The courts presumption is, however, that he has fulfilled the role of the father throughout the children’s lives. The teenage girl’s baby has no claim on the guy she goes after. The children of this marriage, raised as they were, have a claim on Mr. Morgan, namely, that he finish the job he started when he accepted the role of being their father, even though he was unaware that they carried another man’s genes.
Pthalis,
It’s still flawed logic.
Well, saying so is fine, but exactly how is it flawed? I suspect that we are dealing with a difference in values, and the roles, responsibilites, and definitions of fatherhood, not logic.
I have trouble making the jump from where the guy supports and loves these kids because he wants to (not because of a moral or legal obligation) to him being required to support them simply because he’d done so voluntarily.
If I send you a birthday card three years running am I morally obligated to send one every year thereafter?
If I give my nephew a $10 Christmas gift several years in a row for his “college fund” should I be required by law to donate every year? Well $10 isn’t significant so how about if I donate $1,000/year? Is there a difference? At what dollar amount do we draw the line?
I just don’t understand why his support to date binds him to support in perpetuity instead of being considered to be nothing more than a gift. Or why his support doesn’t legally make him the victim of fraud and a swindle.
Since lindsay never posted a link to the original story (and may in fact be omitting crucial information), do the courts know who the real father is, or only who he is not? Are they simply supposed to cut the kids loose without support until they can find the biological father? Or does it make more sense to rule that Mr. Morgan continue in the role he has willingly played?
Acutally SouthernStyle it’s not. As a matter of public policy, American and English common law have always favored legitimacy over bastardy. There have been two reasons. The first reason is that fathers never know they’re the father. In the interests of marital harmony, etc., most fathers assume they are. Mr. Morgan found out the hard way that his assumption was wrong. That’s all that happened. Nothing else changed. My dad doesn’t know for a fact that I or his other children are his biological children (we all have suspicions about Dan ;)). Say that Dad found out when I was sixteen that I wasn’t his biological child. He had taken responsibility for me to that point. As a matter of common ethics, not to mention a matter of law, it would not have been right for my dad to say “Screw Sua. I know I’ve taken responsibility for him until now, but now that I know he doesn’t share my genes, I’m not taking care of him anymore.” The law shares the common view of ethics.
The second reason is that the “best interests of the child” is a guiding principal in our society, both legally and as a matter of common ethics. It is presumed, and has been demonstrated by sociological and psychological studies (if you want cites, let me know), that legitimate children are generally better off financially, socially, etc., than illegitimate ones. Therefore, if something happens, the courts (and, I submit, society) has decided that, if any suffering has to happen because of that event, the child will be spared as much as possible. Is this a hard policy? Yes. Is it the right one? Also yes. We protect our defenseless ones.
Should Mr. Morgan have a burning desire to moider his ex? Sure. Should he be pissed at the judge for cancelling visitation? Absolutely. Should his obligation to his kids change because he now knows something he didn’t know before? No. Before the test he didn’t know the kids were his. He just assumed, as do all fathers, but he still took care of them.
Sua
And that’s my position. He should be forced to continue support of his kids, though he sounds like the kind of man that would do so voluntarilty. Disecting your comment – these aren’t his kids.
Science now exists where we can determine paternity beyond any reasonable doubt. The technology is now being put to good use to free the innocent from our prisons. I know no father that would have considered subjecting his wife to such a test to positively determine paternity when he believed he was the father.
I find it hard to believe that people would endorse this man’s continued punishment. All he ever did was love and care for his wife, child, and presumed children.
Biology alone does not define parenthood. Being a parent is defined by the courts as more than the simple issue of who happened to pass on their DNA. One aspect of parenting is that you cannot legally walk away from the children, regardless of your reasons. You may have your parental privileges stripped for misdeeds, but you simply cannot abandon your parental responsibilities. By acting in the role of a parent, he accepted the responsibilities as well. He owes the children, innocents by all accounts, his continued participation as a parent, for their sake. The idea that responsibility begins and ends solely at the guy’s penis is reprehensible.
