I think both should.
What on Earth for?
Agree with you, can’t have it both ways.
I can’t imagine walking out on a child, that you have raised as your own since birth, and severing that relationship completely because you learned its mother had decieved you.
Anyone that could or would is no man in my book.
Yea, it sucks, its not fair, its not “right”, but guess what, its called being a Man. Frankly sue for full custody, seems to me you have a legitimate argument for it on the grounds of Fraud on the part of the Mother.
One thing when someone shows up out of the blue claiming some kid you’ve never met is yours, another when you have raised it as your own (albeit by deceit) only to find out later its not biologically yours, but you are the only father they’ve ever know.... and be able to walk away from that?
That’s a coward and a child, not a man.
“I think both should.”
In cases where Mrs. A knowingly defrauded Mr. A and wasted state resources by furnishing false statements, the only payment that ought to be involved is that of sending Mrs. A to jail.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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 could envision a sort of support order where a guy becomes the payor pro tem (until the true biodad is identified) but this does not exist in the law today.