Interesting child support case

[RTRD]

Obviously...

Please explain how a father could defraud his wife into believing that the kids were her biological offspring & NOT the hidden product of an affair & your argument could actually mean something.

But you probably CAN'T.... so this part of your argument is beyond foolish & useless.

...that couldn't happen, but these circumstances aren't the only ones cited as reasons to not meet a parental child support obligation.

The details are important to YOU. Not me, not the kids, and again, fortunately, not the courts.

Heaven forbid... a man can be wronged by a woman...... Imagine that.

It isn't difficult to imagine. Doesn't have shit to do with the kids however. Again...fortunately...the courts don't punish people for infidelity.

 

[themexi]

The same way my feeling like the children should be keep whole and left blameless makes that my POV "manhating". I don't' understand it either, but hell I assumed you would since you said it first.

I universally referred to women who engage in this sort of fraud. Apparently that went over your head & insist that this man is responsible for paying for that fraud because he fell for it.


I challenge you to quote where I referred to women in general AT ALL.... let alone in a hatefull way.

Either that or the only honorable & fair thing for you to do is apologize & retract the womanhating slur................

Then again from your performance in this post honorable & fair are hard for you to grasp......

 

[dcbogey]

Not his kids, not his responsibility. What happens to her children is not his concern and if they lose (an education, a nice house, whatever), and he doesn't care, so be it. No reason for that one guy to have to pay for a societal sob story. Ridiculous ruling.

He raised them for 16 years. For all intents and purposes they are his children, biology notwithstanding.
If, as has been mentioned previously, he had asked for a test much earlier, things may have turned out differently.

 

[themexi]

...that couldn't happen, but these circumstances aren't the only ones cited as reasons to not meet a parental child support obligation.

The details are important to YOU. Not me, not the kids, and again, fortunately, not the courts.

Not just me... the fact that the tone of the article seems to have made a serious issue of it says to a reasonable person that others seem to think it's a big deal.


The comments section in the article gives an overwhelmingly negative opinion of the ruling on the basis that it REWARDS FRAUD.

Even more interesting is that while neither gender was %100 on one side or the other......the most damning condemnations came from WOMEN.


Have any other arguments that don't involve slurs, sentiment & a complete lack of sense of justice???

 

[RTRD]

Sure....

Either that or the only honorable & fair thing for you to do is apologize & retract the womanhating slur................

Then again from your performance in this post honorable & fair are hard for you to grasp......

...after you demonstrate how fair and honorable you are by apologizing and retracting

Please cut the liberal manhating sentimental sloganfest............

Or is it that you are allowed to think me a "manhater" for your reasons, but I am not allowed the same privilege?

I've noticed...that happens a lot here...

 

[hoser1970]

I think there should be middle ground here.

Should he be paid back for the money he already paid in child support? Theoretically, YES, since he wasn't supporting "his" children. But not if doing so comes at the expense of the innocent children, whom he thought were his while he was paying support. He should have recourse via civil action to sue his ex-wife, once said children are no longer dependent on the mother.

Should he be required to continue paying child support to these children (and their mother) beyond the point in time when he discovered he was not the father? Emphatically NO! The point of child support is to continue to support the child as they would have been, provided the marriage never ended. In this case, (presumably) the marriage ended because the husband suspected his wife was cheating. IF they were his children, he would still be on the hook to pay child support, since the innocent children should not be punished for the mother's sins.

However, they are NOT his children! The marriage ended (presumably) because he thought she was cheating. This has now been PROVEN, since he is not the biological father of the children. (Therefore, she HAD to have been sleeping with someone else.) Let her go after that individual for any further child support.

The question of whether he loved (and may still love) these children as his own is a moral one, rather than a legal one. If he did in fact love these children, and has no children of his own, he may decide that he wants to continue to support them in any way he is able to (financially, emotionally, etc). However, from the point he discovered he was not their father, this should be his choice to make, not the choice of the judiciary!

 

[themexi]

He raised them for 16 years. For all intents and purposes they are his children, biology notwithstanding.
If, as has been mentioned previously, he had asked for a test much earlier, things may have turned out differently.

16 years more than they should have gotten. Your putting the onus on this man to establish paternity is beyond ludicrous.

The Onus should have been on the woman to disclose.........

That every child born into a marriage is considered a product of that union under the law should men that the man should have EVERY expectation to trust that the child is His.


So tell me.... if a person doesn't fight hard enough to prevent getting assaulted & robbed by someone they had every expectation of trusting did they have it coming?

