# child support?



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

Does anybody here believe that the system should force a man whose cheating ex wife bore one or more children by having sex with other men be required to pay child support for the kids?
Some attorney named Whoria Alldead, (I think) insists the guys should.
Is this because she considers him to be so stupid that he couldn't catch his cheater and dump her before she became pregnant?


----------



## BrockLanders (Jul 23, 2012)

hookares said:


> Does anybody here believe that the system should force a man whose cheating ex wife bore one or more children by have sex with other men be required to pay child support for the kids?
> Some attorney named Whoria Alldead, (I think) insists the guys should.
> Is this because she considers him to be so stupid that he couldn't catch his cheater and dump her before she became pregnant?


I wouldn't care if they threw me in jail. I wouldn't pay a single cent.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

He should only be required to pay for his own children and those expenses should be divided between the two parents as fairly as possible.

not much turns out fair after it goes through the system.If I had the penis I'd never have children or get married.


----------



## Tomara (Jun 19, 2013)

They only time you should pay child support is is it is your natural or adopted child.


----------



## Aunt Ava (Jan 24, 2013)

No, absolutely not. Its horrible.


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

ScarletBegonias said:


> He should only be required to pay for his own children and those expenses should be divided between the two parents as fairly as possible.
> 
> not much turns out fair after it goes through the system.If I had the penis I'd never have children or get married.


Wisdom well beyond your years, darlin.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

That's absolutely ridiculous, it's no different to saying if your husband cheats and get another woman pregnant you're financially responsible for that child..... What a load of BS.


----------



## C3156 (Jun 13, 2012)

hookares said:


> Does anybody here believe that the system should force a man whose cheating ex wife bore one or more children by having sex with other men be required to pay child support for the kids?


Do I believe? No

Does the system do it? Yes

If paternity was not positively established at birth (DNA test) the courts will assume that the male in the marriage is the father and will require him to support said child(ren). I believe that some states have a statute of limitations after birth to establish paternity before it reverts.


----------



## A Bit Much (Sep 14, 2011)

hookares said:


> Does anybody here believe that the system should force a man whose cheating ex wife bore one or more children by having sex with other men be required to pay child support for the kids?
> Some attorney named Whoria Alldead, (I think) insists the guys should.
> Is this because she considers him to be so stupid that he couldn't catch his cheater and dump her before she became pregnant?


The law unfortunately can be used and manipulated to suit anybody's situation and she is taking advantage of it.

Children born into a marriage regardless of paternity, end up being the responsibility of those parents. That means this poor dope ends up having to pay support for kids that aren't his. Is it fair? No, but the technicality is what is being exploited here. 

Does she personally think this guy is stupid? Probably. The man allowed this to go on, and now 2 (or however many) children are in the middle.


----------



## Wiltshireman (Jan 23, 2013)

C3156 said:


> Do I believe? No
> 
> Does the system do it? Yes
> 
> ...


----------



## I'mInLoveWithMyHubby (Nov 7, 2011)

It's the law here or it was 20 years ago. If your married and the woman has a child from an affair, her husband is financially responsible if she's still married once that baby is born. This happened to an old coworker of mine. She had an affair, got pregnant and her husband was financially responsible for the child.

I personally think its wrong. A man should never have to support a child that is not his own unwillingly.


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

It's a sad fact of biology that it's so easy for a woman to do this but a man can't.

If it's so important that children receive support, how about the betrayed man retains legal and visitation rights but the POSOM has to pay child support? The kids' lives are not disrupted and the responsible parties (POSOM and WS) actually have to face the consequences of their actions. 

There are threads here where the general consensus for this situation is that the betrayed man is wrong for feeling angry and not knowing how to relate to the children that are not his:

Woman cheats on husband without protection and raises kids to believe that THE MAN WHO THEY THINK IS DAD IS NOT ACTUALLY DAD.

POSOM goes along with this this and won't take responsibility for his actions.

But who is the bad guy? The betrayed husband.

F*ck that.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

Being a real father had little to do with biology and everything to do with love. If the children were born during your marriage, and you loved them as if they were your biological offspring, and they knew you as their only father-you are the father. How dare you think you have a right to walk away from that


----------



## inquizitivemind (Jul 16, 2013)

I'm gonna agree with Pluto. If you raised the children as your own, I cant imagine any decent father wanting to turn his back on them. However, if she was still pregnant and you found out, now that is a different story.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Pluto2 said:


> Being a real father had little to do with biology and everything to do with love. If the children were born during your marriage, and you loved them as if they were your biological offspring, and they knew you as their only father-you are the father. How dare you think you have a right to walk away from that


Putting the blame of the betrayed husband instead of the whorish wife? Priceless.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

Pluto2 said:


> Being a real father had little to do with biology and everything to do with love. If the children were born during your marriage, and you loved them as if they were your biological offspring, and they knew you as their only father-you are the father. How dare you think you have a right to walk away from that


 Are you serious?? 

he shouldn't walk away from the emotional support for them but he sure as hell should have the right to hold the sperm donor financially responsible for sleeping w their mother and knocking her up.


----------



## momtwo4 (May 23, 2012)

I do not think a man should have to pay child support for a child that is not his. I can't imagine something more painful than having a spouse cheat on you and then finding out that a son or daughter is not your biological child. So a wife cheats on her husband, and then the husband has to support a child that is not biologically his? Talk about a "double whammy!" Ouch!!

I was surprised when our children were born. My husband and I have brown eyes and brown hair. Three of our four children are blue-eyed and blond. We get a lot of joking (I hope) comments! In particular, one of our four children looks absolutely nothing like my husband. He has blond curly hair, blue eyes, and a round face--pretty much the opposite of my husband. He has my round face, but doesn't resemble me otherwise either. My husband always jokes around about the "milkman." But I know he doesn't doubt that he is this child's biological father. 

I can't imagine the heartache when a father wonders this for real, however. Although I really feel for the child stuck in the middle of all of this, it makes me wonder if a paternity test should be mandatory in cases of child support.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

momtwo4 said:


> Although I really feel for the child stuck in the middle of all of this, it makes me wonder if a paternity test should be mandatory in cases of child support.


I think a paternity test should be mandatory before a man can be listed as father on the birth certificate.


----------



## Sanity (Mar 7, 2011)

Pluto2 said:


> Being a real father had little to do with biology and everything to do with love. If the children were born during your marriage, and you loved them as if they were your biological offspring, and they knew you as their only father-you are the father. How dare you think you have a right to walk away from that


Thats all well and good but love doesn't pay for the extra cost of:

1. Daycare
2. Health Insurance
3. Food
4. Toys
5. Schools
6. Everything else. 

Love the kid and raise him is fine. Make the SOB pay for his sperm landing inside your wife (or STBX)

Personally I couldn't stand it though. I would divorce immediately.


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

Pluto2 said:


> Being a real father had little to do with biology and everything to do with love. If the children were born during your marriage, and you loved them as if they were your biological offspring, and they knew you as their only father-you are the father. How dare you think you have a right to walk away from that


Woman cheats on husband without protection and raises kids to believe that THE MAN WHO THEY THINK IS DAD IS NOT ACTUALLY DAD.

POSOM goes along with this this and won't take responsibility for his actions.

But who is the bad guy? The betrayed husband.


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

If the "serpent" in the garden is stealthy and cruel, she can already have her victim's brain consumed before he even knows what is happening. This always occurs to me every time I see people suggest that one shouldn't make a betrayed spouse aware of it until he or she discovers it on their own.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Putting the blame of the betrayed husband instead of the whorish wife? Priceless.


