Another guy gets screwed by the courts

Great Debates
21

If it were only possible to make a great big stick out of common sense and compassion, we could beat the jerks in this case about the head and shoulders with it.

The guy should have to pay the support. He stuck around for three kids so he obviously was acting in the role of a father. This isn’t a case where he found out the children weren’t his while they were newborns. He should have legal recourse against the biological father for half the amount paid, as well as the opportunity to sue his wife for fraud after the children reach majority. After all, his assumption of this debt is owed to her misrepresentations of the facts. This would make everybody pay for their misdeeds/own up to their responsibilities.

(Of course, this only represents what I think is fair, and in no way approximates our legal system.)

The visitation issue is wholly separate. I don’t know how much of an ass this guy is in real life, but he certainly sounds like one judging by the OP. If the children’s best interest isn’t served by visitation, then he doesn’t get to visit. Support payments aren’t visitation fees.

22

I don’t understand this argument. Because he did what he believed ( and the state believed) he was supposed to do, he should be forced to keep doing it? Or am I missing something? (happens a lot)

BTW, maybe (just maybe) he told the kids he was not their father to explain why he could not be a donor of whatever they were testing him for.

He’s hurt 'cause he finds out his kids aren’t his kids. The kids are hurt 'cause the man they called dad isn’t dad. I think the mother should do time.

23

What exactly is he going to say to these kids on visitation day? “It’s so good to see you. I love you so much. Of course not enought to contribute to your wealfare. I have a right to see you because I’m your father. But I don’t have to support you because I’m not your father.”

Huh?

24

Almost any jerk can father a child. The man they have called “dad” for their entire lives, is their dad, to them. You don’t stop loving or needing a parent just because it wasn’t their zygote that happened to create you. The difference between a Dad and a father is emotional, not biological. The kids are hurt because their Dad is being a jerk to them due to their mother’s behavior.

Likewise, His reaction probably has nothing to do with caring about about his kids - and is more likely anger with their mother and anger at the system and at life 'cause it can be damn unfair. Unfortunately, those children, who are innocent and without blame, will probably be the ones most impacted by the whole ugly scene.

Spooge, talking about presumtion of paternity in a marriage:

They can in Colorado (at least). The husband, believing his wife has been unfaithful and that an unborn child may not be his, can file an affidavit with the family court system denying paternity and it’s subsequent responsibilities, however, this document must be filed prior to the child’s birth.

My brother-in-law is going through this situation now. He and his ex (she admits the affair) have a month old son and are awaiting paternity results. The affidavit he filed prevented her from listing him as the father despite the fact that their divorce is not yet final.

FWIW: I think he got hosed and should sue the man who impregnated his wife for every penny of support he can recover. I think he should sue the wife for fraud, financial damages, punitive damages, and emotional distress.

25

The original thread was to the tune that this man, who had NO say in whether his wife had the kids or not, it is always the woman’s decision, was that the husband found out after tissue typing that the sick boy is not his.

Further testing showed his is not the father of the 3 boys, he is the father of the girl.

Now as I understand it marriage is a contract between two people and the state. The husband provides food, shelter and all sorts of things while his wife stayed home and played house.

She made the decision to screw another man and have 3 kids with the man, and because they look like the sister, husband had no reason to think he had been cheated on.

He is paying $52,000 a year for children he did not father.

It must have hurt like hell to find out his wife is a whore.

On top of it, he also gets to fork over 50% of his earnings that will go to that shrew and she can use the money any way she wants.

She doesn’t have to give an itemized bill showing how much was spent on the kids clothing, medical bills or anything.

She can have her flings with the pool boy, the pizza guy and foot the bill with her ex-husband’s money and he has no legal recourse.

What I said is that I think the man should have a cause of action and be able to recover that hugh chunk of change from the man who is the biological father.

Think about it, the money going to pay for those 3 boys is money that rightfully should be spent on his daughter.

I think the woman should be thrown in jail for fraud.

No one said no one should not pay child support.

This guy should be paying for only one child, and the man and his ex-wife should be paying him back for all he is out.

With that kind of crap allowed to happen, no wonder some women get pregnant.

If the courts are going to reward a woman just for getting knocked up, she’d be almost stupid to pass that up.

Only in America can a man be forced to pay up for another man’s kids.

26

pldennison wrote:

OK, so you’re essentially saying that if someone screws around and makes a baby, they should take responsibility for said baby. So far I’m with you. Are you now implying that Mr. Clark should take responsibility for his kids? He’s not the one that screwed around. He made his bed, he should lie in it. Except that someone else made the bed.

What I’m hearing from the anti-Clark side is essentially this:

-Mr. Clark was faithful to his wife.
-Mr. Clark was cheated on. Betrayed by the woman that was supposed to be faithful to him.
-After the divorce, he still tried to be a good father to his children.
-The bastard should pay for his own misdeeds for the rest of his natural life, the big dumb jerk, and he doesn;t deserve to see the kids he loves.

Huh? Please tell me I’m misreading. Since when do we get to blame the victim?

