that's gonna fly? I can see the
> outcry
> > now. Heck, I've *heard* the outcry when
> > required paternity tests are discussed on other groups.
> >
> > I realize that it's not a popular idea, but it sure would impact the
> number
> > of paternity questions plus get the ball rolling for CS from the start.
> > Come to think of it, though, what would Maury Povich have shows about if
> > paternity were established in the hospitals before babies went home with
> > their mothers?? ;)
>
>
>
> rebecca
>
>
>
>
>
>
rebecca
> rebecca shared:
>
> > Just FYI - in California, if a single parent files for public
assistance,
> they are required to name the other bioparent. The state then goes after
> that person for support. My brother's ex-girlfriend was collecting
welfare
> *while* he was completely supporting her and the child that she claimed
was
> his. When the state came calling when the kid was around 2, paternity
test
> proved there was no way in hell that my bro had fathered the child.
>
> I think that that is the same in my state (that in order to file for P.A.,
> the women have to name a father for the state to go after), but what I'd
> like to know is if the state *required* the paternity test and if they
paid
> for it as well? More curious than anything......
IIRC, my brother had to contest paternity, which my father forced him to do
(he was 22? at the time). I think he had to pay for the test. Then, once
proven he was *not* related, the state tried to tell him he was legally
required to report S.W. (skanky whore's) whereabouts at any time she
contacted him. My dad got an attorney involved, who rattled some cages and
got them off my brother's back.
> Does your brother financially support them by choice, or is he forced to
by
> the state?
His choice. None of them are his biologically, and he's not married to her
(thank God). He does not have a stellar history of good decision making,
I'm amazed he ever stuck his hmmm in the bitch without it dissolving and
falling off (oops, that bitter thing does crop up!). I have really mixed
feelings about it, mostly because it ties him to her. She periodically
vanishes, and he can't afford daycare. But I try to support him, it's an
incredibly moral thing to do. I just sometimes wish he would look out for
himself more. He told me once that it still rips him up to look at the
little boy, knowing that he's not really his. He feels trapped and
helpless, but can't bring himself to take away the only parent these kids
have. The maternal GM once told my mom that she knows it's a terrible
position for my brother to be in, but that she's selfishly glad he's there
for her grandchildren.
I'm not terribly fond of the grandma, either.
My brother just turned 26.
rebecca
Didi
The title of "saintship" just passed from my DH to your brother! He sounds
like quite a guy!
--
Didi
Mother of 4, Step-mother of 1
"Children, perfection, and sanity. You can only have 2 out of 3."
Anonymous
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ybKv8.19588$L1.15...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Melissa
>guess, bearing this in mind, the above situation doesn't surprise me much...
True.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>whom paternity would *ever* be a question, then they shouldn't be having
>irresponsible sex to begin with.
>
We heard an interview about this proposed bill on the radio and supposedly (at
least here) a woman could pick someone out of the phone book, name him as
father of the baby, and at this point in time he has six months to refute it.
If he doesn't, (and if he didn't know the woman or know he was named, he
wouldn't) he is presumed the father of the child and they can come after him
for child support. They don't even have to have sex. That is why I said a
man could be f**ked without even having sex.
Geri
http://www.repealthesodatax.com/
(Help fight this stupid tax!)
http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/2002-04-11/sidecar.html/1/index.html
(Pretty funny.)
myself
"Mika" <tajma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebEv8.18662$L1.14...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Anne Robotti" <arob...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:ubtt5g7...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > But Didi, it's not really that simple. How come the "first family" of a
> > woman who slept around should take precedence over the family of a man
> who's
> > *not* the biological father of the child?
> >
> > I'm all for people owning up to their responsibilities to the children
> they
> > bring into the world. I don't buy the whole "she tricked me into it"
line
> of
> > crap - keep it zipped. But if you legitimately *didn't* father the
child,
> > why *should* you pay for somebody else's mistake for 18 years while they
> go
> > off scott-free to repeat it?!
