DWA you missed my point, i didn't make it clearly. I think that if someone is taking care of the child, and has help from neighbors, family, etc. then the biological parents pressence wasn't needed. It takes a village. I love my parents because I have lived with them. If i was adopted I would love the people who adopted me, because then they would be the ones to raise me. Your family is the people you feel close with.

Optimist--I meant that biological connections don't necessarily equal emotional connections. I didn't need my biological father's presence growing up because my mom and my extended family were there for me. I still feel that I don't need him, which is why I pretty much stopped talking to him when I was of age. But, I still think that a biological parent should be responsible for child support (unless the child is adopted by someone else and therefore has someone else to support him/her).

I have no idea of your personal situation but I wanted to make a general comment about fathers.

A lot of the time Fathers that kind of vanish from a child's life do it because they can't deal with the emotional pain the ex-wife gives him. Often the emotional pain and not-so-subtle slights (or the fact that women can make visitation unpleasant) have the father dissapearing for longer lengths of time.

Othertimes it can take years of being a second class citizen to your own children to make a Father stop coming around.

It doesn't take much to get the out of sight out of mind perspective. Plus the longer you stay away the more unpleasant the idea of going back.

Plus, the child will often not see the little day to day conflicts that exist between ex's, who is going to admit them? Often time the Ex's circle isn't even aware of them.

Just a different perspective.

James-
Here's my situation (don't worry, I really don't mind talking about it) and why I have no sympathy for my biological father. My parents were very young when I was born and they were never married. My father wanted my mom to abort me and she didn't want to, so after I was born he pretty much acted like I didn't exist outside of the check he had to send every month. The only reason I ever met him was because my mom wanted to increase the child support (he got away with paying practically nothing until I was 12) and he said he wouldn't pay more unless he could have visitation. He didn't think my mom would go for it and he could then get away with not paying more, but she asked me and I thought it would be ok (I was pretty much just curious to see what he looked like), much to his surprise. So, he really did have selfish reasons for never meeting me and then for seeing me when he did finally ask for visitation.

Anyway, in this case, I don't think that the biological father should see the kids unless they really want to see him (because speaking from experience, it can be very hard and confusing emotionally to suddenly have a parent thrust upon you), but I do think he should provide financial support and the man who is not the father should not have to pay for someone else's mistake.

This guy should receive reparations, or at least 40 acres and a mule.

The man (or men) who actually fathered those 3 children should have to pay something in child support. He/they shouldn't get off scot-free just because she happened to be married to someone else.

As for the ex-husband, if he either has or wants visitation rights and he wants to be "Dad" to the kids, then he should pay something toward their support. The bio father pays a certain amount, and the ex pays the rest, so that the total amount of child support the mother receives is the same.

This goes without saying, but the ex should pay support for his own biological child.

grin
 

According to US News and World Report "60% of people are sending fathers day cards to the wrong guy."
I think that every father should check if he is indeed the biological father before having to pay child support. If he wants to be a "father figure" that means he wants to contribute in a magnificient way. I love my dad. However he should not be FORCED to pay for children that aren't his.

and to all those who think that just 'cause a guy took care of the kids once he always should imagine this scenario:

The girl gets pregnant from one guy while married to another, then divorces, remaries, the new husband takes care of the kids, gets divorced remaries the new husband takes care of the kid: so now she has 3 guys paying child support??

Emanual Kant argued that maxims which cannot be universaly applied should be morally forbidden. The idea that anyone who assumes a "fatherly role" must pay does not pass this sort of test.

As far as I know, in most states a biological father is always going to be held responsible for child support. The question, of course, is whether a non-biological paternal figure is also going to be required to support children.

(Notice, by the way, that in most if not all states, a husband is presumed to be the father of his wife's children unless medical testing proves otherwise. There was medical testing in this case.)

Another by-the-way: Most states' law is clear that child support and visitation are separate issues. One does not "pay for" visitation or parenting time, nor can failure to pay support be used as an excuse to deny visitation/parenting time. This is to prevent people from taking matters into their own hands when someone is not playing by the rules. This also means that a court can require child support yet refuse parenting time.

Back on the main point. Some states treat "psychological fatherhood" as relevant on matters of parenting time after a divorce. In that kind of state, a court could give the man the right to parenting time with the children if the court found it to be in the best interest of the children. Now, this judge apparently thinks that "psychological fatherhood" -- that is, the relationship the man had with children that weren't actually his -- should also make him responsible for child support. But I don't think that the same rationales work here for support as for parenting time. As I just said above, many (even all?) states strictly separate issues of parenting time and support, so the judge can't automatically rely on psychological fatherhood to justify the decision to require support even if the state applies the concept to allow parenting time. It's definitely a stretch, and requires some very careful explaining.

I can't imagine that any state has a law that would allow a biological father to escape the support obligation legally, though I think most make it depend at least partly on the father's income.

He shouldnt have to pay child support because he isn't the biological father. The man that helped bring these children to life should be paying the support.

This man shouldn't be forced to do this, it should be a choice that he can make. Because he is fighting this case, that doesn't mean that he doesn't want to pay support. How much does he pay currently? It could be some crazy amount of money that he doesn't feel he should have to pay.

The man is paying about $1100 in child support per month, which is about a third of his monthly income!

I helped develop and maintain the Child Support Enforcement Systems for the Office of Attorney General in both Texas and Guam. The system development was mandated and funded by the federal govt back in the early 90's. All states and territories are currently online and report monthly to the U.S. Attorney General to keep the info current. One of the 'rules' of the implementation was that once the father, always the father. If a man allows his name to be placed on the birth certificate, or declares himself to be the father and it is accepted by the court, then that man will always be considered the father and is liable for the mandates of the child support order. I don't agree with it if the man was deceived into believing that he was the father, but that is the law. I always wondered if the guy could sue his ex-wife for breech of (marital) contract damages in the amount of the support order.