Surprised Dad required to see child he never knew he had?

[Serendipity28]

I watched the tail end of one of these court television programs this morning, where a guy apparently turned out to be the father of a 6 year old girl that the mother never told him about. The mother is married to another man, who is convinced that he is the proud Pop, having, I surmised, been seeing the lady when she had a fling with guy number 2.

Anyhow, guy 1 feels the child is his, has been doing a good job of being a Dad and is still married to the lady. Guy number 2 apparently has been blind sided by the lady with this disclosure because she wants child support to ease financial woes. He has had no contact with the lady since she married.

So the judge has a DNA test done, confirms that guy 2 is the Pop, and he apparently has no interest in the child, which he did not know was his and has never even seen. The judge then informs him that not only does he need to pay child support from now on out, but he must start visiting the kid as is his right as the biological father.

He was not real happy over the whole thing.

I questioned the judges decision because:
1: He never knew the lady was pregnant
2: He was never informed that the child was born.
3: He has no interest in the child at all.
4: The lady did not mention a thing to him until her and her husband started having financial problems.

I can understand the child support, but I don't understand his being required to visit when he has no interest. Should he be required to do so?

I would think that this is not a good idea.

[Scylla]

Do you happen to have a link?


Linkety link link link?

[Freedom]

I think any father who does not have an interest in caring for his child is scum. It doesn't matter to me WHEN he found out about the child.

However, I would give him a grace period to fully digest the new information. I realize that this could be a little earth shattering.

About the money....

There is no doubt in my mind that the biggest loser and bearer of responsibility in this mess is the mother. From your post it looks obvious that she is looking for a little extra financial support. If there is not an obvious need for the money to provide for the childs well being, I say screw them on the money. Otherwise, some provision needs to be in place so that only the child gets the money.

[Enderw24]

Never blame the messenger.

If the judge was acting within the realm of the law, then he is not to be blamed for his ruling. Blame the stupid laws if you want to, but don't blame the judge. The same can be true for forced visitations. Personally, I can't imagine that there is a law that would force someone to visit another person they had no interest in seeing. I think enforcing this would be an obscene waste of resources.

If, however, the judge was acting outside the scope of the law, then not only can I fault his ruling, but the guy has grounds for appeal.

[Gundy]

I tend to agree that it's not a good idea. The only thing I can comfortably say the bio. father for is responsible for is having sex with the mother in the first place, so I suppose that as a result of that act he can be held financially responsible - but only minimally, since the mother didn't see fit to say anything until 6 years later. As for forcing him to visit with the child, I guess in a best-case scenario he'll become a positive part of her life, but the likelihood is that he'll resent her intrusion on his life as he knew it, if the tone was the way you described it.

What kind of mother puts her 6-year-old child in this position? "Sorry, sweetie, the guy who's raised you since you were a peanut isn't really your father, and now since we're having cash flow problems, you'll get to meet your REAL dad, and he'll buy you stuff!" I certainly understand that bad stuff happens and you deal with it, but to 1) have an affair; 2) get pregnant; 3) conceal the baby's paternity for six years; 4) six years later, come begging for cash from the bio. father; and 5) discuss it all on television is pretty disgusting to me. Certainly she could have handled this differently.

I hate seeing women do this sort of thing. It gives the rest of the world a reason to expect the same of other women.

[hedra]

Poor guy got stuck in the middle of a legal and social re-think of what it means to be a father...

There are a lot of cases that are going one way or another, where a guy is 'forced' to act like a father because of biology, or is told he doesn't have legal rights to visit a child who he raised as his own once it is proven that he isn't the biological father, etc. Mothers are having the same problem, except she knows that she had a kid... But hospital mixups are hitting the same issue. You raise a child as your own, but it turns out they were swapped at the hospital and it isn't your kid. Can they take it away and give it back to the 'real' (that is, biological) parents? Yes. Can they make you take legal, social, and financial responsibility for the child who is yours biologically but who you never met before? Yes. Will they? Depends on the court. There's increasing acceptance of the idea that biology should not always trump the rest of the situation. But the courts usually decide in favor of what is seen (or currently understood to be) the best interests of the child. Since the experts on child development and psychology disagree, and it isn't a simple question in the first place, and some judges are not entirely current on the research, there is a HUGE variety of ways such cases can turn out.