>
> I agree with you Anne. Maybe I'm a bit cold-hearted about this but I don't
> think a man should have to pay for a child that is not his from the day he
> finds out. Regardless how long he has been paying/supporting prior to
> if a man has been supporting a child for X#of years then all of a sudden
> finds out that it isn't his, he is gonna feel a lot of resentment. Maybe
not
> intentionally but it will be there.
>
> That article mentioned something about not letting a man off if he has
been
> the only father the child has know for years because it will *harm* the
> child. What is going to do more harm, having a man resent and ultimately
> reject the child because he is forced to continue paying even though the
> child isn't his? Or give the man a choice? If he chooses to continue the
> support then he is more likely to not reject the child.
>
> I could tell of personal experience in this area but I don't know who
lurks
> and I don't want to tip my hand. Since the other person doesn't know that
I
> know. But I will share it if the truth ever comes out.
>
> Mika
I agree with you, Mika. I saw an interesting episode of "Family Law" a few
weeks ago that was about this topic. the man found out during the divorce
that the children he believed were his, were not, but was ordered to pay
anyway. He ended up suing in civil court, I think, and he ended up winning.
and you know what he did? He told his lawyers to figure out what he would
have paid in CS for whatever number of years, and set up a trust for the
kids that the mother could never touch, but would be there when the kids
would need it for college, etc. I think a large part of it is that the guy
shouldn't have to pay knowing that she can use it for what she likes, but
it's also that he should have the *choice* as to whether or not to continue
as father in *any* way at all if he finds out he isn't in fact the father.
Not to mention that the actual father who had the affair with the mother
shouldn't be getting off scot free, either.
lori
myself
> Tracey wrote:
>
> > I don't like the trends nowadays, myself. Stepparents being held
> financially responsible for children after a divorce, families being made
> financially responsible for *adult* children, men being made to pay child
> support for children who aren't theirs. I'm seeing lots of laws that seem
to
> take responsibility and obligation away from the people who just won't
live
> up to them and give them to people who aren't responsible for the choices
> made and, quite frankly, I think that sucks little blue bunnies.
>
> 'Tis true -- it seems that many people try to shirk responsibilities
across
> the board in life. I agree that that sucks.
>
> Perhaps, while this wouldn't solve the *entire* problem, whenever a child
is
> born out of wedlock there should be a legally required paternity test.
That
> way, there is never a question later in the child's life. In the event of
a
> woman who truly doesn't know who the father is, she would be exempt from
CS
> until she was able to prove, via a paternity test, that the child belongs
to
on
> the woman, it also forces woman to name the right man or forfeit their
right
run
> for the hills -- perhaps it would enable men to run from their
> responsibilities until forced by a court of law to comply.... I don't know
> what the answer is.
>
> forced to pay CS for children that they did not father, biologically. I
am
> order to try to end CS.
>
either
> parent, so in the event of divorce, should they be tossed to the curb,
> financially?
>
Adopted children are the children of the father of record by *choice*. Our
child is adopted, and his dad would/should be liable to contribute to his
support if we split up. He *chose* to accept legal fatherhood to a child he
knew wasn't his biologically. that's a whole different thing than living as
if you are the father to children you actually have no reason to believe are
not your kids. And then it comes out that they aren't, you should have the
right to say no.
Lori
Anne Robotti
"Cheyanne" <chyan...@no.spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cc7a0aa....@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> What I want to know which hasn't been answered to us yet -- if BM
> continues blowing off these appointments, how likely is it that DH
> will be ordered to pay CS? (Sorry, but I have zero interest in paying
> support for a child that we don't even know where she IS, much less
> get to see her ever.)
And, more to the point, how likely *is* it that you'll end up paying child
support and DH will be acknowledged as her father, but you'll still never
see her no matter what the court sets up as a visitation schedule *and*
nothing will ever be done to BM about it?
I'm guessing that hte reason he wants to be acknowledged as her father is to
be in her life, right? Sounds like fat chance. What a horrible shame.
