Replies

Its a matter of justice and fundamental fairness. The only exception a court could make is if the man had an on-going parental relationship with the child since I am of the view love and the child's welfare should override mere biology. But in all other cases, a man shouldn't be forced to pay child support for a child he never fathered. Its just plain wrong.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

“The only exception a court could make is if the man had an on-going parental relationship with the child...”

Circumstances such as that, I doubt there would be a court case as love trumps all, but in this insane World of today...who knows.

I did read of a fellow whom was raising a child with his wife he thought his only to find out the child wasn’t, and turned rabid towards his wife and the child. I can understand his bewilderment and anger, but hope he realized the relationship he had with the child was truly more important than his anger and emotional betrayal.

Never read anything further of the story, so don’t know what happened.

SLippery slope. I disagree with you. You can’t force someone to be a dad (or a mom) if they are not that child’s parents. How would you like to be told you have to give payments for a kid of a guy or gal you’re involved with because the other adult testifies the kid now has an emotional bond to you, and the other real parent is nowhere to be found?

On the flipside, we should do more to force real but unwilling moms and dads to be moms and dads to the kids that are theirs.

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.

Its a matter of justice and fundamental fairness. The only exception a court could make is if the man had an on-going parental relationship with the child since I am of the view love and the child's welfare should override mere biology.

Monetary responsibility for a child has absolutely nothing to do with the emotional ties. In today's family courts, a woman can dissolve all contact with the man and refuse to let him see his own children, yet have the courts force him to pay her money for the children. That is bad enough, but allowing the woman to refuse to let him see the child while forcing him to pay for it when the child is not even his is heinous. That, however, is exactly the system that is in place now.

The issue of breaking the parental bond is deceitful misdirection; if the designated father is allowed to see the child then he will be paying for much of the child's care already. The legal designation as father only comes into play when the "father" no longer has contact with the child or has only minimal contact, usually due to divorce or other such separation, in which case the so-called parental bond is already broken, probably by the mother. In the case where a man finds out that his wife's child is not his, a divorce will most likely occur and, once again, money is now the only issue as it is unlikely the man will have access to the child any longer.

The only exception a court could make is if the man had an on-going parental relationship with the child since I am of the view love and the child's welfare should override mere biology.

No man is under any obligation to support the child of another man, regardless of "parental" relationship. If he adopts, that's different.