Maybe the judge thought that visitation would at least get one balanced and sane (and not incredibly greedy and selfish) adult into the child's life? Even if reluctantly...

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Serendipity28


He was not real happy over the whole thing.

I questioned the judges decision because:
1: He never knew the lady was pregnant
2: He was never informed that the child was born.
3: He has no interest in the child at all.
4: The lady did not mention a thing to him until her and her husband started having financial problems.

I can understand the child support, but I don't understand his being required to visit when he has no interest. Should he be required to do so?



This is a pet peeve of mine.

Not only should the man not have to see or interact the child if he does not want to, but he should not have to pay child support, either,and I am astonished that anyone can think he should.

I created a thread about this last year called Abortion For Men, here's the link:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=1772

Bottom line? Even though I am a woman, i think the way all reproductive choice and rights in this country are in the hands of women is grossly unfair. And I believe that if women did not have the power to decide for both men and women who would be parents, there would be a drop in unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children.

The thread went on so long it went to a part 2. That was before UBB got so spiffy.

Stoid

[Chef Troy]

I've also heard of many instances when, after a divorce, a man is required to pay child support for kids his wife birthed during his marriage even if paternity tests conclusively prove he was NOT the sperm supplier. Putting these two cases side by side, it's clear that they violate the old legal (well, it SHOULD be) concept of "you can't have it both ways."

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I can't imagine that a judge can legitimately order a parent to visit his child. Support, yes. Visit, no. In a case where a parent is the sole support for the child, obviously abandonment would amount to punishable neglect (and part of the punishment would be having the child taken away, not forcing the parent to be there). However, when the child is being cared for, no parent, AFAIK, can be forced to associate with the child. If you have enough money, you can bear a child, hand it off to nannies and boarding schools, and never see it again. Not to mention actually giving up the child for adoption.

[Jack Batty]

I've kept alot of my personal life off the boards, but this seems like as good a time as any to share.

I am that man, or at least an example thereof. I have two kids, twins. They are 8 years old now. I found out about them when they were 4. We went through the whole DNA testing rigamarole, and it came out positive, I am their dad. Earth-shattering? To say the least. I'd like to say, that I stepped right on up to the plate, but that is not the case. At least not at first. I cried alot, I broke down to my family wailing about how I'd ruined my life et cetera. But once I got some good counceling from my loved ones, I did step up to do the right thing. I pay my child support, and I visit them and talk to them as much as I can.
Unfortunately, my situation is not as cut and dried as the OP's.
My kids live with their maternal grandparents. And they have since shortly after they were born. I'm not about to trash their mother, but suffice it to say, she had some problems, much as I did at the time too. Her parents insisted they take care of the kids. Cut to 4 years later, I'm informed of my kids existence, thier mother is making an honest effort to make their lives as normal as possible, and get them back fully into her life. Then, one year later, she dies in a car accident.
So here is my dilemma: do I assume custody being the only surviving parent, or do I let their grandparents (the only care-givers they've really known) continue to raise them. God knows, I didn't want to upset their world any more than it already was. It's possible when they are older and able to have an informed say in the decision, I may take over custody, but not at the expense of a war with their grandparents.

I really didn't mean to lay all that on everyone, but it feels good to do so, so what the hell. There is actually a ton more to this story, but I'm not comfortable totally laying it all out publically like this.

Back to the OP. The man should pay child support. He is responsible for giving them life, he shouldn't be allowed to let wither now that his fun is over. As for visiting them, he should want to. But if he doesn't, and the mother doesn't want him to, and her husband has assumed a father role, then it's just the biological dad's guilt to live with - his right.

[sugaree]

Here we have one father who wants nothing to do with the child, and another man who wants to be a father. In the OP's particular situation, why can't bio-dad sign away his parental rights (and responsibilities) while the other gentleman adopts the child?

Jack Batty god bless you. What a terrible situation, but the boys are lucky to have good grandparents- and you.

[Jack Batty]

One boy and one girl, actually (easier to tell them apart that way), but thank you.

[Stuffy]

I've also heard of many instances when, after a divorce, a man is required to pay child support for kids his wife birthed during his marriage even if paternity tests conclusively prove he was NOT the sperm supplier. Putting these two cases side by side, it's clear that they violate the old legal (well, it SHOULD be) concept of "you can't have it both ways."

