[Tired of Taxes]

I agree that men tricked into believing they were bio-fathers of children shouldn't have to pay child support. They should be able to terminate their status as legal parent to the child, and the mother and bio-father should be solely responsible.

But, while the Michigan bill mentioned in the article would rightfully exempt the man from making child support payments, it would allow him to continue with visitation rights: http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/stories/news/20020916paternity_laws.html
I can understand the thinking behind that idea, but, if the man doesn't want to be the legal father, he is terminating his rights to the child. If he wants to be the legal father, he should have to pay some support (perhaps a reduction in payments, but you cannot enjoy parental rights without some responsibility for the child).

[BuddhaBoy]

I think that they are looking more along the lines of Grandparents rights, which are enforced in some states(I dont agree with them) where they are not the parents either, but have established an emotional relationship with the children.

I think that if a man doesnt want to be financially responsible, that he should just move on, and not compound the fraud by remaining in touch with the children, who should be allowed to meet their REAL father.

[Orangedog]

I can understand the thinking behind that idea, but, if the man doesn't want to be the legal father, he is terminating his rights to the child. If he wants to be the legal father, he should have to pay some support (perhaps a reduction in payments, but you cannot enjoy parental rights without some responsibility for the child).

I think that the mother and the liological father should bare all of the financial responsibilities in these fraud cases. That should be the price that people who commit this kind of fraud should pay. The man who was wronged should still be allowed full rights to be a parent to the children in these cases. One of the chief tennants of the cival courts is to try and make someone whole who was wronged in a civil action. The price that the perpetrators of fraud have to face must be severe enough to discourage this from happening. If the mother cannot afford to raise the child without child support, then the man who raised the child as his own should be given custody, since most fathers in these circumstances will not want to turn their backs on a child he raised as his own for the entire childs life.

[MEGoody]

I would agree. If they guy isn't willing to provide financial support for the child, he really doesn't care about him/her. The only reason to continue visitation would be to rub the mom's nose in her 'loss'.

I agree 100% that it is wrong for a woman to force a man to support a child that is not biologically his with certain exceptions. (For example, if the couple has been married for years and the child has thought of the man as 'daddy' essentially all of his/her life and he/she is older than just a toddler.)

It would also be wrong for the guy to 'pretend' to be a dad through visitation while not giving a dime to help the child.