Posted on 01/09/2006 12:19:01 AM PST by RWR8189
Consider what the ramifications of your position - it's better to have a child whose father knows he isn't the father continue payments for 15-20 plus years? And the non-father is expected to be happy about this? And keep it all a secret? I will grant you there are a few saints out there, but given the acrimony of the average divorce, I daresay the average stuckee will end up taking it out on the child sooner or later. And all the while the actual father who should be the "bad guy" in all this, is what, snickering away in the corner wihtout responsibility or blame?
In a perfect world, or at least one far, far better than this one, your answer might make sense. In this one, I disagree.
He has not petitioned the court for termination of parental rights... he just doesn't want to be paying his ex. Has he said he wishes no further contact? No rights to make decisions relating to teh childs life?
There is a HUGE difference between asking to no longer pay child support, and having your rights as a parent terminated.
If he was cuckolded, that truly sucks for him.. but in case you missed it LIFE AIN'T, NEVER WAS, AND NEVER WILL BE FAIR. He wants alleviation of the financial burden, he should further sue the guy who is the father for damages... then the whole issue of whether it was a running around, or a voluntary and known impregnation will be decided by the courts... and he can be made whole financially.
The biological father should be responsible, unless he has a signed document showing that both of the married partners consented to him impregnating the wife.
The courts are completely bonkers. Common sense has gone out the window.
Who said that? Make the mother and father pay, it's their responsibility for the child being born.
But I guess it's easier, as in this case to: Make ANY man pay, they're all so male.
Yep, that's my whole point; the husband accepted the child as his under false information. Adopting a child that's not one's own is going into such a situation with eyes wide open. That's not the case here.
AntiGuv, this isn't really directly aimed at you but it seems to me that most of this thread has really missed the point.
Being a 'Dad' has nothing to do with biology. We don't really know if Mr. Parker is still or has ever been a Dad to the child or not. Certainly, if he has been and wishes to continue to do so that is laudable but not really what I see as the point here.
This is about fraud and money. If she committed fraud then she should be liable for that. If the fraud was committed in order to gain financially, then there should be some financial consequence.
Perhaps an answer would be for him to continue to pay child support and to continue to enjoy visitation rights, but to recover from her an equal amount as damages due him because of the fraud.
To me that is different. If a man knows it is not his child and assumes responsibility by marriage and quasi-adoption, an argument could be made for child support after divorce.
I completely agree with you that being a 'Dad' has nothing to do with biology, and I'm sure I'd feel I was a rather awful person if I raised a son as if I'd sired him and then ditched him just because I found out I wasn't the biological father (although the mother would surely be bounced out the door ASAP!) For that matter, I am hardly some paragon of virtue and have plenty of things to regret about my own conduct over the years.
But my ultimate principle in all this is that responsibility sits with those who are in fact responsible. Above all else, I see no justification for making him accountable for his ex-wife's adultery and for another man's child if he was the one deceived and violated in all this. If he chooses to take part in the child's life anyhow then I'd say that is great and commendable, but he should not be forced to do so if he is not even remotely at fault for these circumstances.
And finally, if a man doesn't want to be a dad in such a situation you can't very well force him. At most you can force him to be a wallet - and a rather surly one at that. If he's responsible, then he should be accountable anyhow, but if he's not, then force the one who is responsible (the adulterer) be the accountable one. I've always taken responsibility for my own actions and find it perplexing that anyone would argue that this guy should be accountable for the actions of others.
You've passed two bar exams and you don't know about the principle I was speaking of?
Good grief, remind me never to let you argue a case for me. I'd rather a competent lawyer.
Yah, except for the law is literally hundreds of years old, back from before women could even vote.
Hey smart guy, I wasn't claiming to be a legal expert, and if you paied attention, you'd realize it.
The point of pointing out that I've taken two pre-law classes was to say the exact opposite: I know almost nothing, and yet, I know this much, because it's a bedrock legal principle. It's that basic.
And like several others before you, you are yet again assuming a crime is being committed. It's not. This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and everything to do with a child that needs a father.
What the heck are you talking about? She has no less responsibility for the child then the father does.
Why should her husband have to pay for the child?
Because he took responsibility for it, and the child needs a father.
Why not make the child's father pay?
Because he's not the child's 'father'. He's the seman factory that was used. There's a lot more to fatherhood then that.
Well, it hasn't done that for the hundreds of years it's been in place, so your arguement is rediculous.
You are missing the point. I'm not talking about who's sperm created the child, I'm talking about the actual father. There's a lot more to fathers then sperm donatioin.
"To me that is different. If a man knows it is not his child and assumes responsibility by marriage and quasi-adoption, an argument could be made for child support after divorce."
It's not different!
Did you even read what I posted?
Explain to me why my comparison is false. You haven't yet.
It might well be, but a child is involved now, and he didn't do anything, and still needs support.
Life isn't always fair. You don't always know all the consequences and details of the decisions you are making. That's life. It doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities.
Again, back to the example you may have missed. What if a man has sex with a woman who says she's on the pill but isn't? Since she lied to him, should he be absolved of responsibility since she lied?
Here's another example: Military recruiterd WILL lie their a%%e% off to get you to join. They do it all the time and nobody who's ever been recruited that way will tell you anything different. Does that mean you should be able to walk out of the military any time you want? Of course not. You made a decision, as imperfect of one as it was, and now there is something larger at stake.
Yes I did.
The difference is the man in the article was lied to, it was not his child he was supporting. In the other scenario the man knows it is not, but assumes responsibility nonetheless.
"Again, back to the example you may have missed. What if a man has sex with a woman who says she's on the pill but isn't? Since she lied to him, should he be absolved of responsibility since she lied? "
The difference in that case is that the child would in fact be his child.
It don't have a damn thing to do with a case where the child isn't that of the man being forced to pay.
I think most everyone else in the world can see a difference, you seem to be lost in a world all your own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.