Of course it's the betrayed husbands fault! He probably didn't do enough dishes, or vacuum enough, or rub his princesses feet enough, or buy her enough flowers...you know...al those things that men are supposed to do to turn their wives on and keep them interested...Paying for another mans child is his just and rightful punishment.


----------



## MyHappyPlace (Aug 11, 2013)

Hmmm. My first H and I were separated for over 2 years when I became pregnant with my daughter. We weren't working things out, we just hadn't bothered getting the divorce yet. The divorce was finalized by the time my daughter was born though. They refused to put my current H, her biological father, on the birth certificate even though he was standing there saying, "she's mine. I want my name on that paper." They insisted on putting my ex husband's name, but I refused to give it to them and her legal birth certificate read "father's information refused". However, they did let me give her her real father's last name! This caused all kinds of problems with medical coverage though because he is a LEO and they would not let him cover her because he wasn't on the birth certificate. However, when I tried to get state aid for her, because they shared a common last name, they counted his income towards her. So the same government saying "nope, you can't cover her, she's not yours." was saying "nope, can't cover her, you make too much money." It was ridiculous!! In the end, all we had to do was give them a copy of my divorce decree where it stated that I was pregnant but my XH was NOT the father at the time of divorce and my now H had to sign a paper saying he was the father. Now WHY didn't they just do this when she was born instead of making us wait 2 years?? Who knows but it was a horrible process. However, now we have a new birth certificate that reflects my H as her daddy.

In the meantime, my XH was popping in and out of prison and his new wife was popping out babies. The first was definitely his. Looks just like my son with XH. Scarily so! The next child, a girl, was extremely questionable, but XH accepted her nonetheless. Hey, the guy did have a FEW good qualities. With the next child, the timing was questionable. He had just gotten released near the time she became pregnant but was back in before she gave birth. Then CPS swooped in and took all the kids from her and they were in foster homes. When he got released again, they tried reuniting the children with him, their "father". Imagine his surprise when having never seen his youngest daughter, he was handed a young girl of a different ethnicity. Now, there is no question that he is not the biological father of this child!! However, because they were married, he was automatically put on the birth certificate. Plus, he had no emotional bond since he'd spent the entire pregnancy and first 18 months of her life in prison. However, the state placed her in his care as the legal father while terminating the rights of the mother. My X decided she'd had enough trauma in her short life and didn't want to further rip her away from the other two kids by refusing her, so now, another 18 months later, he's raising all three kids.

This is the part I get a little ticked with... while he did the right thing by these kids, especially the two girls, one of which MIGHT be his and another that is NOT his, he does not see, nor pay child support for OUR son. When I went for child support, the courts looked at him and said, "he's already the sole supporter of these other children, we cannot ask him to support your joint child when you and your current H are fully capable." So now my son does not get any financial support from his biological father because he's supporting children that aren't his. Now I'm the bad guy for being ticked off about this and his whole family has deserted our son.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

ntamph said:


> Woman cheats on husband without protection and raises kids to believe that THE MAN WHO THEY THINK IS DAD IS NOT ACTUALLY DAD.
> 
> POSOM goes along with this this and won't take responsibility for his actions.
> 
> But who is the bad guy? The betrayed husband.


My point is, who is the completely innocent party, the one party who should never have to suffer for the scuzzy behavior of a party. The child.
The law calls this paternity by estoppel. If you are married, hold the child out to the world as your own, and develop an emotional attachment, then keep your da%@ mouth shut about paternity. If you want to divorce the woman, by all means do it, but you keep your mouth shut. 

And those expenses that suddenly became unfair for you to have to pay were the same expenses you didn't care about when you thought your DNA was swimming through the child. I'm sorry if the father is hurt, but never should the child have to suffer. Finding out the only male you have ever known your entire life as your father isn't really your father, and that some man you've never seen before is your "real father" is true heartache. My STBXH cheated, so I do know the pain of betrayal. I'm sorry for fathers that have to go through this, but first and foremost, you don't hurt the kids.


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

Pluto2 said:


> My point is, who is the completely innocent party, the one party who should never have to suffer for the scuzzy behavior of a party. The child.
> The law calls this paternity by estoppel. If you are married, hold the child out to the world as your own, and develop an emotional attachment, then keep your da%@ mouth shut about paternity. If you want to divorce the woman, by all means do it, but you keep your mouth shut.
> 
> And those expenses that suddenly became unfair for you to have to pay were the same expenses you didn't care about when you thought your DNA was swimming through the child. I'm sorry if the father is hurt, but never should the child have to suffer. Finding out the only male you have ever known your entire life as your father isn't really your father, and that some man you've never seen before is your "real father" is true heartache. My STBXH cheated, so I do know the pain of betrayal. I'm sorry for fathers that have to go through this, but first and foremost, you don't hurt the kids.


There are TWO innocent parties: the child and the man they think is their dad. 

The WS and the POSOM have hurt the child. Should they face any consequences for their actions?


----------



## Theseus (Feb 22, 2013)

In some states, if you are married when children are born, then you are legally the father, no matter who the biodad is, and so you have to pay child support.

HOWEVER - even in such states, there is another option. There is nothing to prevent you from suing the OM to recoup those child support costs. You would need a fair amount of evidence however.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

ScarletBegonias said:


> He should only be required to pay for his own children and those expenses should be divided between the two parents as fairly as possible.
> 
> not much turns out fair after it goes through the system.If I had the penis I'd never have children or get married.


Sounds like your legal system need to be reformed, if it's that unjust!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Assuming that the husband is the father of all children born in a marriage is a carry over from before paternity tests were available. It often take the law/courts time to catch up with new technologies.


When a man has acted as a child's father for a long time, he's the child's father. Hopefully he loves the child he's raised even if it turns out that he's not the bio dad.

I do believe that our laws should be changed to allow a man to sue his wife's affair partner for child support... retroactively. And if she will not tell who the OM is, then she should have to reimburse her husband (ex?) the child support.


----------



## jd08 (Nov 20, 2012)

In my state, CS is only required for non-biological children if the obligation to pay is assumed in writing by the non bio-parent. Otherwise you can't be held legally responsible for supporting someone else's children.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

ntamph said:


> There are TWO innocent parties: the child and the man they think is their dad.
> 
> The WS and the POSOM have hurt the child. Should they face any consequences for their actions?


As between the betrayed husband and the child, it is the child that should be protected at the expense of the betrayed husband. I'm not saying this is a perfect world, but the kids deserve more protection that a betrayed adult.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Pluto2 said:


> My point is, who is the completely innocent party, the one party who should never have to suffer for the scuzzy behavior of a party. The child.


So, to protect the child, another innocent party (the husband) should be punished? I don't like your sense of morality.



> The law calls this paternity by estoppel. If you are married, hold the child out to the world as your own, and develop an emotional attachment, then keep your da%@ mouth shut about paternity. If you want to divorce the woman, by all means do it, but you keep your mouth shut.


So, your opinion is that the child would be better off believing that his father abandoned him than knowing the truth that his mother was promiscuous and cheated on her husband? Again, warped morality.



> And those expenses that suddenly became unfair for you to have to pay were the same expenses you didn't care about when you thought your DNA was swimming through the child.


Sure. Paternity is important. Let's not just pretend that it's not.



> I'm sorry if the father is hurt, but never should the child have to suffer. Finding out the only male you have ever known your entire life as your father isn't really your father, and that some man you've never seen before is your "real father" is true heartache. My STBXH cheated, so I do know the pain of betrayal. I'm sorry for fathers that have to go through this, but first and foremost, you don't hurt the kids.