Another poster (can’t remember who) said something to the effect of “where was he when his wife was fooling around, that he didn’t even notice?” Implying that he was out carousing, and neglecting his wife, and that he deserved to get cheated on. So where was he? My guess is that he was working his butt off to support his whore of a wife and 3 illegitmate kids. The cad.

Best outcome? He gets custody of all 4 kids. His ex-whore goes to prison for fraud. He gets child support from the biological father.

27

lindsay:

I find it interesting that you assume there’s only ONE other biological father for the three boys. I say that’s an unwarranted assumption.

My sympathies are entirely with the ex-husband/father. I speak as someone who has both cheated and been-cheated-on.

Both were miserable experiences. I am deeply ashamed of my earlier indiscretion, and would never, ever do that to someone again.

But being cheated on was far worse. I had no control over the situation. I didn’t know it was happening, but I still knew it was happening, know what I’m saying?

28

It seems that all of the kids looked somewhat alike, so it’s not an unreasonable assumption. But yes, this crossed my mind as well.

29

In my opinion, yes. You are missing something. If this guy assumed the role of a father merely because he was “supposed to,” then he is also missing something.

The state is saying in the “acting as a father” argument, and I agree, that by acting as a parent to a child, you have assumed the responsibilities of a parental relationship with a child. That child has the right to expect you to fulfill those obligations regardless of later findings of biological parentage, regardless of whether it is convenient to you. If he changed diapers, taught the kids how to ride a bike, played catch, punished them when they were wrong, took them to movies, encouraged them to succeed, or did any number of the hundreds of things that fathers do for and with their children, then he is for all practical purposes, their father in every way but biology, which carries with it all the legal responsibilities that a biological father has.

In weighing the rights of the children against the rights of adults in these cases, the courts have opted to give primacy to the rights of the children. I have no problem with this in theory, since I see no way that the rights of both can be preserved equally. Does this mean that some men have to take it on the chin? Certainly. But I believe the greater good is served by sacrificing the adult rather than the child.

In this case, the particulars of which I know only from this thread, I cannot really say whether justice has been served, since I do not know all the facts. In my opinion, from what I have read, I can’t think highly of a man who wants to dump off kids who he has raised as his own merely to save money/spite his ex-wife. As I said though, in reality his motives may be very different than that.

30

I must have missed these statements, since I don’t recall reading them anywhere.

**

The first two I won’t contend with, except to say that I don’t believe we have any evidence that he was faithful, only that she was not.

**

The bit about being a good father after the divorce also isn’t exactly in evidence here either. The only thing we know about his conduct after the divorce is this court action and the fact that he lost visitation rights after telling the children he wasn’t their father.

**

Firstly, the support and visitation are two separate issues. He should have to pay support because he is, by any standard other than biology, the kids’ father. He is the one who has fulfilled that role for their whole short lives.

Visitation is wholly different. For one reason or another, and I strongly suspect that it is not so simple as having revealed the parentage issue to his kids, the courts have ruled that his visitation will be harmful to the children. Again, the needs of the children are given primacy over his needs.

So far as his being a “big dumb jerk” goes, people who conclude this do so because it offends them that he would (apparently anyway) place his bank account and vindictiveness against his ex-wife above the welfare of the children. He would walk away from his responsibilities to the children if he could. That’s what makes some people here see him as a jerk.

He is a victim of his wife’s deception, certainly. It’s also possible, but by no means certain, that he is a victim of the courts as well in the amount of support ordered or the loss of visitation. But he is by no means the victim of the children. He is being blamed for his treatment of them, not the ex-wife.

31

Re-reading the OP, I don’t get this. Nowhere does it say that he wanted to walk away from his responsibilities. All it says is that he told the kids that he was not their father, and because of this, he was denied visitation. We don’t know the manner in which he said this, or under what circumstances.

I doubt very much that he would simply want to be out of those kid’s lives. If he was doing tissue typing, he must have had at least some concern for them. But people seem to be painting him as some kind of mean spirited, selfish, irresponsible, greedy jerk. That’s an awful lot to read into the OP.

32

Ptahlis: “The state is saying in the “acting as a father” argument, and I agree, that by acting as a parent to a child, you have assumed the responsibilities of a parental relationship with a child. That child has the right to expect you to fulfill those obligations regardless of later findings of biological parentage, regardless of whether it is convenient to you. If he changed diapers, taught the kids how to ride a bike, played catch, punished them when they were wrong, took them to movies, encouraged them to succeed, or did any number of the hundreds of things that fathers do for and with their children, then he is for all practical purposes, their father in every way but biology, which carries with it all the legal responsibilities that a biological father has.”

If this were true than he is, in effect, being punished (in terms of state-mandated obligations) for having been a loving, caring father. Suppose Mr. Morgan went to court and proved that he had been an absentee, disinterested father all along. Would Ptalis then say that he is not their father in terms of responsibilities?

Actually, I believe the court’s ruling has less to do with the arguments outlined by Ptahlis, and more to do with the fact that in the eyes of the law he is considered to be the biological parent of these children. This even though it is clearly not so. This is because it is in “the best intrests of society”. In effect, what society is doing is saying “hey, this guy is already involved anyway, it would be alot better for our intrests if we made him pay up. Otherwise we might be stuck paying ourselves”.