Anne
Kathleen
With hope and heart,
Kathleen
> >I think that that is the same in my state (that in order to file
for P.A.,
> >the women have to name a father for the state to go after), but
what I'd
> >like to know is if the state *required* the paternity test and if
they paid
> >for it as well? More curious than anything......
>
> delurking for this one...
>
> We're going through this right now in Texas.
>
> DH's youngest daughter, A, is 6 years old. We haven't seen her in
> exactly a year. We have no idea where her BM has her, and yes,
we've
> tried to find her. She knows where we are and what our phone number
> is, as do several of her friends and her mother.
>
> BM was separated from her husband when she and DH got together (long
> before I met him). BM gets pregnant, tells DH it's his. He
proposes
> to her. She's still married, and hasn't even filed for divorce yet.
> She stalls around, A is born, BM doesn't list *anyone* as the father
> on the birth certificate, and in fact gives the child her *maiden*
> name.
>
> Over the next couple of years, BM allows some contact between DH and
> A. BM had a habit of disappearing for months at a time. When
asked,
> she always said she didn't want any money, she just wanted A to
spend
> time with her daddy and sisters.
>
> Two and a half years ago, after having been MIA for almost exactly 2
> years, BM turns up. Lets DH see A. Then she disappears again for
> several months. When she resurfaces, she talks with both of us on
the
> phone. Lets A come and stay with us for a week. Starts talking
about
> another visit to us. Says yet again that she doesn't want any
money.
>
> And then disappears again.
>
> This last December we get a letter from the attorney general,
> informing us of a mediation to determine child support. The letter
> got here the day before the appointment, and we couldn't make it, so
> we called. Guess who else didn't show up for it? (Yes, she was
also
> ordered to do so.) We're told we'll get another letter telling us
> when to come in.
>
> Last month, we got that letter. Made it to this appointment. BM
was
> supposed to be there too -- this was a mediation. Guess who wasn't
> there?
>
> Ok, finally to the paternity testing. DH went in and had the swab
> test done today. If it comes back that he's not A's biological
father
> then the state (Texas) will pay for it. If it comes back that he is
> indeed A's bio father, then we'll have to pay for it.
>
> To be honest, there isn't much of a bond with A. DH loves her, but
> doesn't really know her. Her sisters (DH's daughters from a
previous
> marriage) miss her and love her, but don't really know her. She's
> never even met her baby brother.
>
> We do believe that DH is indeed her bio father. DH requested the
test
> because he wants to be *acknowledged* as her father. He wants his
> name on her birth certificate. He wants to be part of her life. He
> even wants to pay CS.
>
> What I want to know which hasn't been answered to us yet -- if BM
> continues blowing off these appointments, how likely is it that DH
> will be ordered to pay CS? (Sorry, but I have zero interest in
paying
> support for a child that we don't even know where she IS, much less
> get to see her ever.)
>
> So there's the Reader's Digest version.
>
>
> ~ C
>
Geri and sometimes Brian
>out (we think to BM's mom's house, but aren't sure). BM's SO drinks
>quite heavily. BM drinks and does recreational drugs on a regular
>basis.
>On one hand, I totally agree with DH that A desperately needs a stable
>home life. She needs to know where she's going to be sleeping every
>night, and needs to be coming home to the same family every night.
>On the other hand, it makes my heart ache to think of taking her away
>from the only parent she's ever really known and putting her into a
>family she barely knows.
Unfortunately, you would probably have to come up with some pretty good proof
of these things in order to gain majority custody of her, even proving you have
the more stable home - and especially depending on where you live. But, you
might be able to get shared custody for starters. Judges don't seem to like to
interrupt the status quo, no matter who bad it is for the kid.
Welcome to the group!
Kathleen
>
> Thanks!
>
> >With hope and heart,
>
> I smile every time I see your "With hope and heart" =)
> ~ C
>
Awwwwwww, thanks. Some days that is all I have.
With smiles and laughter,
Kathleen