Bullshit wishful speculation on your part. If someone disagrees with you they can’t have kids. That’s the weakest argument you could possibly come up with.
I’ve fathered two kids and put them through college. Because of medical issues that came up I know for sure at least one is genetically mine.
If you don’t mind being a chump then that’s for you. You have no right to force anyone else to accept this role. You have precious little legitimacy trying to use insults to guilt trip someone into doing it.
Where on earth do you get any idea about “can’t have kids” from what I said. Your attitude towards potentially finding out a child wasn’t biologically yours made it seem to me you had never had children. Nothing whatsoever to do with whether your pecker works and you could have them.
Unfortunately you seem incapable of understanding the argument.
Tell you what - the other kid who you haven’t done gene testing on. How about this Christmas sit him down, and tell him if it ever turned out he wasn’t your biological offspring, you’d drop him like a hot potato and never want anything more to do with him. I’m sure he’ll understand, and it will make for a jovial holiday period.
Can’t have kids as in “fate won’t let you be a father if you don’t agree with villa’s arguments.”
I’ve got news for you. Fathers who have been betrayed have sued in court over paternity fraud and in at least two states they have won rulings in their favor when it came to fighting child support.
The courtroom revolution is in fact on. Duped fathers of America are fighting back and scoring victories.
It’s going to be a dark age for the “I don’t sympathize with men as victims” crowd. I just hope you’re around to see your state’s courts overturn those archaic anti-male laws concerning paternity fraud. Just so you can feel even more indignant.
That is good and relevant info. There may indeed be times when one parent doesn’t want the other one involved at all and can use waving child support as an inducement to get the other to surrender parental rights.
My daughter has not received child support for my granddaughter because the father is a spiteful prick and up to now he has made no demands because no demands are made of him. Her SO does pay child support and there may be a time when she changes her mind and goes after him. I wonder at what age the child can decide whether to go visit or not. IOW, if he’s made little or no attempt at contact for extended periods of time , can he then insist on visits just because he’s required to pay CS.
Because they are several states apart the question is whether he could insist she come to where he is , rather than him come to them.
I’m a little confused here. If a man is deceived into thinking a child is his, and then discovers the child is not, can he not petition the court to not pay child support? I know it isn’t simple but I think the path is there.
I still can’t figure out how child support puts an unfair burden on the father.
Fathers can gain custody.
Fathers can collect child support.
Why don’t you be the one who goes years without sex because nobody wants to date someone with kids? Why don’t you watch your career stall as you have to take time off for kid-related stuff? Why don’t you say goodbye to parties, clubs, serious travel and all that fun stuff people without kids get to do? Why don’t you come home and put a family’s worth of food on the table instead of just grabbing a hot pocket for yourself?
If collecting child support is such a sweet deal, why aren’t fathers fighting tooth and nail for custody of their kids? Why are they, for the most part, pretty content just to sign over a check now and then?
If the custody system is unfair, why doesn’t anyone talk about changing the system? I’m sure if you were a custodial single father you’d really appreciate receiving child support.
Funny, to me saying that men have no responsibility for their offspring is way more slanted toward them being disposable and meaningless. Today’s society is decried for those single moms who act like they can go it alone, marginalizing the importance of fathers.
And yet in this thread, that’s the warcry. Men aren’t necessary. Women should just go it alone. Kids don’t need two parents. To hell with the kids. Kids need only the bare necessities.
One, as mentioned above, even cursory examination shows that absent immediately-apparent evidence of extreme malfeasance, the mother can get custody.
Two, why is the father brought into this again? To tie back into the question of why a percentage of income rather than a flat rate, why involve uninterested parties at all? If the State has a compelling interest in children being provided for, why not pay for all child support with a general tax? If the rights of the child are paramount, why not pull into everyone’s wallet and not just (at most) two people?
Sure. Not only that, but he can file suit to disclaim paternity altogether - he just can’t wait too long to do it.
