Forced to pay child support for children that are not biologically yours?
 

I was wathcing a rerun of Dateline NBC last night. There was an interesting story about a man who after divorcing his wife found out that he was not the biological father of three of their four children. He and his wife had already been divorced for quite some time when he discovered this and throughout that time, he had been paying child support. Well, this guy went to court trying to get out of paying child support; he felt that the biological father of the three children should be paying child support for them. He still wanted to be the "father figure;" he just didn't want to pay the monthly child support. Well, the judge decided that since he "played the father figure" to these children while him and his wife were married, and even during the time of divorce when he fought for custody of the children, he is still responsible for paying child support.


What do you all think about the situation? Yes, I do understand that he played the father role; however, his ex-wife never told him that these children were not his, so how was he to know? Out of trust for his wife, he was made to believe that these children were biologically his. He did not "father" these children, was made to believe that they were his, so I do not think that they are *his* responsibility. I do believe that in a way the man is being selfish in not wanting to pay the child support even though in his eyes and in the children's eyes, he is their father.

My vote: He shouldn't have to pay child support.

I agree with you.

I wonder what kind of message this judge is trying to send...maybe men will be more cautious to take on a "fatherly" role in the lives of children if they are afraid that the result will be them having to pay child support for kids who aren't theirs. That doesn't benefit anybody.

And shame on the mother for being deceitful and downright nasty -- first of all not telling him that the kids might not be his, and then taking his money now even after the truth is out -- that's terrible! I wonder where biological "dad" is now...

He shouldn't have to pay child support. He took care of the child because he told or though it was his. If the woman cheated and got pregnant the man that the child doesn't belong to shouldn't be punished.

I saw that Dateline when it was on about a month ago, and I agree that he should not be paying child support for the three children that are not his. The guy did turn out to be somewhat shady, however, because he has been fighting this in court and he hasn't seen any of the kids--his biological daughter or the 3 boys that aren't his--in 2 years, yet he claims that he wants to be there for them and be their dad. Also, the mother made me incredibly angry, because she kept crying about "how could he do this to them?", when it was really her fault for sleeping around and lying to him to begin with. She claims that she never thought that the boys weren't his and that's why she never mentioned it. She also never mentioned the boys' biological father (and the kids didn't mention wanting to meet him or anything), although she probably knows who he is. I think that they should track him down and make him pay, since he's gone for I think 13 years without having to face the consequences of his actions. In the end, I feel really bad for the kids because they're going to be messed up either way.

The judge told the man not to tell the children that he was not their biological father. One day the school counselor called the man and told him the children knew and wanted to talk to him. Soo, the father went ahead and told him that he is not their father. By doing this, he violated his court order and his visitation rights were suspended.

About the biological father, the mother said that he doesn't need to jump into the picture in the middle of everything. She doesn't want him involved. If she didn't want him involved why did she screw him for so many years and allow him to father three of her four children while she was married to another man?? :rolleyes:

Forgot to add:
There was an update on the show and the ex-husband and the four children are now re-establishing a relationship.

Fatherhood is not about making a baby... It's about taking responsability for it. I think the biological father and the 'father figure' in this case should both pay a share of the child support.

Child support is not punishment for having kids and 'losing' a custody case.. It's to provide for the welfare and well being of people that you are responsible for.

If he has no visitation rights, etc... then no.. he shouldn't have to pay anything. If he is still the acting father figure then yes.. he should.

biological connections don't really mean anything.

Tough situation.
Bottom line: the state will not willingly "bastardize" a child, because who will end up footing the bill for their support in the end? The state--and we already have too many people on the state's support rolls.

In the state of Texas, paternity is presumed in a marital relationship. If a woman is married to a man, and conceives a child with another, she cannot even place the true father's name on the birth certificate. Mixed up, I know.

I am still trying to figure my thoughts on this one out...I can see both sides, and in the end, someone loses out big, in many cases through no fault of their own (not saying dad should have said anything to the kids, BTW). Too bad so-called adults don't always act like adults, eh? Because mom couldn't stay faithful, and Dad couldn't keep his mouth shut, there are 3 kids out there who will be forever burdened with the knowledge that they are-at least to an extent-unwanted by someone.

Amen.

Oh yes, another BTW.....

The father won custody of the children, but as a train engineer, he was away from home a few days a week. After two months with the children, he ended up giving full custody to the ex-wife. After giving her custody is when he found out.

Very true...I had limited contact with my biological father (didn't meet him until I was 12 and haven't seen him in years) but he still had to pay child support for me. Just because he chose not to be in my life doesn't mean that he is not responsible for me being here.

Sounds like my mom's BF's situation.

He and his wife divorced 10 years ago. He had this nagging feeling that the two youngest children were not his...and after some coaxing from my mother, he went to get paternity tests done. It was too obvious--the kids were pale skinned compared to their older siblings. [their mom and my mom's BF were dark skinned]

The paternity tests proved that he was not the father of the two children. He's being given back the 10 years of child support he had to pay.

Here's a link to the NY Times article that was done on the case, if anyone is interested (I couldn't find anything from Dateline):

http://www.dadsusa.com/nyt31101.htm

I disagree. If you have a part in making the kid you'd better damned well better help to absorb the cost.

I think that's terribly wrong for him to have to pay child support. And furthermore, how did the wife get away with having children that weren't his! I wonder if the same man fathered the children or if she was sleeping with mulitple men. SO SAD. To think that man thought those were HIS children for so many years. He's already dealing with enough emotional array and on top of that he has to pay for what isn't his?

Yes, he was their father for years and yes he wants to continue to be in their lives, HOWEVER that is no excuse for him to have to PAY for her lying and wrong doings!

Hootie

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.