Your logic and morality is warped.

For example, I am not a rich man. But Bill Gates is. Now, Bill Gates is not the father of my children. But why should my innocent children suffer because their father isn't rich? Shouldn't we just seize some of the Gates fortune _for the children_?

Another possibility. A man is sending his children to private school. He has already budgeted for the expense of tuition. However, before the school year starts, his children die in an accident. Now, he was already planning on paying tuition. Shouldn't we just force him to send his neighbor's children to private school? I mean why should they suffer when he was already planning to spend the money? It's _for the children_.

See, we can come up with all kinds of morally reprehensible actions in the name of children. And forcing a man to raise a child who isn't his own is at the top of the list. That is every man's fear.

The concepts of marrying a virgin, of marital fidelity, that chasteness is a valuable trait in women, stem from the fear men have of mistaken paternity. And not only are you dismissing all of that, you are brazenly advocating that every man's worst fear should be legally imposed upon him if the circumstance ever arises. That's just disgusting.

For someone who claims to know the pain of betrayal, you sure are advocating policies that will inexorably lead to more bastard children, more husbands living out their worst nightmares, and more cheating wives. I would think you might want to decrease all of those things.


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

Pluto2 said:


> As between the betrayed husband and the child, it is the child that should be protected at the expense of the betrayed husband. I'm not saying this is a perfect world, but the kids deserve more protection that a betrayed adult.


So I guess if my ex wife were to found that she was still fertile and decided to bed down with a chimpanzee and squirt out one or two of those, "logic" would indicate that I be responsible for supplying the bananas until they could swing from the branches on their own?


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> So, to protect the child, another innocent party (the husband) should be punished? I don't like your sense of morality.
> 
> 
> So, your opinion is that the child would be better off believing that his father abandoned him than knowing the truth that his mother was promiscuous and cheated on her husband? Again, warped morality.
> ...


Your arguments are just a little bizarre, and way off point. If Bill Gates fathered your wife's children, and it isn't found out until years later-you still don't get his money, and yes that is fair.
If a man and woman are married, and children are born, and the man is held out to the world and more importantly to the child as his own, then yes, he will support the child and he should. The courts will protect the child who has relied on those representations to the financial detriment of the betrayed husband.
If you think or know your wife is cheating and then gets pregnant, then challenge paternity right away. Most courts will permit that. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut.
Most of the arguments I've seen on this board including yours, have to do with money, and with treating children like possessions that you will or won't subsidize. 
I stand by my position-the child is more important that the betrayed husband.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Pluto2 said:


> I stand by my position-the child is more important that the betrayed husband.


I believe in freedom. I think that a woman should be free to have children with any man she chooses. But that freedom has a price. And the price is that the father of her children may be a scumbag who won't support her and their child. And, if she is married, her husband may choose to divorce her and refuse to raise another man's child. A rational women would respond to those incentives by only having children with her husband, who has high character and will support his children.

I think it's morally reprehensible to reward the morally deficient people (cheating wife and scumbag father), and punish the morally pure, loyal husband.

Believing that you can use the government to solve the problems of children, by insulating them from their parents, is the height of folly. The world just isn't fair. Trying to pass a law that rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior doesn't make the world more fair. It makes it less fair. And I'm against unfairness. Even if it is _for the children_.


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

The irony of all of this is that if it was really so important that children not be separated from their fathers (or the man they think is dad) then it wouldn't be so easy and commonplace for divorcing women to reduce dad to two weekends a month of contact with his children.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

ntamph said:


> The irony of all of this is that if it was really so important that children not be separated from their fathers (or the man they think is dad) then it wouldn't be so easy and commonplace for divorcing women to reduce dad to two weekends a month of contact with his children.


I'm in complete agreement with you on this!


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

Pluto2 said:


> Your arguments are just a little bizarre, and way off point. If Bill Gates fathered your wife's children, and it isn't found out until years later-you still don't get his money, and yes that is fair.
> If a man and woman are married, and children are born, and the man is held out to the world and more importantly to the child as his own, then yes, he will support the child and he should. The courts will protect the child who has relied on those representations to the financial detriment of the betrayed husband.
> If you think or know your wife is cheating and then gets pregnant, then challenge paternity right away. Most courts will permit that. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut.
> Most of the arguments I've seen on this board including yours, have to do with money, and with treating children like possessions that you will or won't subsidize.
> I stand by my position-the child is more important that the betrayed husband.


This has to be one of the most demented opinions that I've ever witnessed- anywhere.
Let's say that the husband dies in the above example and has no life insurance. Now, according to your twisted morality, since the child needs to be financially supported and it's not immoral to force someone that is not the child's parent to support him, you would be ok with being ordered to pay for this child- correct? 

Now, to continue, if you refuse to pay this order, of if you have a problem with it, you are being immoral in that you won't 'subsidize' the child and you are not putting the child's needs above your own.

I would like you to put your money where your mouth is. I would like you to put it in writing that if I die, or become seriously disabled, _you_ will pay child support for my child. Are you willing to do this?


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> I think a paternity test should be mandatory before a man can be listed as father on the birth certificate.


This. And why don't they do this at the time of birth? They take blood for all other kinds of state mandated tests. When you fill out the paperwork for the birth certificate, they double check the DNA - if its a match, bingo - certificate issued, if it doesn't - you get back a cert that lists "Father Doe" or "Father Unknown" or as such. 

You'd cut off all the "I didn't know he wasn't mine" stuff right there. And if pregnant wayward wives realize the game being up is only a matter of time, it might push a solution to the forefront, rather than playing the "hope he doesn't notice" game for umpteen years. 

All that being said. I have a father listed on my birth certificate, there's never been DNA. I've always wondered if the guy really is my dad, I look nothing like him or his family. I've met the guy twice in my life, not because my mom kept me from him, he wasn't interested. He never paid CS (my mom didn't want anything to do with it) and so later in life when I was attending college, I had to jump through 900 hoops on why I should be allowed to get aid/scholarships if I couldn't provide his income. In the end, I had to be declared an emancipated minor to deal with it. 

So - the whole birth certificate thing can carry consequences for the kids too. Not just legal, but also for their health. If a child is under false impressions on who their bio dad is, it can lead to them giving false information to doctors about their health risks because of family history. Thus, why its in best to make sure its being done properly to the extent of the technology we have available.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

wilderness said:


> This has to be one of the most demented opinions that I've ever witnessed- anywhere.
> Let's say that the husband dies in the above example and has no life insurance. Now, according to your twisted morality, since the child needs to be financially supported and it's not immoral to force someone that is not the child's parent to support him, you would be ok with being ordered to pay for this child- correct?
> 
> Now, to continue, if you refuse to pay this order, of if you have a problem with it, you are being immoral in that you won't 'subsidize' the child and you are not putting the child's needs above your own.
> ...


We are not talking about the same thing at all.
The obligation to pay child support we are discussing comes from the legal and moral obligation of a parent to a child and comes into play when a marriage has ended by divorce. It is applied by courts to protect the best interest of the child during the termination of a marriage. Your idea about imposing some obligation on some third party after a parent dies is totally off base.


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

Pluto2 said:


> We are not talking about the same thing at all.
> The obligation to pay child support we are discussing comes from the legal and moral obligation of a parent to a child and comes into play when a marriage has ended by divorce. It is applied by courts to protect the best interest of the child during the termination of a marriage. Your idea about imposing some obligation on some third party after a parent dies is totally off base.