 

[dcbogey]

Let's call a spade a spade shall we?

Not saying the wife is blameless is insufficient to the pursuit of JUSTICE.....

She. Is. To. BLAME!!!!


Why can't you bring yourself to be Fair in your language?????

We don't know what happened before, during and after the infidelity. Many husbands and/or wives have affairs for a wide variety of reasons, and we don't know what happened in this case. Until we do I don't think it is "fair" to lay all the blame on one person or the other.

 

[Aardvark154]

Don’t blame the judge blame the Solons who have made the law what it is.

Unfortunately fathers are now in the position that if you don’t immediately have a paternity test done on the child (a fairly decent way to “nuke” a marriage when your wife finds out - and flying in the face of the goal of reconciliation of couples if seperated) and refuse to support the child from the outset, then you are in the position of the father in the article, you de facto have treated the child as your own and are liable for support. At least this poor guy is only on the hook for two more years, imagine if the children were five or six!

 

[themexi]

...after you demonstrate how fair and honorable you are by apologizing and retracting



Or is it that you are allowed to think me a "manhater" for your reasons, but I am not allowed the same privilege?

I've noticed...that happens a lot here...

Fine & fair.... mocking & mirroring your original slur by calling you a manhater was unfair & I apologize. It is wrong to stoop to that.

The rest of the quoted comment still stands.


Your turn.

 

[RTRD]

That....

Should he be required to continue paying child support to these children (and their mother) beyond the point in time when he discovered he was not the father? Emphatically NO! The point of child support is to continue to support the child as they would have been, provided the marriage never ended. In this case, (presumably) the marriage ended because the husband suspected his wife was cheating.

...is an interesting assumption. What are you basing it on?

IF they were his children, he would still be on the hook to pay child support, since the innocent children should not be punished for the mother's sins.

So the children aren't innocent in this case because....?

 

[mandrill]

But, I do agree it is pretty fucked up that this guy wants NOW claim these kids aren't his 16 years later just to save himself some dough...regardless of how that will impact the kids themselves. I mean, completely apart from the money....how low of a piece of shit do you have to be that you are comfortable announcing to your kids "turns out I'm not your Dad and your mother is a cheat whore" just to save on cash?? That is why I think this is all about punishing the wife...he didn't care about the paternity of those kids before...why now?

Guys pull this all the time. One of my own cases a few years ago. Guy had moved in with a women who had a 6-month old baby boy. Guy raised the boy as his own, knowing biologically the boy was not his. Guy and woman never told the boy that the guy wasn't his real biological daddy.

15 years later, the guy and woman splits up and the woman sues the guy for child support. (The biological daddy is long out of the picture.) So the guy takes the teenaged boy out for dinner and tells the kid that he doesn't have to pay for him any longer, because he's not the kid's "real" dad. Kid had NO IDEA up to this point.

Kid has a breakdown and fails his year in high school and takes the next 2 years of therapy to get back to normal.

And hey, you know what??!! The judge made the guy pay child support anyway - because he had knowingly acted as the boy's dad for 15 years. So it was all just a misguided pointless PoS that the guy tried to pull.

 

[mandrill]

At least this poor guy is only on the hook for two more years, imagine if the children were five or six!

Err, well.... he's actually on the hook for 5 or 6 years if the kids go on to university. Plus a chunk of their education expenses.

 

[RTRD]

Hmmmm.....

Fine & fair.... mocking & mirroring your original slur by calling you a manhater was unfair & I apologize.

The rest of the quoted comment still stands.


Your turn.

...which original slur was that?

You'll have to point it out to me so that I can apologize for it...because based on my RE reading of the thread...my memory of events is correct...I used "woman hating" as a "mocking & mirroring" reference to YOUR slur....

 

[Cassini]

Don’t blame the judge blame the Solons who have made the law what it is.

Unfortunately fathers are now in the position that if you don’t immediately have a paternity test done on the child (a fairly decent way to “nuke” a marriage when your wife finds out - and flying in the face of the goal of reconciliation of couples if seperated) and refuse to support the child from the outset, then you are in the position of the father in the article, you de facto have treated the child as your own and are liable for support. At least this poor guy is only on the hook for two more years, imagine if the children were five or six!

Yes, this is one example of the law helping the immediate victims but hurting everyone else. If you are a guy, your best economic chance is to not hook up with anyone that has kids that are not your own, otherwise you could wind up paying child support.

