|
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.
|