In my own state, a presumed father (typically the husband of the child’s mother) has four years to file suit challenging paternity of a child presumed to be his. An acknowledged or adjudicated father (somebody who agrees that a child is his or is found to be a father by a court) has 60 days after the order finding him to be the father is entered, unless he can prove fraud, mistake, or duress, in which case he also has four years. Since paternity testing is usually the first thing an unmarried man wants done when somebody shows up with his alleged child, this doesn’t come up a whole lot.
That’s why whole issue of getting stuck paying for a child that isn’t biologically yours (while admittedly a worthy topic for debate) isn’t really relative to this particular topic. Alleged fathers have plenty of opportunity to determine and contest paternity, and rarely can they not be bothered to think to get an independent DNA test for four whole years. The times that the issue comes up are the headline grabbers where a man finds out during divorce proceedings that his 10 year old son isn’t biologically his and wants to disclaim paternity but now can’t. Whether or not he should be allowed to is debateable, but since we’re talking about unmarried biological fathers who never wanted to be fathers in the first place, it’s really a different issue.
Reasonable alternative, but it’ll just never happen. Who’s going to run for the legislature on the platform of raising taxes and public expenditures so that men can have consequence free sex?
When did I say anything about fate not letting you be a father. My point was that anyone who actually had kids, and had a positive relationship with them, would be unlikely to hold that view. Turns out I was wrong (assuming you are telling the truth, and I have no reason to think otherwise). You can put as many ridiculous assumptions in there as you want, but my argument was pretty clear.
I’ve got news for you - I am not necessarily opposed to laws allowing that, as I have said in this thread. If you read it, you would have realized that. I think, on the other hand, someone who would throw away years of a loving relationship with their child because of something the child’s mother did is beyond contempt. As I said earlier, finding out my 10 year old was someone else’s biological child wouldn’t change my relationship with him. He’d still be my son. My love for him isn’t based on DNA. If you think that makes me a chump, then I am 100% happy to be what you call a chump.
Amen. It seems like some won’t be happy until their ex is wearing sackcloth and beset by suppurating sores. It’s a nasty, vindictive attitude, and what is most ridiculous about it is they don’t seem to realize their child is hurt by it as well.
I wonder how it works in case of a couple living together long term , or a guy who might believe the child is his, begin to pay support and then develop doubts down the road.
Geez villa, hyperbolize much? It’s easy to do from the other side too. Some people won’t be happy until the level of child support inflicted upon a man leaves him begging in the streets for scraps of bread. And people don’t realize that that hurts the child as well.
Is there no room for rationality and moderation in this debate?
That’s what a lot of posters seem to miss. It seems to me that if you allow males an easy legal out of parental responsibility you’re setting a really terrible moral precedent that is bound to encourage irresponsible behavior.
that was definitely hyperbole, but what seems irrational to me is that men should have some sort of out from parental responsibilities and that it would make things more equitable.
Hold up. I knew this intentional attempt at confusing the issue was coming.
A man does have a responsibility to his offspring and to a child he knowingly adopts with full knowledge and consent that he’s adopting someone else’s child as his own.
What we are talking about is a man who has been duped by an treacherous, lying and unfaithful woman into believing a child is his offspring, when in fact s/he is not.
This is an act of fraud and the man has a right to escape such a fraudulent situation and, in fact, sue the woman for compensation. She committed fraud, she should pay for it.
This sounds more like you want men to be chumps. A woman is free to sleep around and stick her mate with the child of any man she lays with.
In this situation men are worse than unnecessary - they’re prey.
Your argument is a ridiculous assumption. Such as the ridiculous assumption that “anyone who actually had kids, and had a positive relationship with them, would be unlikely to hold that view”.
Men who have had kids and who have found out that the child wasn’t theirs and their wife/girlfriend cheated on them, have in fact fought in court for the right to walk away with no financial obligations. And they’ve won in some cases, too. So as I said… your argument is a ridiculous assumption.
Ah yes, the old chivalry mentality.
So would your wife/girlfriend. She’d really love you then.
Wasn’t there a Jim Carrey movie based on this mentality?