The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
question regarding paternity fraud
sumwar
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm single right now but I'm just curious about this. So just recently I found out that if a wife has a child with a man other than her husband, he is still entitled to paying child support. I also found out that if a man pays for child support and puts his name on the birth certificate without doing any DNA testing, and then later does DNA testing, he still pays for child support. Sometimes these guys get custody over the child, sometimes they can't see them ever and yet still have to pay. So, I'm paranoid as fucking hell right now and here is my question.
If I am common law married in Ontario, and my hypothetical girlfriend (not wife, I'm not getting real married) has a child that isn't mine, am I by law required to pay child support even if I demand a paternity test right at birth and I don't put my name on the birth certificate? Or is common law marriage different from real marriage in this case.
P.S. Fuck this fucking world wow my stomach is still hurting, I barely slept last night learning this yesterday, just by knowing this can happen even if it didn't happen to me.
If I am common law married in Ontario, and my hypothetical girlfriend (not wife, I'm not getting real married) has a child that isn't mine, am I by law required to pay child support even if I demand a paternity test right at birth and I don't put my name on the birth certificate? Or is common law marriage different from real marriage in this case.
P.S. Fuck this fucking world wow my stomach is still hurting, I barely slept last night learning this yesterday, just by knowing this can happen even if it didn't happen to me.
sumwar on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I'm not a lawyer, but I've never seen a case where a wife has a child with another partner who isn't the husband, where the situation wasn't agreed to beforehand (IE the husband is shooting blanks so the wife had to outsource), and the husband is stuck paying for the child.
On a possibly unrelated note, if you don't want to pay for the child, and she's slept with another man without your consent or approval, then it sounds like you don't want to be with the woman anymore either.
If this is what keeps you up at night, I suggest you get a vasectomy right away.
Really though, it sounds like you have trust issues mixed with a bit of social conditioning of "Women are evil and will screw you over and take all your money HARGLBARGL!!!!"
Here in the states, I know that if you're the assumed father (you sign the birth certificate, etc.) and later find out the kid isn't yours, you'll still end up paying child support.
It makes sense. If you've been taking care of this kid as if it were your own the entire time, then you've made it your responsibility. There's no point in punishing the kid just because you and the mother didn't work out, ya know?
It seems to suggest that one way out (as if you'd ever end up in this situation) might be to immediately stop supporting the child as soon as you find out it isn't yours.
Also, contrary to popular belief, the frequency of nonpaternity is usually only 2-3%.
The issue in this kind of situation is the degree to which the biological non-father acts as a father to the child. If the man does not treat the child as his own, and if the child does not treat the man as its father, then the man should not be responsible to pay any kind of child support should the relationship break down.
And usually that 2-3% is probably easily avoided.
Are you worried about this issue because it's a "hypothetical" situation involving your "friend", or are you just paranoid?
Either that or you're on cocaine.
Seriously, don't actually do that. But you've got what seems like a couple of deep-seated hangups here.
I'm going to start screaming, and one day I will stop.
I do not know when that day will be.
The court viewed it as if the husband had adopted his wife's child from a previous marriage or something, and was still responsible for it...even though the reality is that he had always thought it was his own child, and so the idea of NOT accepting responsibility never crossed his mind.
So...yeah. The reality is, family courts are stacked against you in nearly every situation. The lesson? If she's a whore, don't have sex with her.
Okay, if you ask for the DNA test and the kid isn't yours you won't be forced to pay child support.
But I think the real issue here is the fact that a hypothetical situation kept you awake last night from worry. You may need professional help.
Where were you living when this occurred? I've never heard of such a loose definition of common law marriage as cohabiting for 6 months. Usually the conditions are "living as husband and wife for a year or more" which means you self identify as Mrs. X or as the spouse of your significant other.
Most of the laws that go "Well, you already thought you were the dad for x many years, so pay up" are from before DNA testing. They are slowly getting removed, but its being fought tooth and nail by feminist groups. Because whats a woman without her right to defraud a man?
And frankly, regardless of what law is on the books, you'd need an infinitely amazing lawyer, something on the order of $100,000, and a judge that doesn't just believe he is coming to some poor womans rescue from a man who's trying to steal her meal ticket and that of her child.
