Posted on 01/09/2006 12:19:01 AM PST by RWR8189
A. Because he married her, and is now responsible for her.
B. Because a child is involved, and it would be far worse to suddenly have the person it's known as it's father ripped away from it.
C. It's a longstanding legal precident, that if you take responsibility for the child at it's birth, you are responsible forever. That's how it should be for the best interest of the kid. He doesn't know anything about sex or divorce or adultry, he only knows his life as it was given to him, and he shouldn't be made to suffer for others.
For the same reasons, I am also pro-life, because I don't think that the child should be made to suffer because of the sins of the parents.
If the man was a man of character, he'd pay it without the court order.
Umm, no it won't.
I learned this in pre-law 101. It's as old as the hills.
This isn't like a murder or a rape. This isn't just dealing with the victim, there's someone else involved.
If you accept a child at birth, without question, it's the same as adoption. What, are you going to argue that parents that adopt kids should be able to 'divorce' their kids if they divorce their spouse as well? Rediculous, for obvious reasons. This is no different.
Thanks for the backup.
But you are ok with a parent having to suffer for the sins of the other parent? What's wrong with the guy who actually fathered the child paying the support? Got any thing agaist that? This is so wrong that words fail a person trying to describe how wrong it is. The wife decieves the husband, the husband believes it is his child because she lies and tells him it is(this is fraud), but when he finds out years later it isn't his child, he has to keep paying because he didn't assume she was a slut from the git go and have a DNA test at birth! This is outrageous and you find nothing wrong with it, unbelievable.
They are getting married, just NO children from what I have seen.
I agree with you by the way. There is no doubt, as the person to whom you responded stated, that it is long-standing legal principle for the declared father at birth to be responsible for the child notwithstanding later contested paternity. However, now that we have DNA testing that can eliminate any doubt when a man did not sire the child, I think that the laws will change within 10-20 years so that establishing non-paternity will absolve men of child-support obligations.
DNA DNA DNA DNA changes alot of old laws it will change this one also. If I accept any legal binding contract under false pretenses then the contract becomes null and void.
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
This topic is all about money grubbing cheating women. Seems you favor liars and thieves when they are female. You frown on the man who refuses to pay for children he never fathered.
This is not the same and you know it. He didn't adopt the kid, once you adopt a child it is yours. He accepted the child because he was TOLD by the mother is was his, he didn't accept it because he was being benevolent and taking on the support of another man's child, he was doing it because he believed the lie that it was his. Entirely different. You have your head squarely up your a** if you think other wise.
You are completely missing the point. First off, fathering a child is not a crime, and you can't be 'innocent' if it.
Second, he may not have fathered the child, but he accepted responsibility for it by calling it his own at birth. He's now accepted responsibility for the kid. It merely requires him to live up to his responsibility.
This is the ONLY place in US law where a person has to pay the penalty for another person's crime. Disgusting.
Rediculous. Again, this isn't a crime, and I'm pretty sure this isn't unique to the US. It's a legal principle that is hundreds of years old.
Heck, the Libs have a fit about the idea of forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want. Where does the rights of the child trump the rights of the mother in *that* situation?
Do you realize what you are saying?
If you are arguing the pro-abortion side, you just did a great job. But if you are pro-life like me, you just made my point.
Is it exactly the same? No. It is mostly the same? Yes.
I'm pro-life for the same reasons. I think the life of the child is more important then the convenience of the parents. The consequences are a little less severe here for the child, but the same basic ideas apply.
And you have your head up your a$$ if you don't realize it.
No, I frown upon men who won't step up and take care of kids that need taken care of, after he already said he would by accepting the child as his responsibility.
It sickens me that even so-called 'conservatives', people who are suppose to believe in individual responsibility, would shirk something so important as fatherhood because of something like this. Just because your life doesn't go the way you wanted it to doesn't mean that you get to opt out of your responsibilities.
Never mind that the money taken from the one man is usually also taken from his own legitimate children. This is especially the case in states like California that provide only 30 days to contest paternity, oftentimes 'established' without the knowledge of the non-father who doesn't even know that he's been named, in a number of cases by women he doesn't even know, because they have provided a name to Social Services which is incorrectly tracked to him, and then for whatever reason he never receives the summons that is delivered to someone else.
This has been English law for 500 years. And I have had no problem with that. It had a certain crude logic that preserved families. But today we have DNA testing and women who work outside the home, who can often make more than men. If she wants to cheat her way through life, let her earn her way through life.
DNA testing has changed other laws. Paternity support for children who aren't yours will also bite the dust. Feminist money grubbers cannot stop DNA technology factoring into more and more paternity/child support cases. There's even a new TV show this season that deals with incarcerated criminals being freed by new DNA evidence
Well said.
I've head of such laws and cases.
When a child is in the middle, and he, as a adult individual making his own choices, married this woman and accepted her child as his? Absofreakinglutely. It's called individual responsibility. Was he lied to? Maybe, but that doesn't matter to the kid, and it doesn't change the fact that he took responsiblity for him.
What's wrong with the guy who actually fathered the child paying the support? Got any thing agaist that?
Yes. He's not the kids father as far as I'm concerned. Men are not merely seman factories.
This is so wrong that words fail a person trying to describe how wrong it is. The wife decieves the husband, the husband believes it is his child because she lies and tells him it is(this is fraud), but when he finds out years later it isn't his child, he has to keep paying because he didn't assume she was a slut from the git go and have a DNA test at birth! This is outrageous and you find nothing wrong with it, unbelievable.
Yah, words to fail you, alright, because you aren't making a lot of sense here.
I didn't say I found nothing wrong with it, I merely said I still thought that the man who was responsible for this woman, and took responsibility for his child, should not be released of his responsibility.
What is unbelivable is that you seem to be willing to sell a kid down the river for the convinience of that person he has called dad since he was born. Does a lie destroy that bond? Hell no.
What about a man who has sex with a woman who says she's on the pill, but isn't? Should he be released from having to take care of the child because he was lied to?
Heck, if I thought of things like you do, I'd say yes.
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.