[Mrs. Don-o]

I can see how it would be a HUGE precedent. Eighteen years of payments from Mr. Squirt (that's going to be a whole lot more than just the initial $6,000) plus every other BaByDaddy in the state who thinks he's off the hook because he signed a paper with Mom'n'Mom.

The Mom, by the way (if you read the whole article) separated from her ... uh... "partner at the time" and got on public assistance. That's what triggered this whole thing. She lied to the State that she didn't know the identity of the sperm-vendor, but forgot that the contract between Marotta and the couple includes his name, and the couple talked about their appreciation for him in an interview with The Capital-Journal(!!)

[cuban leaf]

Courts have actually ruled that men who have been paying support for a child which they thought was theirs, on discovering (via dna analysis) that it is not theirs, are still required to pay support.

It’s an interesting “game”. A lot of potential Timothy McVeighs are being created by our court system.

[Mercat]

And I have sort of following this but I’m assuming that the courts did not require the “partner” to pay child support to the bio mom. I had a similar case where the partner was allowed visitation but it was generally acknowledged that she had no obligation to pay support.