*Parent.* 
From dictionary.com (definition #1)
_a father or a mother._
Parent | Define Parent at Dictionary.com



> "Your idea about imposing some obligation on some third party after a parent dies is totally off base"


This is _exactly_ what you are advocating for (minus the death part). You are advocating for imposing a financial obligation onto someone that is NOT the parent of the child. Worse than that, even, as the person in this type of case has already had constructive fraud imposed upon them. They've already been taken for thousands of dollars and in some cases, years of their life, in one of the cruelest confidence scams known to man. Any woman that does this belongs in prison. They should have to pay back the money that they've stolen from these unsuspecting mans.

And again, if you have no problem stealing money from innocent people, why aren't you volunteering to be a victim as well?


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

I think nothing damages a child more than for them to progress through their early years living a court mandated lie that is financed by a man who was fraudulently deemed to be the father, only to make things easier for his cheating ex wife.
What this does is put the child on the road to "entitlement" with the maternal parent providing an example of "how it's done".


----------



## lenzi (Apr 10, 2012)

ScarletBegonias said:


> Are you serious??
> 
> he shouldn't walk away from the emotional support for them but he sure as hell should have the right to hold the sperm donor financially responsible for sleeping w their mother and knocking her up.


I was thinking the same thing.

The laws in his state may require him to support his nonbiological children until the age of majority but that doesn't make it "right".

From a moral perspective, not only does he have the "right" to not have to pay another dime to support the children from his wife's affair partner. He could even remove himself from their lives if he chose to go that route. He was deceived, and so were they. They're all casualties of war from their mother's affair.


----------



## Theseus (Feb 22, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> I think it's morally reprehensible to reward the morally deficient people (cheating wife and scumbag father), and punish the morally pure, loyal husband.


I think some people here are looking at this from the wrong angle. Paying child support is not "punishment". You are not throwing money into a black hole, you are getting something in return for the money you are paying. If you are the legally recognized parent, then you have rights over this child, not the OM. 

Obviously, if you hate children, then that won't mean much to you. But to me, great kids are still great kids - the circumstances of their biological parenthood shouldn't make any difference. However, I understand that even I would be resentful if I were poor and it was a struggle to pay CS, while the OM was wealthy and could easily afford it.


----------



## lenzi (Apr 10, 2012)

Pluto2 said:


> And those expenses that suddenly became unfair for you to have to pay were the same expenses you didn't care about when you thought your DNA was swimming through the child. I'm sorry if the father is hurt, but never should the child have to suffer.


This is BS.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sorry for the kids having to go through losing a parental figure in their lives. 

Doesn't change the fact that it's not the betrayed husband's fault or moral responsibility just because he took care of them for the first part of their lives because he was deceived.

If you feel so strongly about the needs of children why don't you go and spend all your extra time and money on the impovershed and unloved children of this world?



EleGirl said:


> When a man has acted as a child's father for a long time, he's the child's father.


No he isn't. 

You going to say that stepdad's automatically become financially responsible for their stepchildren that they didn't adopt?


----------



## lenzi (Apr 10, 2012)

Pluto2 said:


> Your arguments are just a little bizarre, and way off point.


I found the arguments, analogies, and points to be spot on.

You don't get it because you will not and cannot deviate from your rightous position that the children must be protected at any cost even if it's done by nailing some poor innocent guy to the cross.

Like I said, you go ahead and stand on your pedestal advocating to the needs of these random children, but why not step off once in a while and start mailing out those checks to 'sponsor a child' or go volunteer in a child cancer ward or something.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Pluto2 said:


> We are not talking about the same thing at all.
> The obligation to pay child support we are discussing comes from the legal and moral obligation of a parent to a child and comes into play when a marriage has ended by divorce. It is applied by courts to protect the best interest of the child during the termination of a marriage. Your idea about imposing some obligation on some third party after a parent dies is totally off base.


I am a reasonable, law-abiding man who has always taken care of his family, and I would go to jail before I'd pay support for a child my wife had by another man during our marriage.


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

Theseus said:


> I think some people here are looking at this from the wrong angle. Paying child support is not "punishment". You are not throwing money into a black hole, you are getting something in return for the money you are paying. If you are the legally recognized parent, then you have rights over this child, not the OM.
> 
> Obviously, if you hate children, then that won't mean much to you. But to me, great kids are still great kids - the circumstances of their biological parenthood shouldn't make any difference. However, I understand that even I would be resentful if I were poor and it was a struggle to pay CS, while the OM was wealthy and could easily afford it.


OK, based on that same logic:

I am currently dealing with severe financial problems (this is the truth, I'm not kidding). I also have a child. As such, according to your logic it is not a punishment for the state to order Pluto2 to pay child support for my child. It's not going into a black hole _and_ my child is a great kid (true as well). It shouldn't make any difference to Pluto2 whether my child is his/her biological child according to what you've written.
Are you in favor of forcing Pluto2 to pay 25% of his/her gross income to support my child? Are you in favor of violently throwing Pluto2 in prison if he/she cannot or will not pay the money? If not, why not?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Perhaps we should start a national registry for all men. Every time a child is born, a man is chosen at random to support that child. That way the irresponsible men would also have to take responsibility of some kind. Once all the men have been assigned a child, when there are more kids than men, the men get assigned second kids, and so on...

ETA: All male children would be added to the registry of men at birth so they could not weasel their way out of it.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Pluto2 said:


> My point is, who is the completely innocent party, the one party who should never have to suffer for the scuzzy behavior of a party. The child.
> The law calls this paternity by estoppel. If you are married, hold the child out to the world as your own, and develop an emotional attachment, then keep your da%@ mouth shut about paternity. If you want to divorce the woman, by all means do it, but you keep your mouth shut.
> 
> And those expenses that suddenly became unfair for you to have to pay were the same expenses you didn't care about when you thought your DNA was swimming through the child. I'm sorry if the father is hurt, but never should the child have to suffer. Finding out the only male you have ever known your entire life as your father isn't really your father, and that some man you've never seen before is your "real father" is true heartache. My STBXH cheated, so I do know the pain of betrayal. I'm sorry for fathers that have to go through this, but first and foremost, you don't hurt the kids.


Right because the man who is forced to pay for someone else's child who is also a walking breathing reminder of what your WW did is always going to love and cherish that child.......

Sorry but the POSOM and the WW should be dealt with in full. Why does the POSOM get kicked to the curb. shouldn't the law enforce HIM to take care of his child. Isn't THAT the right thing to do?


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Pluto2 said:


> As between the betrayed husband and the child, it is the child that should be protected at the expense of the betrayed husband. I'm not saying this is a perfect world, but the kids deserve more protection that a betrayed adult.


You're right. So get the POSOM in the picture to raise his child!


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Theseus said:


> I think some people here are looking at this from the wrong angle. Paying child support is not "punishment". You are not throwing money into a black hole, you are getting something in return for the money you are paying. If you are the legally recognized parent, then you have rights over this child, not the OM.
> 
> Obviously, if you hate children, then that won't mean much to you. But to me, great kids are still great kids - the circumstances of their biological parenthood shouldn't make any difference. However, I understand that even I would be resentful if I were poor and it was a struggle to pay CS, while the OM was wealthy and could easily afford it.


I agree that some people are looking at this incorrectly. Some people are excusing any evil done to men because it is done _*for the children*_. Well, enslaving a man is an evil act, even if a child benefits from it.

Children, even wonderful children who you have rights over, are burdens. They are significant burdens. It is evil to assign that burden to a man who has no choice in the matter.

If I found an infant on my front doorstep, I would call the state and turn the child over. I would not sign up to be legally, morally, and financially responsible for that child for the next 18 years. Some men would. Good for them. At least they would have the choice.