And I'm this guy. Gee, Jack, maybe we should start some kind of support group.

This is and the OP, is one of the things I've been hashing
over for the last three years. There are so many issues. The following are jusdt my thoughts on this and how Ive been trying to handle it. (FTR, Im the custodial parent)

1. I thought it was neccesary to fing out who the bio was, mainly so I could be aware of any potential health problems.

2. I couldn't even began to KNOW if I wanted CS, I mean I raised and loved this child, and don't really need it, but by the same token isn't the bio finacially responsible too! I stuck here.

3. What do I tell my son?

[wring]

another county heard from.

In my case, my son IS the result of a marriage, we're divorced, c/s and visitation are both spelled out in the agreement,

Both of us could go back to court re: child support (failure to pay or change amounts).
Re: visitation, I can be taken to court if I fail to allow the specified visitation, he can go to court to request more, I can go to court to request that he not be allowed....

BUT: I cannot go to court and demand that he see our child the amount that's in the agreement. IOW, he can do LESS of that and there's no recourse. (not that I'm advocating it).

I do NOT believe that the court can order the man to "get to know his child". they can make provisions to allow for it.

And, by the way, what are you doing watching court tv anyhow?

[BlackKnight]

What Stoidela said. (Except for that "I am a woman" part ;) )

I believe the man should not be forced to see the child if he doesn't want to.

I believe he should not be forced to pay child support either.

[Suo Na]

Originally posted by Freedom2
I think any father who does not have an interest in caring for his child is scum. It doesn't matter to me WHEN he found out about the child.


So a woman who puts her child up for adoption is scum? Obviously she has no interest in caring for the child, or feels she's unable to care for it properly. How is the father any different?

[SuaSponte]

This was truly an odd ruling by the judge, and one I believe would only happen on a TV court show.
First, I have a strong feeling that the order requiring bio-Dad to visit the kid is unenforceable. As I understand it, on these court shows the parties sign a contract in which they agree to abide by the decision of the TVjudge. I think that the contract is unenforceable in this regard.
Second, the common law for centuries has presumptively determined that a child born in wedlock is the child of the husband. This particular common law principle is a bit anachronistic with DNA testing, but it's not a bad principle, and I think it still applies in most jurisdictions - hence the cases where the husband must continue to pay child support even if the child is proven not to be his.
In all, it sounds like the TVjudge was off his rocker.

As for the fine people in this thread who say that a man shouldn't have to pay child support, fortunately the law doesn't agree with you. The law doesn't give a damn about who screwed who over, but instead recognizes that the child is innocent of the crap going on between the parents. That child deserves to be cared for. Child support isn't punishment for the man, regardless of how the man sees it. It is support for the child.
Sua

[Jodi]

SUA says:

Child support isn't punishment for the man, regardless of how the man sees it. It is support for the child.

And, just to reinforce this point:

1: He never knew the lady was pregnant. Not the child's fault
2: He was never informed that the child was born. Not the child's fault
3: He has no interest in the child at all. Not the child's fault
4: The lady did not mention a thing to him until her and her husband started having financial problems. Not the child's fault

I'm astonished at the ease with which all of you literally throw the baby out with the bathwater in your rush to free parents from unwanted financial obligations.

I can understand the child support, but I don't understand his being required to visit when he has no interest. Should he be required to do so?

IMO, no. I agree with Sua, I doubt this would be enforceable. You can make a man financially support a child, but you can't make a man parent a child if he doesn't want to (and the same goes for women/mothers as well).

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by Jodi
I'm astonished at the ease with which all of you literally throw the baby out with the bathwater in your rush to free parents from unwanted financial obligations.


I don't think anyone's throwing the baby out with anything. The question is not whether it would be a good thing for the child to be supported; I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement on that topic. The question is about responsibility to support the child.

[wring]

Originally posted by Jodi
I'm astonished at the ease with which all of you literally throw the baby out with the bathwater in your rush to free parents from unwanted financial obligations.


I always like it when Jodi and I agree ( :D - hi Jodi!)

BlackKnight- the responsibility lies with the people who performed the actions. One is generally responsible for ones behavior. engaging in heterosexual behavior always has the potential for pregnancy. Odds might vary, but the potential is always there. Engage in the behavior at your own risk.