I have to chime in here. I think Mr. Morgans detractors would understand better if they were placed in a similar position. Being in a similar position (raising one that’s not “really mine” as well as two of my own) I know just what the guy must feel like every time he writes a check. It’s an extraordinarely painful experience to find out a child nots yours. To have the courts then condemn him to a life of indebted servitude as reward for his ex-wifes infedelity is morally and should be legally wrong.
In California, in welfare cases the DA automatically would be pursuing the actual father. Though I admit I have no knowledge on how they would have acted in this situtation.
But this I know. I made a concious decision to take care of the on thats not “mine”. I did that because I cared for him and his brothers. But that was my decision to make. Had a court made do this, I don’t think I could or would have abided by such a decision.
From what I gather the folks who think Mr. Morgan is in the wrong and ‘needs’ to satisfy the role of the parent agree with the following snips (lifted from different authors):
<snip>Say that Dad found out when I was sixteen that I wasn’t his biological child. He had taken responsibility for me to that point. As a matter of common ethics, not to mention a matter of law, it would not have been right for my dad to say “Screw Sua. I know I’ve taken responsibility for him until now, but now that I know he doesn’t share my genes, I’m not taking care of him anymore.” The law shares the common view of ethics.<snip>
<snip>“best interests of the child”<snip>
<snip>One aspect of parenting is that you cannot legally walk away from the children, regardless of your reasons. You may have your parental privileges stripped for misdeeds, but you simply cannot abandon your parental responsibilities. By acting in the role of a parent, he accepted the responsibilities as well. He owes the children, innocents by all accounts, his continued participation as a parent, for their sake.<snip>
The Law and the ‘common view of ethics’ are (in my opinion) dead wrong.
Best solution? Foster care for the 3 boys, Mother fined and in jail for fraud, Mr. Morgan reimbursed (by the mother) for all the expenses he incurred to raise the children that were not his.
He owes the 3 boys nothing. He was defrauded into believing that he was their father and acted in good faith as a parent. He has (in my opinion) no responsibility for their current or future situation and is in no way beholden to them. If he wishes to support them, wonderful. If he wishes to interact with them (and has not proven to be a threat to them), wonderful.
Mr. Morgan’s detractors would rather he fork over cash to an adulterous lying thief? She (as has been stated previously) has no requirement to account for the money, and there is no way for Mr. Morgan to guarantee that the money the state is asking him to pay is going to its intended purpose (care for the children). How can it be argued that the best interests of the children are with the mother and her fraudulently fattened bank account?
How can this even be a question?
That is the most ridiculous, selfish statement I have ever heard. Like hell he doesn’t owe those boys nothing. They were raised believing he was their DAD. Not a penis that happened to impregnante their mom. And now that their parents are divorced, don’t you think that’s enough trauma?
So now, not only are their parents seperated, their father doesn’t owe them anything? That is messed up logic. They have counted on him their entire lives. They don’t care about biology. They don’t care if their mother is a slut. They care about their Dad. The least he can do is provide for them. Make sure they have food and clothes and a roof. If he can’t look pass his own hurt pride to do what’s best for the children, then he deserves to be shot. The mother may not be able to do that. It takes 30 secs to make a baby, and a lifetime to raise one. The people who spend 30 secs of their life doesn’t have any more rights than the people who spend a lifetime raising the children.
My opinion is that the 3 kids who are not Morgans are not his responsibility.
This may seem harsh, but he’s the one who was working and putting the roof over the wife’s head, the food in her mouth and paying for her clothing. He was deceived into believing that he had fathered 3 kids.
The guy was lied to, and the courts said pay up anyway.
The last post has the best solution, put the kids in foster homes.
And give the guy back the money he is out.
If a girl wrongly accuses a man of fathering a kid and takes money from him, he can sue and be ‘made whole again’.
This should apply to married men as well.