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

The really sad thing is there isn't even a guarantee that the child will benefit from the funds. Present day custodial parents are not required to use child support funds to support their children! Outrageous, but true.


----------



## Mycroft_63 (Nov 28, 2011)

Pluto2 said:


> If you think or know your wife is cheating and then gets pregnant, then challenge paternity right away. Most courts will permit that. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut.
> Most of the arguments I've seen on this board including yours, have to do with money, and with treating children like possessions that you will or won't subsidize.
> I stand by my position-the child is more important that the betrayed husband.


A husband usually doesn't know his wife is cheating. That's why it's called cheating. A WW keeps it SECRET! The laws need to be changed, and thankfully they are in many states, like Georgia.

You seem to be wanting to protect the cheaters and deceivers at the expense of the BH. If this happens the courts should compel the mother to name the correct father, establish paternity and force the biological father to face up to his responsibility.


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

This is a very common subject.

Google paternity fraud.


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

I knew a maternity ward nurse long ago.

About once a week or two she would see all three blood types of like 50 or so (apparently fathers is listed somewhere) and realize paternity was impossible. She was not allowed to say a thing.


----------



## lenzi (Apr 10, 2012)

weightlifter said:


> About once a week or two she would see all three blood types of like 50 or so (apparently fathers is listed somewhere) and realize paternity was impossible. She was not allowed to say a thing.


What does this even mean?


----------



## Mycroft_63 (Nov 28, 2011)

lenzi said:


> What does this even mean?


It means that the nurse could tell by the three blood types (A, B, and O), that the stated father could not actually be the father.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

Wiltshireman said:


> :iagree:
> 
> One of the guys in our office got divorced last year after he found out his wifew had been having an affair for at least the previous two years (they had been married for 10 years and had 2 children 6 and 3).
> 
> ...


I used to know someone in this position too. It's easy to say that of course he shouldn't have to pay, at the time I thought it was very unfair but he didn't want to hurt his kids who thought he was their Dad. At the end of the day, if a child thinks you are their parent, they love you, they need you, that's what I would put first in that situation.


----------



## lenzi (Apr 10, 2012)

Mycroft_63 said:


> It means that the nurse could tell by the three blood types (A, B, and O), that the stated father could not actually be the father.


What's the 50 all about?

The maternity nurse discovers that 50 fathers are not really fathers, every 2 weeks?


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

I know of at quite a few biological fathers who never paid or won't pay child support. These men have done whatever they can to not pay, they've just plain and simply not worked and lived off money from their new partner, they've taken cash for work so it's not recorded in the system, they've just not paid and nothing ever happened, or they just cleared out.

Now, given that not every man actually PAYS child support when he's apparently required to, here are the following scenarios.

1) Woman cheats, has child by OM, husband gets a DNA test on the baby, finds out child is not his, leaves wife.
Child Support: my thoughts are this should be claimed from OM by woman, OM should be on birth certificate. Maybe OM will hook up with woman and actually be a father to his child.

2) husband finds out wife is/was cheating, child/children are 5+ yrs old, he is listed as the Dad, gets them DNA tested, finds out he is not, leaves wife.
Child Support: my thoughts are torn, the DNA test and results, if told to the kids, will have already hurt them. Is their Dad going to walk out of their life now? I guess that should be up to him, because even if he is forced to pay child support, he can't be forced to love them. If he really doesn't want to pay, he'll find a way not to, children will still suffer. OM won't give a stuff about the kids most likely, he'll be chased around for money, probably won't pay either. Maybe where I live the whole child support thing is a bit of a joke.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

weightlifter said:


> I knew a maternity ward nurse long ago.
> 
> About once a week or two she would see all three blood types of like 50 or so (apparently fathers is listed somewhere) and realize paternity was impossible. She was not allowed to say a thing.


I think a child's blood type should just be recorded from day dot anyway, and given to the parents, probably even on their birth certificate or something, never understood why it takes an accident or blood donation to find this stuff out.

It's easy enough to find out what blood types are possible from parent blood types. e.g. Blood Type Child Parental Calculator -- EndMemo


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

lenzi said:


> What's the 50 all about?
> 
> The maternity nurse discovers that 50 fathers are not really fathers, every 2 weeks?


Meaning like about one in 50 she could tell listed father isnt the father. 

Example mom and dad type O cant have type A baby.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Was watching this today

Circumcision, Divorce and Male Disposability - Paul Elam on Freedomain Radio - YouTube


----------



## The Cro-Magnon (Sep 30, 2012)

Mandatory paternity testing at birth. Simple. Doesn't even require the mother in anyway, completely unobtrusive. No more problem with paternity fraud ever again. No more destroyed & crushed husbands, no more children suddenly learning that "dad" is not their father afterall, thanks to mum being a *****, and their real dad doesn't care about them.

All of these problems will evaporate with a simple test.

But just watch how many women froth at the eyes in apoplexy at the thought. My head was chewed off last time this subject was discussed.

It is sign that something is truly sick in this civilization that people could even be arguing against paternity testing at all, much less arguing that the betrayed dad must be held accountable for his ***** wife's decisions. It is evil.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

Once the government starts registering everyone's DNA, these arguments will be moot.


----------



## The Cro-Magnon (Sep 30, 2012)

Starstarfish said:


> Once the government starts registering everyone's DNA, these arguments will be moot.


Why? They already happen upon numerous incidences of paternity fraud when doing blood type analysis tests, and the nurses to are told to keep their mouths shut, to protect cheating wiminz (as god forbid they have to face consequences) so why would dna logging be different? They'd just note the childs dna did not match he fathers, but would keep their mouths shut.

They just need to legalize and make paternity testing mandatory, and it exposes how sick and evil our world is that it is not, and that the government and women seem opposed to it in general


----------



## SunnyT (Jun 22, 2011)

I agree that a non-bio parent should not have to pay.

But I don't like the idea of DNA testing (and recording) at birth.... too much big brother to me. MORE government???


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Mandatory paternity insurance will be next.
MN


----------



## alphaomega (Nov 7, 2010)

SunnyT said:


> I agree that a non-bio parent should not have to pay.
> 
> But I don't like the idea of DNA testing (and recording) at birth.... too much big brother to me. MORE government???


It's not the government you have to worry about, They don't and probably would never give two craps on what DNA you have...

It's our wonderful free enterprise you need to worry about. You'll start to get denied insurance and health coverage and jobs because you carry specific undesirable genes.

It's already started, a while ago. Why do you think insurance forms ask you..."does your family have any history of....."


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

alphaomega said:


> It's not the government you have to worry about, They don't and probably would never give two craps on what DNA you have...
> 
> It's our wonderful free enterprise you need to worry about. You'll start to get denied insurance and health coverage and jobs because you carry specific undesirable genes.
> 
> It's already started, a while ago. Why do you think insurance forms ask you..."does your family have any history of....."


:iagree:
They already take a blood sample from each newborn.
Not a stretch at all.


----------



## alphaomega (Nov 7, 2010)

Pluto2,

Let's change perspectives...

Your SO has an affair...gets the affair partner pregnant. She demands child support. Your SO doesn't work, so really...your paying, because in legal terms all your income is really family assets anyway, according to the court system. Is that going to sit well with you? I mean...it's for the children.

Now..let's take this one more step. You're still paying child support, and your SO decides he really does want to live with the OW. So he leaves you. You've already set a precedent on supporting this child, so the courts demand that you contine to pay, for the next 18 years, even though you are not the biological mother. 

So...you, the innocent one, not only got your heart ripped out by a cheating spouse, you now have to pay for this child...forever. 