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by wring
BlackKnight- the responsibility lies with the people who performed the actions. One is generally responsible for ones behavior.

I have my own politically incorrect theory about this, but I'm not going to hijack the thread that blatantly. The important point in my above post was that I don't think there is any argument over the fact that it is a good thing for the child to be supported. Jodi's accusation that some people were throwing the baby out with the bathwater is, IMHO, unfair.

[Jack Batty]

I'm a little confused. Stoid and BlackKnight, are you saying that men should not be held responsible for financially supporting the children they helped to create in general, or for just the case of the OP?

There is a case for responsibility reassessment in the OP I'll half-heartedly agree. But without a closer look at any situation, the onus of financially responsibility should always lay at the feet of the biological parents.

In the OP's case, it seems that the child is the one who's apple cart is being upset. There she was happy knowing the only parents she's ever known, when in comes the variable - the biological dad. She doesn't care who's buying her school shoes, her biggest concern is trying to figure out why her "dad" isn't really her "father."

But in general cases: If a man is responsible for a life, biologically, he should be held responsible financially. This is not the middle ages where randy footmen could galavant around porking any damsel they please, damn the consequences. We are an informed, and despite what many think, moral society where the well-being of children is paramount.

[Northern Piper]

i think the way all reproductive choice and rights in this country are in the hands of women is grossly unfair. And I believe that if women did not have the power to decide for both men and women who would be parents, there would be a drop in unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children.

Men do have reproductive choice, and can decide for both men and women on parentage:

1. abstinence;

2. condoms;

3. vasectomy.

If a man ignores 1, 2, and 3, and the lady gets pregnant, then the sole control shifts to her.

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by Jack Batty
Stoid and BlackKnight, are you saying that men should not be held responsible for financially supporting the children they helped to create in general, or for just the case of the OP?

I can't speak for Stoid, but I think the man in this case should not be held financially responsible.

If you'd like to discuss my general views on this subject, I suggest another thread be started.

We are an informed, and despite what many think, moral society where the well-being of children is paramount.

Perhaps the well-being of children should be paramount, but I think from the court case refered to in the OP it is obvious that it is not. Forcing the child to be visited by her biological father is highly disrupting to the child's life.

[techchick68]

After reading the OP I can state, as a woman (of course know that I have no desire to have my own children) that this woman is off her rocker.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that a woman would hide her pregnancy and subsequent child from the father. After six years, she's apparently going through some difficult financial times she then springs upon him he has a child?

What is that?

I am sorry, if she failed to inform the father from the beginning or failed to recognize that another man may be in the mix then that is her problem. One of my best friends hasn't recieved child support in over 12 years yet she has provided her kids with a roof, clothing (even if from Walmart and sometimes Goodwill but she doesn't tell them that) and food on her table. He is legally required to send her support but he doesn't, yet this other woman gets a judgement against a man that never knew he was a father. it's bogus. Let's go after the men that have judgements against them, the ones that left their kids and wife in a city with no money, clothes except what was in their suitcase for a week trip, and stole any dignity she ever had. Screw this after the fact thing...

It's "always about the child" in so many people's eyes but come on, if the bio-father was never notified that he had a kid from the get go, how can you hold him responsible? I don't care about the law in this matter it's the mother that was blatently holding back their child from the father until things became seemingly desparate. If she hadn't become financial strapped she may have held this information from him for the rest of the kid's life. In my eyes that's fraud and the bio-father should not suffer from consequences with which he knew nothing about. She should have been upfront with the man to begin with, even if there was a question as to whom the child's father was.
If she had been up front with him to begin with then she's got a leg to stand on.

He may or may not have been supportive, financially or emotionally to the child from the beginning but after six years I find that holding a bio-father responsible for something that was never known to him a fishy tale.

Sorry, but the kid has a father and a mother. If the two of them aren't responsible for their own financial lives then going after a man that has never had knowledge of the child is ludicrous at best. There are many couples with financial problems who have their own biological children, who are they going to hunt down?

It's crap, the man should never be required to pay for child support especially after six years of not knowing he had sired (sp) a kid. The kid's mother is ultimately responsible for her dire position not the bio-father.

It sounds to me that the law has taken a turn for the worse and any judge, TV or not, should be able to look at individual circumstances before making a blanket judgement.