The only real answer is to be an asshole and always DNA test any kids that you think are yours, if you are so worried about it, as soon as you have them. Because, shitty as it is, most places have something like a 30-60 day period where you are allowed to contest any parental obligations as a father (even though most women can just abandon them no questions asked at any number of gov't centers). And once that period has passed, you on the hook for life, regardless of what you may find out later in terms of actual paternity.
Or just trust your girlfriend/wife.
Wow. Hate on women some more, please.
So, men have it bad in married life? Okay, carrying a baby to term for 9 months counts for nothing. Completely wrecking your body to the point of needing surgery or a celebrity fitness coach just to get back to par counts for nothing.
Making your body a walking buffet for the kid for who knows how many months counts for nothing. Oh, and leaving your job because "your man" works and makes more pay counts for nothing. Now when he leaves, it's your fault you don't have money. Shoulda stayed at work for those 9 months! You should have worked during the child's infancy so that the inevitable breakup would just be paper work! Problem solved! No need to get money involved...
Yes, some women are money grubbing losers, but the laws aren't in place for the express purpose of protecting them. They are there to protect legitimately screwed women who actually DO sacrifice a lot in a marriage to the point no prenup could guarantee recompense. There's just no way for women who're out of work for so long to be expected to run back into the work force without missing a beat. It's child SUPPORT, not FULL CHILD EXPENSES FREE JOY RIDE FOR MOM.
Please don't talk about feminism like it's some radical extremist group.
This is all beside the point that illegit children in a legit marriage is bullshit no matter what gender is unfaithful. If you raise the child with the intent of it being yours, how does it having different DNA make it suddenly "not connected" with you? Do you shit on ALL adopted babies?
See, and thats the thing that makes this impossible to debate.
We aren't talking about normal situations. We are talking about paternity fraud. But you went and applied everything I said to a case nobody was talking about like a silly goose.
I don't think its unreasonable to be pissed off at a legal system which is only concerned with protecting a single group, no matter what they've done, regardless of all common sense, equal protection, or due process. You know, those things in the constitution. We treat non-custodial "fathers" worse than we treat terrorist in many situations.
If you have documented evidence that the woman doesn't deserve the income, then the judge will deny child support. It's not like you show up in court and they already have the legislation written for your case. It's true that the de-facto response is to make the father financially responsible, but it's a better default than making the woman have to prove that she needs help after being financially dependent on the man.
Paternity fraud doesn't mean she's a sneaky whore trying to get you to pay for someone else's baby. there are plenty of non sociopathic explanations for that behavior.
EDIT: Hyperbole - don't use it in place of fact
hahaha holy moly
Like son of a gun? Didn't they disprove that on Mythbusters? I fail to see how it can not be sociopathic for a woman to not know who the father of a child is, and lie about it. You can get into all the fringe polyamorous behavior you want, but the second you lie about who the father of a child is to someone, you've crossed a line. Not admitting you don't know counts as lying.
And you know what, for every man who's being nailed with legally protected paternity fraud, there might be a guy out there who would have wanted a relationship with a son or daughter he never knew he had. And a child who can't figure out where the other half of him comes from, since he or she is really nothing at all like their father.
If you have documented evidence that the woman doesn't deserve the income, then the judge will deny child support.
/quote
Actually that's what was initially making my stomach turn(again I'm fine, I was just shocked at hearing this for the first time). There are plenty of cases that have been in the news that I looked up where the father clearly wasn't the biological father and ended up being forced to pay child support even with DNA evidence proving he isn't the father. The cases said the non bio fathers showed the courts the DNA evidence.
Yea by the sounds of it a previous post is right. Currently the law is messed up so in certain cases and feminists groups are fighting against the changes to the law, but I think eventually someone who isn't the bio father and didn't intend to adopt the child won't be forced to pay child support just because he assumed his at the time wife/girlfriend wasn't a whore and therefore put his name on the birth certificate. However, eventually I'm sure the law will change so it makes more sense.
I don't think that quote has anything to do with your argument. Documenting that you aren't the father is vastly different than documenting that the woman doesn't deserve the income.
Also biology is not the end all be all in terms of child-rearing. If a couple adopt and then divorce should the non-custodial parent not have to pay child support because the child isn't biologically theirs? In addition, current case law protects non-custodial parents who want to have a relationship with their children even if they aren't biologically related.