But it gets better....every three years it seems the courts demand you pay more and more. Not only are you getting raises at your career, but your now ex husband and his skank girlfriend decide they want to send that kid to expensive private schools and over priced piano lessons, all of which the courts agree you are also financially responsible for.

Would you still have the same...."it doesn't matter about paternity attitude if this happened to you?". Because without you in this case, the child will suffer without that monetary support..

Hold one...because....let's say you never had your own children with your ex, because you knew the timing wasnt right..focusing on your career an all...

But...one day you meet mr wonderful..date...get married....and pop out a beautiful daughter. This is great! Life's now perfect! Well...except for the part about getting her everything you always wanted to get her...and all those travel experiences you wanted to take her on for mind broadening life lessons....and that tuition to "the school of super music and arts for gifted children". Yes, except for all that stuff you dreamed of doing for your own child...

Because the courts still order you to pay 35% of your current income to a child that's not even yours...one your ex made with his skanky gf he cheated on you with, and one that you neither planned or share any biological history with.

But that's ok, right? Because its for the child. Even though...the child you did plan for and actually made yourself will not get everything you planned for her in life, because that money now goes to another child that's not even yours...


Ok. That's apples to apples now. Hmmmm, those apples seem a bit sour to me.


----------



## golfergirl (Dec 8, 2010)

There seems to be a lot of talk about how could the 'father' pull support on the poor innocent child. It isn't the dad who put the child in that situation it is the mom who created the situation. The reason the child's heart is being ripped out is because of the mother's choices and decisions. Somewhere when it gets brought up it is being blamed on the man for turning his back on the child when truth is it is the mom who denied the child the right to know their natural father that caused everything bad that happened.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## HeartbrokenW (Sep 26, 2012)

MyHappyPlace said:


> Hmmm. My first H and I were separated for over 2 years when I became pregnant with my daughter. We weren't working things out, we just hadn't bothered getting the divorce yet. The divorce was finalized by the time my daughter was born though. They refused to put my current H, her biological father, on the birth certificate even though he was standing there saying, "she's mine. I want my name on that paper." <snip>


This is the situation my brother was in. He and his GF lived together for years, but she was never legally divorced. She and my brother had 2 kids together, and they would NOT let my brother put his name on their birth certificates - she had to list her legal H. Long story short, her legal H died in a car accident, then their state paid her social security til the kids turned of age.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

golfergirl said:


> There seems to be a lot of talk about how could the 'father' pull support on the poor innocent child. It isn't the dad who put the child in that situation it is the mom who created the situation. The reason the child's heart is being ripped out is because of the mother's choices and decisions. Somewhere when it gets brought up it is being blamed on the man for turning his back on the child when truth is it is the mom who denied the child the right to know their natural father that caused everything bad that happened.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah, but that's just playing a blame game, closing the gate after the horse has bolted sort of thing. At the end of the day, once the situation has already occurred, it's the father's who'll have to make the choice of whether to step out of the child's life or not. So whether or not everyone agrees that the woman in such a situation has done something terrible, it doesn't change the situation.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

weightlifter said:


> I knew a maternity ward nurse long ago.
> 
> About once a week or two she would see all three blood types of like 50 or so (apparently fathers is listed somewhere) and realize paternity was impossible. She was not allowed to say a thing.


I recall a case like this when someone commented on their friends, mentioning the type of the Dad, Mum and child.

Without thinking I commented "He's not the Father." 

She said it was a throwback and I corrected myself and said it is a throwback. It was not possible though, he is not the Father.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

alphaomega said:


> Pluto2,
> 
> Let's change perspectives...
> 
> ...


Wow, 
First of all, if my SO gets his affair partner pregnant, the child support is on him, not me. While California and Florida currently have some exceptions for fraud and extra-ordinary cases, pretty much every other jurisdiction else agrees that "other spouses" income don't factor into child support. Which pretty much moots the rest of your post. Courts in all states can and will impute income to an adult who chooses not to work in order to avoid child support

I know a lot of couples whose life-styles as a family unit have been significantly altered due to one partner's prior child support obligations. Yes, that does impact what the new family can do with their "planned" children. Such is life. 

Assuming for one minute that anything you said was actually the way of the world, it would not change my view.
As between an innocent BS, and an innocent child, the financial pain should be put on the innocent BS. The child who had no control over the circumstances of his/her birth, or who the parents were, or their financial situation-is not the party who should suffer.


----------



## Mycroft_63 (Nov 28, 2011)

Pluto2 said:


> As between an innocent BS, and an innocent child, the financial pain should be put on the innocent BS. The child who had no control over the circumstances of his/her birth, or who the parents were, or their financial situation-is not the party who should suffer.


:scratchhead:

I'm glad your views are not prevailing in society. Why should it be the BS over the innocent child? He's nothing to do with the child. The state should force the mother to name the real father and go after him, period.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Pluto2 said:


> As between an innocent BS, and an innocent child, the financial pain should be put on the innocent BS. The child who had no control over the circumstances of his/her birth, or who the parents were, or their financial situation-is not the party who should suffer.


But there aren't just two, innocent parties involved in the problem. There are also two guilty parties. And punishing an innocent party also rewards the guilty parties.

As I wrote earlier, since you're in favor of enslaving men to benefit women and children, there's really no need to stop at cases of paternity fraud. The world is full of needy women and children as well as men to enslave.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

Child support is not for the benefit of women, it is for the child. Obviously their are people out in the world who abuse the system and neither you or I can stop that. 
To speak of supporting children as "enslaving" men is ludicrous. I'm done with this.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Pluto2 said:


> Child support is not for the benefit of women, it is for the child. Obviously their are people out in the world who abuse the system and neither you or I can stop that.
> To speak of supporting children as "enslaving" men is ludicrous. I'm done with this.


It isn't "ludicrous" as you say it is the truth.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

A Voice for Men – Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Pluto2 said:


> Child support is not for the benefit of women, it is for the child. Obviously their are people out in the world who abuse the system and neither you or I can stop that.


In the vast majority of cases, child support is paid to women. Your position that payments made to women don't benefit those women is, frankly, stupid.



> To speak of supporting children as "enslaving" men is ludicrous.


What is ludicrous is your insistence that men who are not the fathers of children should be forced, under threat of imprisonment, to work for the benefit of those children. I suppose that indentured servant might be a more technically accurate term for men who have 18 year terms to work for the benefit of another. However, indentured servants voluntarily assumed the position. You're suggesting that the state force men to be servants against their will. So I think your position tilts closer to slave than to indentured servant.

I notice that you continually evade the logical conclusion of your own position. If we should force men who are the victims of paternity fraud to support children who aren't theirs, why shouldn't we force other men to support children who aren't theirs, as well?

Should a poor child who knows his father be punished just because his father is poor? The child is innocent. Why not just force a rich, childless man to support that child? The child benefits. And that's all you care about. It is true that the childless man is harmed. But, screw that guy, right? He's just a man. And you don't care about men.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Pluto2 said:


> Wow,
> First of all, if my SO gets his affair partner pregnant, the child support is on him, not me. While California and Florida currently have some exceptions for fraud and extra-ordinary cases, pretty much every other jurisdiction else agrees that "other spouses" income don't factor into child support. Which pretty much moots the rest of your post. Courts in all states can and will impute income to an adult who chooses not to work in order to avoid child support
> 
> I know a lot of couples whose life-styles as a family unit have been significantly altered due to one partner's prior child support obligations. Yes, that does impact what the new family can do with their "planned" children. Such is life.
> ...


There are 4 parties involved.