The woman in this case didn't take responsibility to inform her lover, and should have. The woman in this case held back crucial information despite the fact that she lives in a marriage.

It's fraud in my eyes.

[Chef Troy]

Originally posted by wring
...the responsibility lies with the people who performed the actions. One is generally responsible for ones behavior. engaging in heterosexual behavior always has the potential for pregnancy. Odds might vary, but the potential is always there. Engage in the behavior at your own risk.

I wouldn't dispute that point. But what about the flipside I mentioned earlier, when a man is required to pay child support for children borne by his wife during their marriage even if it's conclusively proven later that they were fathered by someone else?

I repeat: the courts can't (or shouldn't) have it both ways. It's one thing to hold the biological father legally responsible - I applaud that. To hold the innocent husband of an unfaithful wife equally responsible if he happens to be the one who a) is there and/or b) has money... that's a case of picking the deepest pocket, IMO.

The lawyers for the bio-pop described in the OP ought to cite case law that demonstrates the assumption that children born to a woman during a marriage are considered by default to be the issue of that marriage.

[wring]

Originally posted by Chef Troy
.... But what about the flipside I mentioned earlier, when a man is required to pay child support for children borne by his wife during their marriage even if it's conclusively proven later that they were fathered by someone else?

I repeat: the courts can't (or shouldn't) have it both ways. It's one thing to hold the biological father legally responsible - I applaud that. To hold the innocent husband of an unfaithful wife equally responsible if he happens to be the one who a) is there and/or b) has money... that's a case of picking the deepest pocket, IMO.

The lawyers for the bio-pop described in the OP ought to cite case law that demonstrates the assumption that children born to a woman during a marriage are considered by default to be the issue of that marriage.

I apparently lost my reply.

one point I'd like to make is a question about the male who has raised a child as his own for 6 years, finds out that they're not biologically related and the first thought is "yippee, I'm off the hook for child support"?

I gotta tell you, I've got a problem with that.

I worry more about what's fair to the child, than to the adults in the matter.

So, as to your question - I don't know. I strongly feel that child support shouldn't be thought of as a burden to be avoided, diminished etc. It's a right to the child. I get aggrivated by people who say "I paid $100 a week in child support" and wants to see reciepts for $100 per week in specific child only expenditures.

When you've got a two parent, two income household, you've got rent, utilities, food, insurance, clothing, entertainment, child care, transportation, etc etc costs that get split somehow. When you're the only paying person in a household, the expense constants are more. and typically, the child is doing with less than they would have had, if the parents had stayed together. So, child support payments are payments made in support of that child, to go for the clothing, food, shelter etc. of the child, not just shoes and socks.

Sorry if I can't answer it better.

[erislover]

Originally posted by techchick68
It's fraud in my eyes.

Sing it to 'em, geez o man, people.

This isn't a case about child support. It isn't like the guy has been dodging the kid. It isn't like the kid deserves it. But its a simple case where the mother felt compelled to show her hand only when it was necessary. That's BS. The mother obviously felt that the father had no responsibility for the last six years, why the sudden change of heart? Why wasn't it the father's right to know?

I agree (someone mentioned this) that it is a matter of "not being the child's fault." I agree wholeheartedly that it isn't the child's fault. But that doesn't allow any manner of arbitrary rules to be enforced. The guy happened to be the biological father...but would the child know this if mom hadn't spilled the beans? Myself, I had a step-father whom I considered to be my real father for many years; all throughout elementary school, in fact. It wasn't until later that I found out the truth. But so what?

It only takes one sex act with one sperm to make a child, but it takes a hell of a lot more than that to be a father. Neither the child nor the Bio-dad were permitted to have this latter result, so I would think the ruling should be overturned on all counts.

No, it isn't fair. But as many would be quick to point out in numerous other situations, that's life.

And Wring, [QUOTE]It's a right to the child.{/QUOTE] What?! The right to life doesn't guarantee that others will live to serve you. The right to liberty does not include the trampling of other's liberty. The right to happiness does not guarantee the attainment of it. I'm sorry if that sounds cold...

It happens all over the world. I'm not condoning it, just saying the cure is as bad as the disease. Perhaps if our government would stop coddling everyone then more people would act responsibly before the event....but that's another post.

