Posted on 04/10/2007 1:21:59 PM PDT by Quick or Dead
Nope, I’ve never been married and have no children. I do love children very much, and want several of my own someday.
That may be my emotional involvement - I love children and seen many get harmed by divorces. I see no compelling need to pile any more on a child in that situation.
Given the choice between a child taking the hit, and the adult taking the hit, I say ‘hit the adult.’ Every option has problems, so that’s the least bad option I can think of, in the totality of the situation.
...and what happens when mom decides to split and take the child with her? Does the duped "father" continue to foot the bill for mom and her new boyfriend?
No, it shouldn't override biology, and it sure as hell shouldn't override the father's RIGHTS.
Woah. That is one awesome picture.
My sister is a police officer in a large SW city.
She tells me the bulk of the homeless are either ‘wanted felons’ or deadbeat dads. If you can’t pay, ya gotta go underground.
I am from the “if it ain’t mine, I ain’t gonna pay” school of interpersonal relations. Maybe the -other lover- can pony up the bucs.
How would you feel about making good old mom pay back every red cent with interest after the child turns 18?
That presupposes fraud, which includes the intent to defraud. The woman may not know that her husband isn't the father of the child. Without that intent, there can't be fraud.
But in the case where she does know, fraud my be an issue.
I only seek to continue to hold the man accountatle when he has already established a father-child relationship with the child, and the child knows the man as their 'daddy.' Like I said, any way we cut that will case harm, so I say harm the adult rather than harm the child.
In cases where there is no intentional fraud, then you almost have a point. However, apparently you have the mistaken impression that if Mr. A isn’t paying then the child will starve or something. The IV-D program (and if necessary IV-A, Medicaid, etc) can provide assistance until the proper payor is found to provide reimbursement.
I don't know where you got the impression that I felt the child may starve. My prescription is only when the parent-child dynamic exists, and in that case i still think the biological father should still contribute to the financial support of the child.
In fact, that’s the entire reason this whole child support system exists (Family Support Act of 1988). We the taxpayers grew tired of biodads skipping out leaving the bill in our hands, so we go after the biodad. This is OK, but not if the wrong guy’s on the hook.
I never suggested that the biodad was off the hook.
Arguments surrounding the child and payment fall down to me because the child does not develop an attachment to the money but to the person.
I agree, which is why I emphasize the personal relationship being kept intact.
As we know the visitation and the support are separate because failure on the CP’s part to allow visitation does not relieve the NCP from support obligations; therefore, when we discover that the NCP is not really the person who ought to be paying support, visitation may continue.
I agree, execpt I think once the relationship has been established, the ex-husband should still contriybute to he finaicnail support of the child. So should the bidad. And I don't think the woman should get a duble payout - the contributions should be apportioned between the two men.
In all of this endeavor to maintain that in your mind - the act of parenting and the support are totally separate. The only reason for the support is to pay back the state for unreimbursed assistance. Therefore there’s no reason that the support ought to attach to a person who didn’t father the child.
I agree they are distinct but not 'totally separate,' since the obligations of a parent are both personal and financial.
I have a better idea.
The duped father should be able to choose between demanding full custody of the child (the mother is obviously unfit), or, if the mother refuses this, terminating all financial support and continuing visitation; he can apply his money directly to the needs of the child while visiting him.
In Arizona the man has to acknowledge or be proven the father (unless he’s married to the mother) before his name is on the BC. I can’t believe some ho can just pick a name out of a hat, and the state goes along with it. Have they changed that in Texas since this happened to you?
Sure I do. I'm just keeping the less-than good men honest by holding them to some standard.
I’d agree with your first statement only if the man knew he was not the biologial father, and then willingly took fatherly responsibility anyway.
If he was ignorant of the truth before being named on the birth certificate, then he should bear no mandatory responsibility once DNA clears him.
The child still knows him as 'daddy' and that relationship should be preserved, not undermined. My answer is 'yes' that he should continue to provide some of the support for the child, but that doesn't mean 'foot the bill for mom and her new boyfriend.'
The money didn't go to mommy, it goes to help support the child. So my answer is no, that would be a bad idea.
But, but, it’s for the children, doncha’ know?
I’ll one up you. Paternity tests should be mandatory for ALL births before the birth certificate is issued. The parents should submit DNA as soon as the woman goes a doctors care for her pregnancy.
Every child should be DNA tested AT BRITH and the results provided to both "parents". Codify in all 50 states. Allow the "father" 1 year to contest paternity.
We can call it “trust, but verify”.
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.