The non-innocent WW
The non-innocent OM/Father
The innocent BH
The Innocent child

Why are we choosing between the two innocent parties?

Why isn't the state in this type of situation going after the OM/Father. Also why shouldn't the innocent BH not be able to sue the OM/Father for any and all support he did pay for raising a child that wasn't his...IF HE SO CHOOSES?

Now before you go off, bare in mind you're speaking with a man who's ex-wife cheated on him while giving birth to two children. Is there a chance that either of my two older children aren't mine? biologically yes. (doubtful though based on similar appearances to other children within the family, but never PROVEN one way or another). I took the stance that these two children were mine. Regardless what DNA would prove. I chose to NOT know. My attorney pushed me to find out and I refused. I live in a state where children of divorces are classified as "disadvantaged people" so it's an even bigger issue such as college tuitions etc. I love them with my whole heart and dealing with my ex has always been VERY rough, but it's still always been worthwhile.

But I also wouldn't condemn a BH who wanted to walk away if he found out the kids weren't his. He should have EVERY right to.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Dad&Hubby said:


> There are 4 parties involved.
> 
> The non-innocent WW
> The non-innocent OM/Father
> ...


The rationale is that the OM may have an innocent wife and kids with her and to go after him would be putting undue hardship on them...yet more innocent parties...


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Dad&Hubby said:


> Why isn't the state in this type of situation going after the OM/Father. Also why shouldn't the innocent BH not be able to sue the OM/Father for any and all support he did pay for raising a child that wasn't his...IF HE SO CHOOSES?



In our country, the state does go after the OM/ father of the child , if the woman so wishes.
All she has to do is take a paternity test [ free] and there is a special court set up to assist her in getting child support for her kid. The court gives an order and garnishes the child's father salary , so the money comes out before his salary reaches into his hands.
If he quits his job or a payment goes missing ,without informing the mother or the state , immediately, a warrant is issued for his arrest. [ the bank notifies the courts.]

The same applies for all delinquent fathers.
But everything depends on the woman starting the process.

My younger suster got pregnant for her affair partner many years ago, and she and her husband eventually split. The OM never looked back when he found out she was pregnant.
She didn't report him either.

I took custody of the child and today he's a first year engineering student part time , at university, gainfully employed and supporting himself.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Circumcision, Divorce and Male Disposability - Paul Elam on Freedomain Radio - YouTube


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

tom67 said:


> Circumcision, Divorce and Male Disposability - Paul Elam on Freedomain Radio - YouTube


Paul Elam of A Voice for Men on ABC 20/20 discussing Men's Human Rights - YouTube


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

MissFroggie said:


> So now we have the innocent BH supporting the child that is not his, his WW, the OM, the OMBW and the OM's kids? What the heck, we should be sending the BH to the OM's house 3 times a week to do their laundry and housework too - after all, there are innocents involved and he's the innocent adult so he should take all the losses, right?
> 
> Or, we could let the guilty people face the consequences of their actions and if that affects THEIR children that's on them to deal with it.
> 
> BH should be able to walk away from a child he discovers is not his without judgement or threat of prison. OMBW can walk away from her marriage too, that's her choice.


I completely agree. The BH should have the RIGHT to walk away. 

I will talk from the state I'm in, a completely democrat controlled state government. In their efforts to ensure the rights of the child are protected...they strip the rights away from an adult. They don't actually root out the TRUE problem, it's just easier (and their constituents won't be pissed off) to tack it on the BH.

There are SOME divorce/child support laws that are EXTREMELY skewed. I'll give you my scenario. I was bringing home $700 per week. My exwife was a SAHM and we had been married for 6 years, with her carrying on an affair (proven in court) for 3 of those years. I was initially told I would be paying $290 per week in CS and $185 per week in alimony (for 3 years). So I would be left with $225 per week. The mediators told me I should be grateful that I was getting more than my exwife. I ask how do they see it that way. She's getting $185 and your getting $225. The state TRULY believes that not a single penny of the CS would actually be used by my exW. She's also getting the house mind you (my choice because I didn't want to screw up my kids MORE and there was no equity at the time of the divorce...a few years later, she made $25,000 off it...but hey)

It ultimately didn't go that way because my exW made a couple HUGE errors when we went in front of the judge (because needless to say I didn't accept what the mediators told me would be the divorce orders). She got the house still, never an issue, $228 per week (because the $290 was calculated on what I "was CAPABLE" of making, and not ACTUALLY MAKING) and ZERO alimony (which was my only bone of contention). I'd go to prison before I paid alimony.

If she didn't screw things up the way she did....The mediators orders would have PROBABLY been put into effect. (She kept jerking me around and ended up using up all of her $10,000 her family gave her for her attorney before we went in front of the judge...She then shows up TO COURT with my 18 month old daughter and when the judge called her out on it, she proceeded to yell back at him because she had no babysitter (which was bs, she thought it would give her sympathy LOL). My attorney said at that moment "We're going to just be quiet and do absolutely the minimum...she's going to hang herself" and she did LOL.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

In my state you are required to buy insurance to help you if you are injured by an uninsured motorist. My comment about mandatory paternity insurance was not as flip as you seem to think. It is politically possible but it would be very unpopular. Why? Because child support is not about supporting the child. It is not about rewarding the mother. It is about punishing the father. It is a very visceral emotional process. Protecting the man by insuring against the financial penalty for separation would destroy that punishment. That is why no one takes the concept of paternity insurance seriously. 
MN


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> In my state you are required to buy insurance to help you if you are injured by an uninsured motorist. My comment about mandatory paternity insurance was not as flip as you seem to think. It is politically possible but it would be very unpopular. Why? Because child support is not about supporting the child. It is not about rewarding the mother. It is about punishing the father. It is a very visceral emotional process. Protecting the man by insuring against the financial penalty for separation would destroy that punishment. That is why no one takes the concept of paternity insurance seriously.
> MN


So if in your mind mandated child support is purely to punish the father, what if anything is the obligation of fathers toward their children?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

oh, in my mind fathers have an obligation to provide for their children whether they are biological or consciously adopted. In other words once a man agrees to provide for a child whether or not it is his biologically He should continue providing for that child. This in no way excuses the biological (sperm donor) father from participating in the support of his child. 
Insurance would provide a barrier between divorced persons (former spouses) while insuring that the child (and child care provider) receive the needed support. What I am saying is that the fact that legislators and insurance providers have never so much as considered such a logical idea is proof that the emotional aspects of child support are the most important factor. In essence Child support has become substitute alimony. Child custody is fought and determined not to provide the best support for the child but to determine who gets to punish whom.
Racist , sexist, and religion based humor have all but been wiped out in polite society. there are only two classes of people in America that you can say anything about without fear of reprisal, the overweight, and the former spouse.
I say all this from the outside. I'm not a former spouse. I'm 2 - 10 years depending on if the government extends child support to 26 (a very real possibility 21 in some states and certain circumstances already) from being free of this Damocles sword. At that point should my wife deem it proper to dispose of me she would not have this avenue to seek further revenge.
MN


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> I do know MANY mothers who do not pursue their legal right to child support because they know the biological father would be resentful of this and would seek 'revenge' for being held to their legal accountability - these mothers deem it in the best interests of their child's SAFETY and their own SAFETY to go without the money they are legally entitled to.


Well even without safety being a concern, some women have such a distaste for their ex they'd prefer to lose the money than have to see, interact with, or deal with their ex. And some men are perfectly happy with that arrangement. They trade involvement with their children for freedom from responsibility. 