[Stuffy]

No one tries to understand the implicit unfairness of the court system at all.

Situ # 1. Man finds out after years, that he has a child he was never aware of........

Answer: Too bad, you assumed responsibility when you had sex.

Situ # 2 Man finds out he's been caring for a child not his for years.........

Answer: Too bad, you assuemd respionsibility when you had sex.

More situs available upon request

Can't anyone see that men are getting beat up by both sides of the same argument, we can't win, in any way.

And women wonder why men are hard to find...

I know Jodi or someone else will be along any minute to say the right of the child....

But how about the right to some consistency, fairness or common sense?

[crckrrick]

I was confronted in much the same way at the age of 19. One of the girls I had slept with, only once, as a matter of fact, quit coming around. I figured it was because I'm a rude jerk and she finally saw the light. However, I heard through the grapevine that she was getting married and moving away for college, which she did.

Lo and behold, a year or so later she shows up on my doorstep, child in hand! She says she's not supposed to see me, her husband won't allow it, but the little girl is mine, although she wanted only for me to know. Okay, I know, I'm in total shock, and I don't know what to do or say. So after some awkward hour or so, she leaves.

In my own mind, deep in the muck, I can't deny she has my eyes ("Help me, it's dark without them!") but only sleeping with her one time, I refuse the idea. Until a year goes by and I'm being sued for child support. Until I pay $600 for a paternity test. Until medical science says I'm 99.99999998% likely to be the father. Until I'm ordered to pay $100 a week to mom. But hubby thinks it's a bad idea to see my girl, that mom still wants me ( in my mind at least, I'm convinced she does, too, but as I've already admitted, I'm an arrogent jerk) so I pay for three years with nothing but an occaisional picture, and I'm not happy about it.

Life goes on, and I become more philosophic. I wonder if I'm all alone. I stop paying and go back to court. I demand to see my kid, and since I had been paying, get my wish. Can you say, " Love at first sight"? I can. All of the sudden, almost in an instant I will never forget, I looked into those hazel eyes and Behold! Reguardless of any problems the outside world shovels on, my girl and I have formed the closest relationship I've ever had. My half-sister says we have broken the cycle. Whatever that means, there is hope in a once cold hearrt (mine).

So maybe don't be so hard on the mother. Money may not be her only motivation. Nobody knows what pushes women to act, not even other women. And the guy might come around. Some of us never had positive fathers and don't know how to act. I did'nt, but I feel confident I am learning to be one. And as far as him thinking he should'nt have to pay, that's only a natural first reaction. Who's to say in a year or so curiousity won't overpower frugality and he will see the child and open up? Regardless, everyone should have to support thier kids, financailly at the very least.

I tried not to make this too blocky, but I'm new, I need practice, but I'll close by saying it's been the best 40,000 I've ever spent ( 9 years of child support ) and hubby can't say anything negative 'cause I've almost paid for his house! It's just, IMHO sorry to say that there is even a debate at all as to whether he should pay or not, as for him being forced to visit, that's just redicules (sp?) to think anybody could ever enforce that, even the all powerful Judge Judy...

[techchick68]

crckrrick said:

So maybe don't be so hard on the mother. Money may not be her only motivation. Nobody knows what pushes women to act, not even other women.

Your are right, everyone has their own ideas going through their head. However given the OP it had been six years and the child is no longer in goo goo land. This is beyond the statute (sp, idea?) of limitations in my eyes.

Of course we can't confirm but based on the OP's coming into the program late and stated:


1: He never knew the lady was pregnant
2: He was never informed that the child was born.


Let us assume that these are the cold hard facts, that in fact he never knew, he was never informed that six years had past.

Then factor in:

where a guy apparently turned out to be the father of a 6 year old girl that the mother never told him about. The mother is married to another man, who is convinced that he is the proud Pop,

"Proud Pop" in this instance has accepted this child as his own, granted Mrs. Proud Pop apparently never explained to Mr. Proud Pop that he may not be a Proud Pop after all. Mr. Proud Pop and Mrs. Proud Pop have difficult financial times, Mrs. Proud Pop explains to Mr. Proud Pop that there is a possiblity that Not-Knowing Pop could be the father.

Since Not-Knowing Pop could be the father, Mr. and Mrs. Proud Pop look at options to get out of said financial crisis. All the while not letting Not-Knowing Pop know that he could be Another Proud Pop but let us take him to court anyway as we may be able to afford that new and shiney Dodge Neon.