Umm... the mother could GENUINELY not know who the father is until confronted with DNA evidence? She could GENUINELY believe that she wasn't pregnant from the other guy. It's not illegal to be dumb.
Crossing what line? In California, adultery is not a legal reason for divorce. Clearly, infidelity isn't a "line" drawn in stone. Crossing YOUR line maybe, but no legal line I know of, at least not at a federal level.
I'm honestly at a loss for words. What sort of intellectual wankery is it to say with a straight face "If you are sleeping with two guy and get pregnant, it's not the mothers fault she's too retarded to figure out that she doesn't know which one got her pregnant."
And if you don't know, and admit you don't know, there are actually ways to find out. As opposed to lying about it and saying "Guy A".
Ah, but you're assuming every man asks and she responds untruthfully. Lots of guys DON'T ask, because it's assumed that it's theirs.
Imagine the reverse situation: The man cheats on the wife, gets a woman pregnant and has an illegit child. The father has to support the child financially. Now, it's not fair to the wife because it's HER MONEY too (just because she doesn't punch a card in and out every weekday doesn't mean the money isn't shared.)
It's not that guys get screwed unilaterally in this legislation. In my example, the MAN fucked another woman, and the wife has to watch the savings and their whole life plan slip down the drain because of his mistake. For some reason, some guys don't think this is "that bad of an offense" because they feel like the guy is paying for his mistake with the money he's earned.
Maybe he assumed it's his cause he assumed she was being monogamous ... you know, trust?
I have bolded the part I am responding to. In regards to adopted kids I would feel that mother and father depending on the situation would have to pay child support. In that case both party's have decided on taking on a huge/great responsibility. Both knew what they sign up for.
I respect your position, in general, but for the love of all that is good, please do not argue that "it's not lying if they never ask." If a woman is having sex with two men when she gets pregnant, regardless of whether they know about each other, regardless of whether/when she's using protection, she should find out who the father is.
You're right; this is really unfair, but it's not the same thing as cuckolding. The woman in this situation knows what happens, she knows why the money is being spent, and she has the power to get a divorce or demand something from her husband.
What does that have anything to do with this?
The point is, if there's paternity fraud, it's assumed that the parents will split anyway. It's not fair that just because it came out of her vagina that she's 100% responsible for it. As in my other example, BOTH parties get screwed equally when the man cheats. Why does the woman have to bear 100% responsibility when she cheats? When a woman cheats, it should be just as fair as a man. Men won't have to pay child support when they stop being the default breadwinner for a couple.
Explain this concept of gender parity, as you see it. Enlighten me please.
I'm confuzzled.
If a man cheats and impregnates someone, but can't raise the child himself, he should pay child support.
If a woman cheats and becomes impregnated, but can't raise the child herself, she should pay child support.
Wouldn't that be the definition of gender parity?
Agreed about the lying thing - I was being fecitious.
What exactly are you saying is different? It's hard to discern with "this situation."
If I assume correctly, you mean that in the MAN cheating situation, the woman knows why the money is being spent.
There are NUMEROUS cases of men spending money behind their wives back to keep their mistresses quiet. It's not a case of beign forthcoming, it's the fact that money LEAKS OUT of the relationship. In the above situation, the man is STEALING from his wife, but there's almost no legal action she can take (theoretically yes, but it's extremely hard to nail.)
Believe me, these are equivalent cases where seemingly "unbaised" people claim two different moralities when the gender is swapped.
My wife's 8 months pregnant, let's say she was sleeping around 8-10 months ago, are you saying the onus is on me to contest paternity more then it is on her to volunteer the information that the child might not be mine?
Also, in a lot of marriages, monogamy is assumed (sometimes oaths are even made to that effect). From an ethical perspective (I suppose not a legal one in California), yeah the person who breaks that oath is more at fault then the person who doesn't.
Are you enlightened?
That's what the CURRENT legislation tries to uphold, and people are denigrating it as some sort of "feminist go-to precedent for stealing mens money"
But no one in this thread is arguing that. You are doing trying so hard to play the morally outraged feminist you have invented an opponent.
If a man cheats, doesn't tell his wife, and secretly pays child support to the mistress, that is awful.
If a woman cheats, doesn't tell her husband, and secretly allows her husband to raise a child that isn't his, that is equally awful.
That is gender parity.