Many of these same issues discussed here would also apply to switched baby cases.

33

I think the court acted responsibly in this case as far as insisting that child support still be maintained by the legal father. However, I don’t believe we have the facts required to make a reasonable judgement on why he was denied his visitation rights.

I think the court decided on a course of action that would cause the least harm. If the father as allowd to shirk his responsibilities of financial support for the kids, a great amount of harm would come to them. After all, the kids do not have an alternate means of supporting themselves. (Don’t know what the mother does. Does she work as well?) On the other hand, forcing the father to support the kids is certainly a burden on him though it still allows him to support himself. There is net harm to him on the surface of it but had he remained married and living with his kids, he still would have to support them. So the amount of harm to him is arguably smaller than the 52% mentioned.

The matter with regards to the real biological father assisting with support is a separate issue. Why has he not been asked to do so by the mother? Perhaps he has. Perhaps he refused and she will have to sue him for support. I don’t think it’s the court’s place to involve the biological father pre-emptively. They may order it after he is sued for support but I don’t know if they have the right to simply order it without the mother’s consent. That’s a good question for a family law attorney.

34

The parental responsibility he is trying to walk away from is support. You may argue fairly that he should not have to pay, but the people who see the guy as a jerk believe that he should. That’s why he seems to be a jerk to me, and not to you.

35

If there was never a father-child relationship, then the ground gets shakier. If Mr. Morgan’s sole activities as a father was to put a roof over the children’s heads, pay for food and clothes, and take care of all the other bills, then the court may still decide that he was enough of a father that he must continue to be one for the good of the children.

36

I still do not see how this guy acted like a jerk. Help me out. I’m a little slow.

To all the guys who say that Clark is a jerk:
Can you put yourself in his position? How would you feel then? Any different?

Yes, I understand that the children are totally blameless and have needs, both emotional and financial. The issue is the responsibilty for those needs.

Quote.<< The judge said he should have brought up paternity at the time of the divorce.>> So if he had, I presume he would not be held responsible.

Quote.<< He should have legal recourse against the biological father for half the amount paid, as well as the opportunity to sue his wife for fraud after the children reach majority. After all, his assumption of this debt is owed to her misrepresentations of the facts. This would make everybody pay for their misdeeds/own up to their responsibilities.>>

If I’m not mistaken, the presumption of paternity would preclude this. According to the state, he is the father, period. So those that have acted improperly, (mom and the boyfriend) suffer no consequences for their misdeeds (fraud and infidelity).

37

:: aside - Didn’t see this thread develop. ::

I have to side with the ex-husband. There’s obviously a lot going on that didn’t make the news, but the man hasn’t done anything wrong.

Perhaps we need to throw the term “Dad” in here. Clearly he is not the father of the boys. He didn’t act as a father. A father-figure, yes. A dad, yes. But he is not their father.

He cared for and supported these children that he loved/loves. And if he chooses to continue to do so voluntarily that is his right and privilege.

But to be told that he must surrender more than half his income to support children to whom he is no longer allowed to be “dad” is punishment beyond reason. Remember that he is now forced to have a life without these children. Unless he can wrangle a quarter-million dollar a year job, he no longer has the ability to have the life he’d built for himself and his family. He cannot afford to marry and raise a family that is “his”. He cannot afford to build for his retirement.

And that’s a good point. We sacrifice the “father” now for the good of the kids with the full realization that the severe limitations being placed on the father make it unlikely that he’ll be able to support himself in his “golden years” thereby shifting the burden to the taxpayers in the “out” years.

I wish him well. He may be a :wally for getting into this situation, but it’s clearly not his fault.

38

**

I would undoubtedly be hugely bitter toward my ex, and her lover. I would not want that to poison the relationship I have with the kids if I could avoid it.

I should point out that when I was writing the above bit that you were quoting, I was offering up what I thought would be the fairest outcome, not the fairest allowed by law. The presumption of paternity does preclude the actions taken against mom and the boyfriend as the laws stand today, (or so I believe). I would also judge it fair if the courts forced the boyfriend to pay half the support now, instead of waiting until the children reach majority. Again, I don’t think our current laws allow this.

39

I won’t at all argue the amount of support, for I don’t know what the basis for determining the amount was. I will say that on the face of it, it seems excessive.

I will contest the idea that support and visitation are or should be joined. They absolutely should be separate issues. To say that giving support is contingent upon receiving visitation rights opens up a predicament. Children need to be supported, and they also need to be protected from harm. If a court rules that visitation is likely to cause harm, then visitation goes out the window. Taking support away with visitation is only trading one type of harm for another. Plus, it lets any father who wants to be enough of an asshole to his kids get out of paying any support.

40

The reasoning for forcing Mr. Morgan to pay for kids who are not his seems flawed.

If a teenage girl gets pregnant, and has the kid, and goes afer a guy she hopes is the father, and a DNA test rules him out, he is not forced to surrender his paycheck in the ‘best interest of the child’.

Instead the state will try to find the biological parent.

Since the difference here is that Mr. Morgan was married, this seems to be discrimination towards him because he married the woman.

This is wrong.