Well, in light of what I have explained here I find it horribly disturbing that a man that never knew he even had a kid should be taken to court and required not only to pay for support but to be ordered visitation.

I find both "orders" to be unfair.

Look, we as a society don't take enough responsibility for our actions. Clearly in this case this woman did not take responsibility to let a potential father know that he was in the mix. This, as a woman, I find to be despicable behavior amongst my counter parts. No matter how you cut it this woman did the wrong thing from the beginning. But she found it mighty convenient to get the facts out when she is running into financial hard times with her beloved husband. So what, many couples who have their own biological children run into hard times and work it out one way or another. Be that someone gets a part-time job to tide them through, get help from a church or other charitable org or (god forbid, my Libertarian side is coming out) the government. Why the heck would anyone dredge up a relationship from six years prior? What if she had been one of those that had had more than the two partners? Then you bring up so many other issues.

As I stated earlier, what if they hadn't had a financial hardship? Would this child have grown up believing that the man that mommy is married to is considered the bio-daddy?

Yes, the mother is at fault here. I feel for the kid but come on, people need to quit giving the woman the benefit here. Women have all the upper hand when it comes to kids and raising them. I agree that women, in general, play the largest role in child rearing because of biology but if the woman doesn't take it upon herself to own up to her indiscretion from the beginning, no matter how much it will hurt her self esteem, then why would anyone sympathize with her?

Is there any clear cut-off for when a women should tell a man that he may be the father of her child? Ummm, probably the moment that she knows she is pregnant and let all involved men know they could be the father.

Not only did she hide that fact from her husband but she hid it from the father. SHE is at fault here.

It's not always about the kid. I am not sorry about that fact. I was adopted and bio-father wanted to "get rid of it" bio-mother decided to carry me to term. Yeah for her. I don't see her as any big hero. Had my parents gone through financial hardships they could not legally go to either of my birth parents for financial support, hey they are my bio parents and according to what I have seen with this thread and talk shows bio-parents are ultimately responsibile for their off spring. But in this particular scenerio a man that was not informed of DNA he passed on for six whole years should not be liable for responsibilities that were not properly disclosed. It was a little to convenient.

Sheesh, if I were a man and saw the OP I would be outraged over this. This leaves women to decide when it is appropriate to come to a man and decide that he is responsible for her children. I respond with a resounding "no" to this. If she can't take it upon herself to let the potential father know within a reasonable amount of time he may be fathering a child then she has no right in my eyes to take him to court six years later for child support.

What's next a woman that never let her lover know, after 17 years that he has a child in similar circumstances and sue him for 17 years of back child support?

Slippery slope folks, very slippery. Put the responsibility where it lies, with the woman.

I say that as a woman, an adopted child, a product of divorce and one that does not want children. So take away what you will with that but I fear that men are being screwed when it comes to kids.

I also have the experience of a friend of mine who is screwed by the system and can't get child support. A male friend who is raising his children because his ex-wife cannot care for her children, etc.... I am not without experiences to pull from.

[Freudian Slit]

Why did the woman take so long though, to tell the real father about his child? Either she tells him about it when she's pregnant, and then gets the child support/etc., or she doesn't rely on him- you can't have it both ways.

I don't think that merely having contributed sperm makes you a "father." The kid already has a father that she's used to...you can't force someone to have feelings for their kid. And when someone is six years old, they are somewhat grown up...I mean, obviously still young, but its kind of hard to "bond" with someone who's already that old...if that makes any sense...

[Typo Negative]

C'mon folks, this was Judge Judy or some such nonsense. It's not like this sets a precedent or anything.

Now it's time for my nonsensical ravings:
1) The mom's a psycho who has done harm to her child.
2) Just because dad didn't know he was a dad will not, nor should not, get him out of child support. I'm not saying he should get hit up for back payments.....
3) I feel sorry for dad numder 2.

A question for Jodi: Could dad number 2 have blocked the paternity test, using the presumption of paternity to his favor? Assuming, of course, this was an actual state court in a state where the presumption still applied. (presumption of paternity means a child born in wedlock is presumed to be the child of the husband and paternity cannot be challenged in court, in case you wondering)