How about this one - the DNA Diagnostic Center said that 30% of the men tested for paternity are misidentified.
Of the 250,000 tested that is 75,000 men who are not the biological father.
As Lisa McDaniel said some women think they are going to get away with it.
If you are going to have an affair while you are married, for goodness sake use birth control.
I take it, Lindsay, that the biological father is nowhere to be found?
Assuming he’s not, I must reluctantly agree that “dad” has to pay support–and assuming of course that the money is needed and being used well. I hope he’s got a good job, 'cause 52% of what I make would leave me homeless.
Perhaps a new angle to look at it is his obligation to her. Now, I take a very high view of marriage (being religious), and so many of you will find this to be unrealistic… but to me, when you swear for better or for worse, etc. you are binding yourself to this person forever. You have created a home, and whatever legalities happen, and whatever failings the other people in that home have, you still have moral obligation to those people. You raised the kids, you are their dad…especially since the mystery penis has vanished.
I do think the mother should be forced to give over a list of all her sexual partners do that they can try to track down that asshole. And I think there probably needs to be some investigation into what kind of mom this woman is.
And I absolutely think that absent any abuse, to not give this guy visitation rights is obscene and absurd.
And unfortunately, it is not uncommon. As Lindsay has said, dads get the shaft in our system. Then again, in Asian countries the dad almost always gets custody (especially if they’re boys; if they’re girls he might not bother), and then dumps them on grandma. And so many women are faced with bad, even abusive situations, but stay in them because divorce means losing the kids.
So the moral of our story is, in any culture…marry wisely.
The ex-wife was forced to name the father of the boys by the udge.
Morgan Wise will be suing him to recover the money he is paying for the boys.
There are all sorts of wedding vows, and they don’t have to include ‘for better or for worse’.
There is no reason to stay around if the spouse turns out to be an abuser, drinker or has some other serious flaw.
I also find no fault for bailing out when a spouse has been cheating.
Cheating spouse could come home with an infection of herpes, Hepatitis C or HIV.
You are right, thou, men do get treated very badly by the courts.
lindsay wrote:
You should’ve told him you were married. Then even if you did get pregnant, your husband would have been forced to support the kids instead of the fellow you had sex with, who would be off the hook. :rolleyes:
I hope somebody figures out a way to do easily-reversible vasectomies pretty soon. These kinds of paternity cases seriously make me want to get my vas deferenses snipped.
One error I keep reading from those who think Mr. Wise should have to pay is along the lines of “why should he have to keep paying to the woman who defrauded him?” He’s not. He’s paying child support, not ex-wife support. “Ex-wife support” is called alimony.
While the check is made out to the mother, if she spends it on anything that does not benefit the children, she is violating the law.
So keep the argument focused on whether Mr. Wise has an obligation to support the children.
Sua
Um, no.
There are no requirements for her to account for where the money she gets from Mr. Wise is spent. While the court calls it, and intends it to be, ‘child support’ there is no
system in place where a father can demand that the money be spent on the children.
As she has proven herself deceitful I do not fault Mr. Wise for refusing to give her one red cent.
[quote]
…especially since the mystery penis has vanished.{/quote]
What a great sig tag!
=)
Um, no.
As one example, Indiana Code s. 31-14-11-24 gives the court who ordered child support, upon showing of necessity, the authority to order an accounting of child support. Indiana case law also holds that a person who misspends his/her child’s support payments may be found in contempt of court (uncertain from cases whether civil or criminal).
I’m sure similar laws exist in other states, but I’m paying for the Westlaw time, so I ain’t gonna look for more.
Sua
Morgan Wise IS giving Wanda money every month. That is why he is angry, after he found out he had been deceived, he went to court and said release me from paying for another man’s kids.
He has to keep paying, unless he gets smart and moves to another country.
The only available action here is suing the lover and his ex-wife.
Dear Tracer:
Thanks for the thought, but I couldn’t tell Robert I was married because I was NOT married.
I’m not sure of the propriety of resurrecting such an old thread (mods?). But I figured the many people who participated in and followed this thread might be interested in this update.
“Hey, ho, way to go, Ohio.”
The Pretenders
There is hope.
The part about the state having to pay for tests is interesting I find.
In the UK there has been lots of fuss about chasing down errant fathers and compelling them to make some contribution rather than relying on state support.
It has only worked where fathers were in stable employment and has not really addressed the problem effectively since these fathers were already the ones who were responsible enough to make proper provision.
Over here a single mom gets state support which is means tested, in other words other income sources such as alimony are taken into account when deciding how much support to provide.What happens is that for every £ she gets from the father her state support is reduced by £.
At first this seems equitable but since mom is then at the mercy of the fathers whims on payment and since she actually gains no extra money she has little incentive to reveal the truth about her childrens parentage.
There have been changes to the system whereby mom can be required to reveal parentage or suffer reduced state support, which seems fair from the taxmans point of view but there is another take on this.
The social professionals tend to agree that one of the reasons for the academic and social problems that single parent children have are more down to income and social groups than anything else, the idea of obtaining cash support from the father is to enable the reduced family to keep poverty at bay but since this system prevents this from happening the only benficiary in the short term is the state, which loses out in the long run due to the social problems caused by deprivation.In othe words this is not child support but state support, and by extension since taxes are genrally a big election issue - politician support.
There is a presumption of paternity but it is a rebuttable presumption. It can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that he is not the father. Which in this case was done with the DNA test. The only case I have heard of where a man who was not the father had to pay child support was a case in which the man had waited more than two years to attack the judgment. That is two years after actual or constructive knowledge that he was not the father. I have never heard of a man acting quickly who had to pay child support for a child that was not his. Usually the courts will find the father and make him pay. The child has an independent right of support from both parents, that really are the child’s parents. Not from a stranger (legally speaking) to the relationship.