As I've noted on other threads, this was my parents. My mother didn't demand child support because she didn't want to deal with my father. My father paid child support for the limited amount of time he was actively enlisted in the US Army because they required it. When he was discharged, my mother never re-petitioned and he had moved out of the country, so it would have been a huge thing either way. I've met my father twice in my known life (IE when I was old enough to remember it.)

Both my mother and father went on to have extended families with 2nd spouses (my stepmother had been my father's OW). The lack of child support was later held against me by my stepfather. (Who was for the very reasons listed here, talked out of legally adopting me as his own by his parents, who didn't want him burdened with a non-bio child.) This was used as a reason to boot me from the house at 17 because I was an unfair burden on the family resources. 

You want to fix the child-support scenario and change it being ad-lib alimony? Divide the amount of support awarded and require it to be placed it into an account accessible only by the child at 18. Take out of the equation whether or not you are being "screwed" and how child support is only for revenge. If you have even $100 a month gaining interest for 18 years, you'd have a fair amount of money to look towards college tuition or starting adult life. And for some children (like myself) this might make a huge difference.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> It is politically possible but it would be very unpopular.


Insurance works because more people pay premiums than those who make claims. People are required to pay said premiums up to a deductible. That's how as a system it remains financially feasible. So, how exactly would a "paternity insurance" system work? Regardless of the emotional baggage about divorce or child support, how would that work as a financial idea? How would this be financially possible?

- How long before someone has children does one need to start paying these premiums? Can someone who isn't planning on having children get "accident coverage?" How do you "make a claim?" What determines the pay-out on a "claim?"

- What exactly are you paying premiums for? That your children are genetically yours? That if you ever get divorced/break up with the mother you won't have to pay child support? Or it limits child support? What are the exceptions if your child is born special needs? 

- Can women also take out these kinds of policies? Can they get insurance against a WH making children with other women? Can she protect herself against the assumption that spousal income should be used against her own children to pay for children with OW(s)?

And a million more questions.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Star thanks for your interest. Lack of financial sensibility has never deterred legislators, but yes this would need some working out. I really like the idea of part of the child support being put in trust. Excellent thinking. 
Miss Froggie, I honestly believe you. I have seen much of what you have seen also. I'm just looking at the problem from a different viewpoint. It is easy to see the drive for more money, the tricky part is seeing that money is only a means to gain power.
MN


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

Starstarfish said:


> So if in your mind mandated child support is purely to punish the father, what if anything is the obligation of fathers toward their children?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I thought this thread had died.
I see no reason for mandated child support not to be paid by either parent, providing they are the biological or adopted parents.
But if one spouse decides to reproduce outside the marriage, then it's THEIR problem and the court system should just mind it's own business.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

MissFroggie said:


> *I can honestly say I do not know ANYONE who claims child support as a means of revenge.* I do know MANY mothers who do not pursue their legal right to child support because they know the biological father would be resentful of this and would seek 'revenge' for being held to their legal accountability - these mothers deem it in the best interests of their child's SAFETY and their own SAFETY to go without the money they are legally entitled to.
> 
> I doubt 'revenge' is the reasoning behind the lying, cheating mothers who either do not know the true paternity of their child or do know the child is not the child of the man they are claiming financial support from. It sounds much more plausible to me that it would be for FINANCIAL GAIN rather than revenge. In those states where the law ALLOWS this they may even feel justified in their deceptive behaviour, it may provide a reason TO LIE and the law should not be an accomplice and it is WRONG.
> 
> ...


You don't know my ex-wife then...


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> You don't know my ex-wife then...


Or mine! I was luckier than most though I was able to work it out to insure that my money ONLY went to the kids and not x wife. I was able to get out of alimony cause I had leverage on x wife. In the end I am way blessed how I came out. My heart hurts for a lot of my divorced friends who got screwed by the court system. Family courts are crazy and need a major revamping .


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

My ex is dragging me back into court, and in fact, we have a hearing this afternoon. Our oldest just turned 18, and the child support agreement states child support through high school graduation. She is now requesting child support through college graduation or age 26, which ever comes first, for all three kids. Fortunately, the alimony only has four years left...the downside is that she is requesting that I pay her student loans...that were taken out AFTER we separated...


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> My ex is dragging me back into court, and in fact, we have a hearing this afternoon. Our oldest just turned 18, and the child support agreement states child support through high school graduation. She is now requesting child support through college graduation or age 26, which ever comes first, for all three kids. Fortunately, the alimony only has four years left...the downside is that she is requesting that I pay her student loans...that were taken out AFTER we separated...


What? That doesn't seem like anything that would hold water here but then again family courts are nuts. I hope you get a sane judge that will throw that out


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> My ex is dragging me back into court, and in fact, we have a hearing this afternoon. Our oldest just turned 18, and the child support agreement states child support through high school graduation. She is now requesting child support through college graduation or age 26, which ever comes first, for all three kids. Fortunately, the alimony only has four years left...the downside is that she is requesting that I pay her student loans...that were taken out AFTER we separated...


Good luck Sam.

There are times you look at these court filings and recognize there isn't a single "right" thing about them. You can see BLATANTLY that it is just one person trying to get the other for as much as possilbe. And yet they still get to sit in front of a judge.

This whole "expanded" child support that has become so prevalent is bogus. Child support should end at 18. Period. (well graduation from High School, I can see that one). But through 26? WTF?!?!


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

And the sad thing is, there is precedent for her requests. She was a poor downtrodden SAHM after all, and it's all about the kids. Is she likely to prevail? Probably not, but there is a chance she could, and regardless, I still have to take time off work, pay a lawyer to defend myself against this crap.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

If it is judged you have to help with college, I'd pay the money to the school directly, Sam. That way no one can use it for another purpose.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

samyeagar said:


> And the sad thing is, there is precedent for her requests. She was a poor downtrodden SAHM after all, and it's all about the kids. Is she likely to prevail? Probably not, but there is a chance she could, and regardless, I still have to take time off work, pay a lawyer to defend myself against this crap.


If the judge rules in her favor, your money might be better spent by hiring a PI to check to see if the judge is sleeping with your ex.
It happens.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

hookares said:


> If the judge rules in her favor, your money might be better spent by hiring a PI to check to see if the judge is sleeping with your ex.
> It happens.


Possibly. But it is a question of law. And the law varies from state to state. If the law mandates support until age 18 and if there are no agreements between the ex spouses about a different age, then that's it.

I do know that recently, in New Jersey, a young lady (18 or perhaps 19) sued her parents for money to go to college. The judge not only gave her nothing, but read her the riot act from the bench.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Well, the judge sided with me in that child support will end upon graduation from high school, but left paying for college open, so that was a positive, but what really irritates me is that this was the likely outcome from the very beginning, and my ex-wife was able to run up a few thousand in legal bills for me to get what was supposed to be from the very beginning.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

sam.... what should happen here is your wife should have to pay your legal bills. This is one area where the law in the us is weak. If you bring in a frivolous claim, you should have to pay the other sides legal fees. This would really cut down on some of this bs.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> sam.... what should happen here is your wife should have to pay your legal bills. This is one area where the law in the us is weak. If you bring in a frivolous claim, you should have to pay the other sides legal fees. This would really cut down on some of this bs.


We asked for reimbursement, and were denied. The judge did not feel this was frivolous even though the decision was in line with precedent, and she was asking for something extraordinary. His wording with regards to asking for that was along the lines of consider yourself lucky with what you got and don't push it.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

that judge should actually get censured over this..... Or lose his job. Unreal, almost...


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

There's a grass roots movement underway to limit ALL public "servants" to one four year term. Should this take place, these parasites won't be around long enough to become complacent in doing their jobs.


----------

