A couple of child-support hypotheticals

Great Debates
1

Since paternity-issue threads seem to be all the rage these days…

My current understanding is that, generally, in the US, a man is held responsible for child support of his wife’s children, regardless of their actual parentage. Further, it’s my understanding that, on average mothers are more likely to get custody than fathers*. So, a couple hypotheticals:

A) Since currently the law is set up so that the husband of the mother pays child support, what would happen if that was transferable? That is, if my ex-wife gets remarried, her new husband assumes all legal liability for child support. Further, courts would have the authority to declare a live-in boyfriend of some length (details TBD) to have the same responsibilities. First, would this be good? My first instinct says, hey, if I’m not even in the scene anymore, why should I be paying? However, I’d be concerned that it might discourage the mother (and potential new husband) from getting married/living together, which might not be in the kids’ best interests. Tricky.

B) Regarding the issue of paternity tests not mattering after the man has lived with the kids for a while - what if a failed paternity test automatically gave custody options to the non-biological father? So, if I’ve been living with the kids for ten years or whatever, and I find out they’re not mine, I have the option, instead of paying child support, of taking the kids, and receiving child support from the mother. Kind of weird, in a give-the-kids-to-someone-they’re-not-related-to way, but intriguing. If we’re gonna say that paternity isn’t the issue, we might as well go all the way, right?

*Please, if this is wrong, let me know, I’m not well versed in these things.

2

The basic premise of the child support system is that the best interests of the child are paramount. Both of your hypotheticals focus on the concepts of fairness and equity amongst the parents but don’t take into account impact on the children.

So, that said, there is some merit, logically, in both hypotheticals, but that’s not really the main point. Also, incidentally, I’d agree in A that the net result would be potential partners living (at least officially) separately to avoid financial issues - also, I’d say that becoming a live-in partner of a parent who already has children in itself will carry a financial burden - child support doesn’t cover everything, that’s for sure.

Your second hypothetical is so far removed from the rights of the child that it’s simply not feasible.

3

(A) In Ontario, all people who demonstrates a settled intention to treat a child as his or her own are then responsible for supporting the child, thus there may be more than one person paying child support for a particular child at any given time. Once a person demonstrates a settled intention to treat a child as his or her own, then that person can not unilaterally withdrawal from that committment.

(B) In Ontario, anyone at all can ask the court for custory or access of a child, and the court will look at all relevant factors and decide what is in the best interest of the child. The court tends to frown on people who barter custody or access against child support.

4

In Texas, and I believe in other states, it is the biological father, not the mother’s current husband, who has the obligation to pay child support. In other words, it is not the case that “if my ex-wife gets remarried, her new husband assumes all legal liability for child support.”

You can, at least in Texas, have a situation where a man is responsible for child support regardless of what a paternity test says. However, that takes more than just having “lived with the kids for a while.” Typically that situation would arise where (1) the man is a “presumed father” due to certain conditions being met, such as being married to the mother when the child is born; and (2) the man does not contest paternity within a certain number of years. I don’t know how other states do it, but I’d be surprised if just living with the children, by itself, was enough to impose child support obligations.

5

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the OP is asking “what if it were?”

6

Perhaps I misunderstood. But to answer that question, no, I don’t think it would be a good idea to make that obligation “transferable.”

In my opinion, because it’s your child. Whether or not you are “in the scene” is something that is, at least to some extent, under your control. You can choose whether or not to divorce the mother (or, if the child was born out of wedlock, whether or not to marry the mother). Even if staying (or getting) married to the mother is not a reasonable option, you can choose whether to help raise the child, and I think you ought to be encouraged to do so. I wouldn’t want to see a system where a father has a financial incentive to not be involved in his child’s life, which would be the case if he could avoid child support obligations by not having contact with the child.

7

Clarification: I think you mean to say that in the U.S., a man is held responsible for support of children born to his wife while they are married, not all children ever born to her. (Meaning that children born to the wife during the marriage are legally presumed to be biologically the husband’s, and therefore the husband’s legal responsibility.) Is this what you meant?

