Also, if the man (now probably divorced) never got, or chose not, to see the child, would that destroy your basic reasoning, because the child would have not "father" for all practical purposes?
If the child has come to know the husband as their father, it’s incumbent on the man to step up and continue a personal relationship with the child, and provide financial support.
I love it when men of small raisins whine about this. Step up and be a man!
There are many cases of loose women hitting up anybody they’ve ever been with for child support once they get a kid. They’ve been loose their whole life except in court when they swear the guy they’ve dragged in there was the “only one they were with at the time”.
“Keep it in your pants” isn’t just about diseases these days for men.
What a jerk, you think a man who is NOT the biological father and complain about being forced to pay child support are “whining”? You are beyond contempt!
Sorry, but I've seen too many cases where Mr. A and Mrs. A split up, Mr. A pays support to Mrs. A who now is living with Mr. B. The support is for the child A-let who is not really A-let but B-let. Mr. B is the father, gets the benefits of being the father, and Mr. A gets soaked.
Now for the child's sake who is accustomed to Mr. A, visitation should continue, but not payment.
The State needs to find the real biodad, but usually they have as much interest in doing that as OJ does of finding the 'real killer.'
Not a problem IF AND ONLY IF, the surrogate father KNOWS that he is not the dad when he assumes the parental role. However, if the mother LIES and through FRAUD represents the child as his when it is not, then the surrogate father has been duped and should have legal recourse.
“If the child has come to know the husband as their father, it’s incumbent on the man to step up and continue a personal relationship with the child, and provide financial support.”
Pathetic.
“Step up and be a man!”
They wouldn’t have to step up if the Lady’s would keep their legs closed.
Hmmm. Since the kid's a minor, the money's not going to him. It's going to the mother in trust for the kid, and the mother is someone who has been revealed is dishonest. Why would you trust her with anything you cared about? Seems like throwing good money after bad.
If the cuckold feels like continuing to see the kid, that's up to him. It's not the kid's fault, but it's not the man's, either. Removing any obligation to honor the fraud of the mother would make some kind of relationship easier, I'd guess.
Take one for the team, no thanks.
Unless the woman was raped, she and another man entered into a physical contract to create a child. Let the man who entered that contract pay for the child.
My cousin had 4 children when he was married. She then divorced him letting him know that all four were fathered by another man. He is still paying for those children and will never have any children of his own. He didn’t step up, he was shackled down. It was a wrong done to him that will not go away after the last child support check is cashed.
It is not whining, it is a social injustice.
By your reasoning, to create more real men, the courts should randomly assign babies from single moms, and let men work two jobs for 18 years supporting them. Yep, sounds like a great idea to me.
Perhaps for the child’s sake a duped man should maintain a relationship with that child, and perhaps even help out financially. I imagine many or even most would want to do the former. But the decision should be left entirely to the duped man.
He should not be forced to do either by any court or law.
I love it when men of small raisins whine about this. Step up and be a man!"
One of the most illogical posts made by a FReeper that I've ever read.
It says "You've been suckered, so deal with it, even when you've learned the truth"
If I was in a relationship with a woman that there was 100% proof that she lied about something that important, I wouldn't "step up and be a man" under you're definition.
You're definition of a man is severely whacked, beyond all recognition.
And what about the real father? Has he no right to know his child? Of course a child will be hurt by all of this - the Mother didn’t think much about that when she was screwing around though, did she?
That would be very good advice to the actual father but is a slap in the face to the man that has been extorted by lying the woman.
Do you rather enjoy being beaten around yours?
But seriously, you spewed this same non-sense in a thread about 6 months ago. Have you not figured it out yet? Your philosophy would ensure that most men WILL NOT get close to "their" children because any act of benevolence could make them financially responsible, regardless of the biological facts.
How about this? Based on your thinking, a person convicted of raping a child, but later proven innocent thru DNA, should not be released because of the trauma it would cause the child. Remember now, it's for the children.
Giving you some credit, I don't think you believe a word you say. You're just f***ing with people who have suffered an injustice.
I think you mean "Bend over and smile !"
You really don’t get out into the world much, do ya son.............
Also, if the man (now probably divorced) never got, or chose not, to see the child, would that destroy your basic reasoning, because the child would have not "father" for all practical purposes?
No damn way I’d support such a kid. No way.
Under no circumstances.
If that’s bad for the kid, it’s not my problem.
So, what role does the mother have in all this...is she financially responsible for any measure of support, or does she sit by and “whine†that she needs more money to “support†the child....and as a thought, how come the female spouse is NEVER order to help support the child....and how come the is no accounting for the support money spent on the child...seems to me that a yearly accounting of money spent would be required...I have to account on a yearly basis on the my money earned.....