Replies

All the people who are saying this is right need to walk in a mans shoes who is in this situation.
Many times the woman leaves the man, divorce or if not married,just ups and leaves, maybe moving in with another man.
Or if married fills for divorce and then has the other man move in. This alone is devastating to the man. He has (in some situations) woke up one day to find the only woman he has ever loved has left him and his children have been taken away.
He gets every other weekend to see his kids.He is probaly in lots of trouble, for the first time in his life,moneywise.
He might have to get a studio apartment and has no money to do anything with his kids and his kids quickly tire of not being able to be with their close friends on the weekend.
Mom starts playing games with his visitation rights as well.
A few years later he is picking up his son and the new daddy meets him at the door, gives his "son a kiss and hug goodbye and old dad looks and goes holy shit, they look just alike!
So now you have a devestated father who has lost the woman he loves, his child or children are slowly being taken out of his life and he realizes the son or daughter isnt even his.
What if he wasnt married, didnt really have any rights and mom and new dad say little johnny is not your son and since he is just two or three years old we think it is a good idea for you to stay away.
So should old dad keep fighting for little visitation he has or should he put the child in Gods hands and walk away.
Remember he is already devastated, may have turned to drinking as the only fix that helps him.
Should a man keep fighting for the little visitation he has, keep paying 1/3 to 1/4 or more of his money?
They are too many scenarios for a man not to be able to withdraw and stop paying for a child that is not his.
It is wrong for man to be forced to pay for a child that is not his.
This is a new age and we have to be able to adapt.
This is probaly one of the reasons muslims have the strict laws they have about a womans infidelity ( I am not saying it is right) just that they realize how important it is "for the children" not to have to question who their real dad is.
A woman does not have to worry about this.
Maybe the solution is to have all childrens DNA tested at birth.
This might help for medical reasons as well.after all the bottom line is this is for the children so since men and women cant stop sleeping around this is a solution that will avoid many problems in the future.

Very well put. You just left all the aboriginal pontificators in your dust.

Wrong is wrong. All the skewed logic in the world will never change that.
I have a daughter who I am not convinced is mine. I wasn't defrauded because I knew the EX cheated on me. I gladly pay because I CHOOSE to and I love the child.
IF I was defrauded, I would like to know that my legal protections were the same as the woman's. Because if I CHOSE not to volunteer my livelihood to another, that would be my choice, NOT someone else's choice. I should not be legally obligated to pay for someone else's obligations, especially since all I would get out of the deal is an occasional visitation, subject to manipulation by the cheater in question.

I also think that the fact a woman can take a man to court, play this game in which she divides up her expenses in order to arrive at a monetary value, then she can use the money for anything she wishes, is not only immoral, it's indeed FRAUD. There's NO accounting to the man at all. As a father, he should have a right to know that money does indeed go to the child's welfare. Currently, the woman can use it for drugs or just give it to a boyfriend. As long as she doesn't go so overboard in her behaviors the Child Protection Services step in, she's free to squander.

Perhaps a special credit card, with statements going to the man and the court would end such abuse.

There's no doubt that men get the short end of the stick when it comes to divorce. The courts, and too many women, see the man as just a walking wallet. Few thoughts are given to just how devastating this is to the man. Instead, he's seen as just plain selfish if he doesn't comply.

I know of a local policeman who got severely stiffed in his divorce. He lives on peanuts now. The hardest part of all, is that his ex is living with a man who she refuses to marry in order to keep ripping off the ex-husband via alimoney, and both the ex and the boyfriend work for Boeing and make ungodly salaries, many times over what the cop makes. The courts refuse to give him any relief, and when each child reaches 16, the court automatically ups the amount he has to pay. I suppose that would be fair to the NOW gang, but surely not a normal human.

Anyone that would argue against my points is either ignorant of reality or can't stand that their personal agenda is being threatened with true fairness.

rant off