Unfortunately, this also means that many men aren't going to be willing to be even temporary father figures because of the potentially enormous financial penalties.

This saves one group of kids, and hurts a many more.

 

[hoser1970]

Imagine you purchased a used car. You paid fair market value for it, you drove it, paid insurance on it, put gas in it. Then, 16 years later, you find out the car was stolen, and have it confiscated from you., and returned to the rightful owner.

Should you get back the money you paid for it? No, since you seemingly did not do your due diligence before purchasing it.

Should you be reimbursed for the insurance and gas you paid for while you were driving it? No, because you gained a benefit from it.

Should you be forced to continue to pay for the insurance and gas consumption of the rightful owner, until the car reaches a certain age?

 

[RTRD]

That....

Guys pull this all the time. One of my own cases a few years ago. Guy had moved in with a women who had a 6-month old baby boy. Guy raised the boy as his own, knowing biologically the boy was not his. Guy and woman never told the boy that the guy wasn't his real biological daddy.

15 years later, the guy and woman splits up and the woman sues the guy for child support. (The biological daddy is long out of the picture.) So the guy takes the teenaged boy out for dinner and tells the kid that he doesn't have to pay for him any longer, because he's not the kid's "real" dad. Kid had NO IDEA up to this point.

Kid has a breakdown and fails his year in high school and takes the next 2 years of therapy to get back to normal.

And hey, you know what??!! The judge made the guy pay child support anyway - because he had knowingly acted as the boy's dad for 15 years. So it was all just a misguided pointless PoS that the guy tried to pull.

...is a damn shame. A real damn shame. What a piece of work. You have to be a really little man to do something like that.

Hell hath no furor like a man scorned either, I guess....

 

[CapitalGuy]

He raised them for 16 years. For all intents and purposes they are his children, biology notwithstanding.
If, as has been mentioned previously, he had asked for a test much earlier, things may have turned out differently.

I really don't see the difference. They are not his kids. What does asking for a test have to do with it? I agree with teh poster above who suggested he should be able to sue for repayment of the money he has shelled out over the past 16 years.

What is the policy if a man is determined to be the father of a child when that kid is 16? Does mom get back payment for the missed years of child support? Partial payment? I am not sure. Regardless, he would be on the hook to start paying once he was determined to be the father. The fact that he was not raising them for 16 years and that he was de facto not their father, would not be a factor. This should be no different. Same thing in reverse. Yes its sad for the kids but its not this guy's problem to fix.

 

[themexi]

Guys pull this all the time. One of my own cases a few years ago. Guy had moved in with a women who had a 6-month old baby boy. Guy raised the boy as his own, knowing biologically the boy was not his. Guy and woman never told the boy that the guy wasn't his real biological daddy.

15 years later, the guy and woman splits up and the woman sues the guy for child support. (The biological daddy is long out of the picture.) So the guy takes the teenaged boy out for dinner and tells the kid that he doesn't have to pay for him any longer, because he's not the kid's "real" dad. Kid had NO IDEA up to this point.

Kid has a breakdown and fails his year in high school and takes the next 2 years of therapy to get back to normal.

And hey, you know what??!! The judge made the guy pay child support anyway - because he had knowingly acted as the boy's dad for 15 years. So it was all just a misguided pointless PoS that the guy tried to pull.

It was wrong of them not to tell him as soon as he was able to understand.

It was WRONG of this guy to pull that shit on the kid..... just evil in this case and any like it.

But the case being discussed in this post is NOT like the one in this post. The Dad in this post accepted the child KNOWING the situation.... he was Not deceived... only the poor kid was. This POS didn't have to suffer the world he knew crashing down around him as a lie because he took an active part in te deception & he should rot in hell for telling the kid like that.



It is very different from a man who was pretty much as much in the dark as the kids.

 

[RTRD]

If...

Imagine you purchased a used car. You paid fair market value for it, you drove it, paid insurance on it, put gas in it. Then, 16 years later, you find out the car was stolen, and have it confiscated from you., and returned to the rightful owner.

Should you get back the money you paid for it? No, since you seemingly did not do your due diligence before purchasing it.

Should you be reimbursed for the insurance and gas you paid for while you were driving it? No, because you gained a benefit from it.

Should you be forced to continue to pay for the insurance and gas consumption of the rightful owner, until the car reaches a certain age?

...this fellow is capable of dismissing a child the same way he can dismiss a car, it is a damn good thing for mankind at large his disturbed ass didn't breed, isn't it?

Pretty fucked up analogy, IMHO....