Ptahlis said:
I largely agree with you–support payments are not RENT for your child. However, I do think that the same standards that make you eligible for support ought to make you eligible for visitation rights, custody, whatever. Either he IS their legal father, or he isn’t. There can be no half-way. Now, if custody/visitation was denied on the grounds that he posed some danger or threat to the children, that is fine. But in NO WAY should his lack of genetic influence hinder his right to sue for custody, get visitation rights, etc.
Some of the responses in this thread, particularly from lindsay, strike me as the kind of opinion from someone who either has such contempt for or is so indifferent to children that they consider them emotionless toys who will suffer no repercussions later in life from any of these events. Cut off their support! Toss them in foster homes! Kids are resilient, they’ll bounce back!
Please, please tell me you are sterile. Furthermore, I’d like to see a link to an article which lays out the original facts of this story, because I have a sneaking suspicion you are mischaracterizing some of the events.
All I remember is the fellow went in to be tested for tissue typing for one of the sick boys. The doctor told him he wasn’t the father. Further testing showed he is the father of the girl, the 3 boys are from the ex-wife’s lover or lovers.
Mr. Morgan challenged paying child support for the kids who are not his.
I agree with his thinking that he should not be paying for another man’s kids.
You DID read where I said the child support is definitely in order for his daughter?
This is what is wrong with making him pay for his ex-wife’s screwing around - he was deceived into thinking all four kids are his. They are not.
The only reason he is paying is because he was married.
When a teenaged mother has a baby and goes after the wrong guy for money, he gets the money back when he proves he is not the father.
If it is okay to let single guys off the hook, even though they might have had sex with the gal, but did not father the child, it is fair to let the husband keep his money when he has been duped.
Of course he owes child support, to his daughter.
Hi pepperlandgirl,
Once again we seem on different sides of an issue. (Good thing we’re 3,000 miles apart, huh? ;))
They’ve been raised believing he was their father. He’s been their dad.
Their parents were never married. Their mom is now divorced from the man that acted as their dad in lieu of their father.
IMHO: Their father owes them a life. The man that’s been their dad owes nothing, but is free to contribute in any way he sees fit.
And yes they have counted on him their entire lives. I go back to my analogy in a prior post. If I donate $1,000/yr to my nephew’s college fund starting at his birth, do I have a legal or moral obligation to continue donating after he’s reached say 8, or 10, or 15 years old?
Mr. Morgan is free to help these boys any way that he wishes. He should not be compelled to give up over half his income (which amounts to significantly more than the national average income for an entire family) while simultaneously being told that he has no parental rights.
Did you read the post by CheapBastid? He offered what seemed like the most sensible solution.
The courts should be going after the biological father or fathers and making them pay for their kids.
As noted, the ex-wife’s lover is getting away with the perfect crime.
You will never hear me say that a parent should not have to pay for their kids, because I will never say that. What I will say is that you pay for the ones who are yours.
This guy was defrauded and the courts are rewarding that woman by giving her a big chunk of change she can use any way she wants to do. If she wants to blow it on plastic surgery and fake boobs and a face lift, she can do so. She does not have to give him one receipt to show the money actually was spent on the children.
She can set up the pool boy if that pleases her, and the ex husband is still going to be paying.
That is one big bite to take out of your paycheck.
My argument is that Mr. Morgan deserves to get his money back.
The money he is shelling out for the 3 boys is money his daughter will not get. Perhaps the daughter would like to go to Yale and become a physician. Kind of hard to do that without the bucks to pay for it.
It is a sad mess, yes, of course, but don’t penalize the es-husband. Go after the man or men who screwed a married woman. And put her in prison for fraud.
For those who argue against Morgan’s legal status as a father, I wonder if you’ve considered the logical repercussions of your argument. The state, for better or worse, has determined that parental status is not solely a matter of genetics, but let’s say it reversed itself, and ruled that genetics alone determined parental status. I won’t do more than mention the fact that this could easily complicate matters in adoption cases, switched baby cases, and visitation and support issues for divorced stepparents. We’ll just use a case similar to the one we have here before us.