8

It’s not tricky at all.

The live in boyfriend is not the father. Just because he lives with the mother and you don’t doesn’t make him the father. YOU are the father and his financial obligations are nil. (Of course, he will be pitching in and most likely quite a bit…but it is voluntary).

If the live in boyfriend wants to adopt AND the biological father agrees, the fine.

I frankly do not understand this attitude that a womans child is the responsibility of herself and the man in her life. The responsibility is between the mother and the child’s biological father…who she is seeing now is not relevant.

This reminds me of a poster that complained of the long term companion of his child’s mother didn’t help his son with homework. When pressed, he admitted that he didn’t either because he only saw him every other weekend and wanted to play. Now, I agree that it would be very nice the man the wife is seeing to help with homework…but to be expected? Demanded? Why?

9

I’m cool with forcing biological fathers to pay child support, and men who have raised the children as their own for X number of years (X to be determined later), when the biological father is dead or unknown.

Anything else smacks of forcing random people to support someone else’s children because “the interests of the child are paramount”. If that’s the case, either say “Mom, you fucked up, they’re all yours now” or create a state child support system funded by taxes.

Kids don’t trump the rights of adults just because they’re kids. If they are owed money, find the person who owes them that money. My lenders don’t get to take money from my replacement at work just because I quit and they can’t find me anymore.

10

Just to clarify, this was in response to a couple of threads talking about how men who are not, in fact, biological fathers have been held responsible for child support if they acted as fathers for some period of time.

So, I guess what I’m wondering with the first one is, why is it only the first father-figure who is held responsible? Just to make things extra-murky, say we don’t even know who the biological father is. I live with the mother for two years, then get divorced. At this point, I can be ordered to pay child support. The mother remarries, and they stay together for the next ten years. At this point, who’s really the ‘father-figure’? I actually kind of like the idea of saying, anyone who’s been a parent-figure for X years gets part of the bill. I mean, if somebody’s gotta pay, why not spread it around?

As for the second question, it was pretty much something interesting that occurred to me, not something I’d really argue for (except that I like arguing). That said - well, if we’re really interested in the ‘good of the child’, who’s likely to be a better parent? The woman who’s lied about who the father is, or the guy who trusted her? I guess saying ‘automatically’ was a bit strong, but I don’t know if I’d object to a court giving is heed in a custody battle.

And yeah, interests of the child paramount, but hey, after that, why not go for fairness?

11

I’m trying really hard to understand the mindset of “If I’m not WITH their mother, they’re not my problem” that you seem to have, but I’m not getting it. Do they stop being your kids when you stop sleeping with their mother? Not that it’s just you. Why do so many men seem to see child support as punitive? I mean, y’all sit around bitching about 33% of your gross, when (as a single mom) a *far *greater percentage of MY pay goes to supporting my child.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that divorce and custody issues can get ugly, and that many men feel that they don’t get to see their kids enough, and I sympathize. I DO see how it’s possible to use child support and vistation agreements as a bludgeon to beat each other with. But from the court’s perspective, and all other things being equal, child support is neither punitive nor something that’s supposed to guarantee any particular “return” on your “investment”. It’s about making sure that the kid’s lifestyle is maintained.

*Full disclosure: I have never asked for nor received any child support from my daughter’s father. In my particular case, that was the best decision for everyone. But it makes me crazy to hear people (of any gender) bitching about how UNFAIR it is that they’re expected to financially support their children, even though their ex is TEH EVIL!!!11!

12

Right, Diana, but the interesting question is what if bio-Dad is dead or unknown or hiding in Venezuela or something? Which step-dad, if any, should pay the bill and why?

13

You’re right, I neglected to notice the “not bio-dad” aspect of the OP.

In my opinion, which is notably and emphatically not law, neither, unless one or both of them have in some way formally and legally taken responsibility for that child, via signing a newborn’s birth certificate, or adopting them, or making arrangements in the pre-nup.

Simply marrying or living with a woman doesn’t make her children your responsibility, any more than leaving her absolves you of responsbility for your mutual children.