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.
How would you feel about making good old mom pay back every red cent with interest after the child turns 18?
>>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.
Since you are so enamored of the child not taking the “Hit” I say you should step up to the plate and take one for the team. You don’t want to? Why?
This is ridiculous how about doing this:
1. IF Bio dad has never been “Dad” to the kid, why saddle him with the money problem?
2. If the Dad has been involved, and is not biodad the court should let him of on condition of continued involvement.
3. If Mom won’t give up the biodad, put her in jail for fraud and let the kid stay with nonbiodad.
4. If Mom gives up the biodad and it’s confirmed by DNA, then he’s on the hook for both the child support, and payback for the nonbiodad’s outlay. (serves him right for fishing in another guy’s pond, serves her right that now her infidelity is a matter of public record.)
The kid winds up in a better situation in each of these scenarios.