Man and woman get married. Four kids are born into the union. Three of them, unbeknownst to Hubby, are the offspring of Wife’s illicit affairs. Divorce ensues. After a little time goes by, Dad gets served with an order for DNA testing, and finds out that 3 of the kids aren’t his. Ex says “You keep the check. I don’t want you around these three kids.” The court, of course, backs her claim up, because hubby isn’t, of course, the biological father.
“But wait!” cries Hubby. “I raised these kids, and I love them despite the fact that I am not their biological father.”
The court replies with the legalese version of “Tough Noogies!” It would probably run more along the lines of, “The court does not recognize a parental relationship not founded on biology.”
“That’s absurd!” cries Hubby. “These kids depend on me. I am the only father they have ever known, and it’s cruel to them for you to allow Ex to sever our relationship.”
“But you forget sir,” Judge sternly sermonizes, “Ex is their mother. It is within her rights to sever the relationship, for you are not their father in any way other than your deeds, emotional bonds, and past relationship. The crucial biological component is not present.”
“But their emotional well being Judge! What about that? What about their future?” Hubby is now beginning to get frantic, knowing that the “Best interest of the Child” argument is his last ditch defense.
“No sir, I’m afraid that is not grounds enough. They may suffer in your absence, true.” Judge pauses, a look of mighty concentration on his wise countenance. “But that is hardly enough grounds for us to ignore biology! Were I to grant you parental rights in this matter, I would be ignoring the wishes of the mother, and also usurping the rights of the biological father.”
“His rights! What the hell is that supposed to mean? Where was he when I was taking care of these children? What was he doing, besides my wife that is, all that time when I was in the picture? You say that he has more rights than I do?” (Hubby is by now, hopping mad.)
Judge, beginning to get a little testy himself with this obtuse creature before him, responds a little crankily: “Of course he has rights! He’s the father! He has the right to see the kids and guide their upbringing (and the duty to support them now too, by the way) without any interference from someone who isn’t even related to them, namely you sir.”
“But…”
“No ‘Buts!’” roars the judge. “Get it through your head man! You are not those kids’ father! The DNA proves it.”
“My kids aren’t even old enough to know what DNA is!” wails Hubby.
"But they will someday. And on that fine day, they will appreciate that they live in a land that has the technological capability of determining true parentage. You are a good man, sir, but you have the misfortune of having been duped by a woman. Think of the years of support you gave to those children as a gift. Were I to declare you a parent, along with those rightsyou would gain would come the responsibilities as well. You would have to continue to support them. Think of it! You would be mandated, by law, into giving them the gift of support. Surely you see how absurd that is sir! Certainly, it may be in the best interest of the children, but that hardly justifies my abridgement of your rights. I’m afraid that the court simply must rule that you are not the father. Hey now, cheer up! We’ve preserved your rights here! You can see them when they’re 18 after all.
One of these legal nighmares has already happened. 48 Hours did a story on it. A couple decided to have a child conceived from an egg donor and sperm donor, and a fifth woman carried the pregnancy.
The California couple divored. The ex-husband was excused from paying child support because he is not the father.
No one seems to know exactly who the child belongs to.
What a mess it would be if every sperm donor were gone after for support for each child their donation provided.
DNA appparently does matter. Do you remember Baby Richard in Chicago? Bob Greene writes about this every now and then.
The boy’s mother gave him to a couple for adoption and the courts took him away from that couple and returned him to his biological father.
And, as it turns out, he wasn’t said penis. It’s the penis that should be paying the child support, and the dad that should be allowed to continue being a dad. Instead, the state got it backwards. Mr. Morgan’s detractors keep saying “Can’t someone please think of the children”, but somehow support the idea of barring them from seeing their dad. And some people have even voiced that he should be shot. Yeah, that’ll be good for the kids.