# Non-Father must continue child support **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2009, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342 "2009-01-08T06:04:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/101 "2009-01-08T20:21:45Z")
> [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](#): > > I’d love to, but that feels an awful lot like suicide to me. For all I know the brain causes consciousness, once the brain stops working, consciousness ends. I am having a very difficult time accepting the fact that I’ll be completely and irreversibly gone, so I really want some of me to still be around after I die. That is why I am willing to go through the whole family and kids ordeal, with all the expenses and hardships and sacrifices. If I couldn’t leave something behind after I die, I’d just get wasted every day until my liver failed, as there would really be no point to doing anything else. I…don’t even know where to start. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/102 "2009-01-08T20:22:34Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Wow. I can tell from this post, that I’m wasting my time with you. And I can tell from your position — pin responsibility on somebody for the child’s sake, even if it’s just some innocent schmuck who was standing nearby — that you don’t see where I’m coming from at all. I’ve been brought up to believe very strongly in personal responsibility: tell the truth, take accountability for your actions. If you get a woman pregnant, you have a duty. Your entire position goes against everything I believe in. _The biological father and the biological mother are responsible for that child’s welfare._ You don’t just blame it on some guy who’s convenient. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/103 "2009-01-08T20:23:10Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Jeebus, those of you having children so that the world won’t have to suffer for loss of your DNA, just skip it. We’ll manage. I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about one’s DNA. Suppose you went to have children and somebody offered you the following proposal: You will be sterilized and you and your husband will be assigned somebody else’s (unwanted) newborn child at random to adopt and to be fully responsible for. Would you accept that deal? I think most people wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/104 "2009-01-08T20:24:25Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That’s the whole point. > > There are in effect two ways a man can be a “father”. But there’s only _one way to tell the truth._ I can’t see why anybody should be allowed to use the courts as a lever to deprive somebody of property without due process; I can’t see any reason why a woman should be allowed to knowingly falsify a legal document (eg, a birth certificate) without consequence. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/105 "2009-01-08T20:26:16Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Well, in this jurisdiction at least, there are three forms of court-ordered payments a person may be called upon to make on divorce, depending on circumstances: > > 1. Equalization of family property; > > 2. Spousal support; and > > 3. Child support. > > The fact that one spouse has been an adulterer currently doesn’t change these payments at all. > > Assuming for the moment that it should (a position I myself do not hold) … I’d argue that the appropriate place for “punishment” should be in category 2 - spousal support. The argument there being that the adulterous spouse ought to be financially penalized for their wrong-doing. > > There is no reason to apply “punishment” to category 3 - as the kids have done nothing to deserve any. > > To my mind however there are just some “wrongs” which cannot be treated by law. Adultery is one of 'em. The courts should not be in the business of judging such wrongs, or imposing financial penalties for 'em, either way. Why use the word “penalize”? Why not flip it around and say the adulterer shall not profit from adultery? “Hey, my SO is a bazillionaire, if I screw the tennis pro I can get half of that bazillion dollars!” ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/106 "2009-01-08T20:26:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it’s not “child support”, despite being called that. It’s a payoff to the mother; she doesn’t need to spend it on the kids, or even treat them very well. It’s not about “making sure the child is taken care of”; it’s about extracting money from a man, and giving it to a woman, and to hell with the kid’s welfare. > > No, it’s about men in catagory 3, who are neither the biological father or regard themselves as the social father ( or who aren’t ALLOWED to be one ) being forced to pay money to the mother of unrelated children ( who quite possibly don’t regard him as their father either ). Without her even being required to spend it on them. In the OP - how could a man be a child’s “father” for the first 6 years of their lives, and NOT “regard themselves as the social father” when they find out, a decade AFTER that, that they are not related - having believed for 16 years that they were “dad”? Does not compute. As for the appropriate policing of child support - that’s a different issue. Would you be all for it if the money was held in trust for (say) the kid’s education? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/107 "2009-01-08T20:28:56Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > Just out of curiosity, is anyone aware of cases where step-parents end up having to pay child support after they’re divorced from a parent with kids? > > Let’s say a man marries a mother of a two year-old child. If the biological father isn’t around (so, child support isn’t already being paid), and ten years later they divorce, would the step-father be required to pay child support? My next door neighbor married a woman he met on an internet message board. He’s in Ohio, she in Florida. He mover her, her child, belongings and horse to Ohio. Within a year he adopted her 12 year old daughter. Within 6 months of that they were separated and divorced. He is now paying child support for a child he knew for perhaps a year. Now, he did _legally adopt_ the girl. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/108 "2009-01-08T20:29:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The argument seems to be that those dads who find themselves in category 2 but not category 1 should be allowed, as it were, to “undecide” to be dad, consequence-free, if they (subjectively) do not feel that obligation any more when they discover they are not “bio-dad”. Well, when a fraud has been perpetrated on the category 2 dad to make him think he is a category 1 dad I’d say that changes things. He was tricked into the Cat2 dad by thinking all along he was a Cat1 dad. That is bogus but apparently of no legal consequence. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/109 "2009-01-08T20:29:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why use the word “penalize”? Why not flip it around and say the adulterer shall not profit from adultery? > > “Hey, my SO is a bazillionaire, if I screw the tennis pro I can get half of that bazillion dollars!” I say “penalize” because that is what it is - changing what is the presumed legal consequence as a punishment for (perceived) bad behaviour. Should a woman getting a divorce get INCREASED spousal support payments if she is able to prove hubby was an adulterer? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/110 "2009-01-08T20:31:43Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Well, when a fraud has been perpetrated on the category 2 dad to make him think he is a category 1 dad I’d say that changes things. He was tricked into the Cat2 dad by thinking all along he was a Cat1 dad. > > That is bogus but apparently of no legal consequence. And I say it should not. Because one’s relationship to one’s _children_ should not depend on the behaviour of the _spouse_. They are seperate beings, not simply extentions of mom. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/111 "2009-01-08T20:37:25Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > And I say it should not. > > Because one’s relationship to one’s _children_ should not depend on the behaviour of the _spouse_. They are seperate beings, not simply extentions of mom. It is up to you to decide how people ought to feel about their children? How people learning that they have been cuckolded should feel? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/112 "2009-01-08T20:42:57Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is up to you to decide how people ought to feel about their children? How people learning that they have been cuckolded should feel? No, but it is up to me to express an opinion as to whether those feelings should carry legal consequences or not. In my opinion, if a man who rejects a child because of feelings of betrayal - personally I cannot approve but ultimately that’s his business; however, the courts should in no way let him off the hook financially because of his hurt feelings. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/113 "2009-01-08T20:49:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it’s not “child support”, despite being called that. It’s a payoff to the mother; she doesn’t need to spend it on the kids, or even treat them very well. It’s not about “making sure the child is taken care of”; it’s about extracting money from a man, and giving it to a woman, and to hell with the kid’s welfare. Let’s try and get beyond your obvious distaste for the child support system. Imagine an ideal world, where every cent of paid child support does, in fact, go to support the child. Food, clothes, school, soccer shoes, etc, without the mother getting a dime to spend on herself. Does that solve the problem for you? Would you agree that, in that ideal world, that child support in these cases makes sense? Or is it all about making someone pay for adultery? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/114 "2009-01-08T20:49:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In my opinion, if a man who rejects a child because of feelings of betrayal - personally I cannot approve but ultimately that’s his business; however, the courts should in no way let him off the hook financially because of his hurt feelings. I thought the courts would protect people who are victims of a fraud (or punish the people who perpetrated it if you prefer). In this case not only does the court do nothing to the person who committed the fraud they bilk the victim of the fraud out of more money. Brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/115 "2009-01-08T20:51:13Z")
[Poll question here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=500862) ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/116 "2009-01-08T20:54:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I thought the courts would protect people who are victims of a fraud (or punish the people who perpetrated it if you prefer). In this case not only does the court do nothing to the person who committed the fraud they bilk the victim of the fraud out of more money. > > Brilliant. And, for roughly the 10th time, the children did not commit the fraud. They didn’t do anything but treat the guy in the OP as their father for 6 years. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/117 "2009-01-08T20:58:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I thought the courts would protect people who are victims of a fraud (or punish the people who perpetrated it if you prefer). In this case not only does the court do nothing to the person who committed the fraud they bilk the victim of the fraud out of more money. > > Brilliant. I have no problems with punishing people for fraud - the problem here is punishing people who are _not_ guilty of anything for _someone elses’_ fraud, by removing from them a right - to support - they would otherwise have. I see no justification for imputing the sins of the mom to the child. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/118 "2009-01-08T20:59:28Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And, for roughly the 10th time, the children did not commit the fraud. They didn’t do anything but threat the guy in the OP as their father for 6 years. Amusing typo, given the context. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/119 "2009-01-08T21:09:32Z")
> [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](#): > > I’d love to, but that feels an awful lot like suicide to me. For all I know the brain causes consciousness, once the brain stops working, consciousness ends. I am having a very difficult time accepting the fact that I’ll be completely and irreversibly gone, so I really want some of me to still be around after I die. That is why I am willing to go through the whole family and kids ordeal, with all the expenses and hardships and sacrifices. If I couldn’t leave something behind after I die, I’d just get wasted every day until my liver failed, as there would really be no point to doing anything else. Build something. Write a book. Produce SOMETHING that doesn’t need you to love it. Just to make my position perfectly clear, I do NOT think that it’s very fair to ask child support of a man who without his knowledge accepted responsibility for children who are not his biological progeny. I also think that there is something very wrong and soulless about someone who stops caring about children he has considered his own for many years, just because he finds out they’re not his biological progeny. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/120 "2009-01-08T21:09:37Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I have no problems with punishing people for fraud - the problem here is punishing people who are _not_ guilty of anything for _someone elses’_ fraud, by removing from them a right - to support - they would otherwise have. > > I see no justification for imputing the sins of the mom to the child. I agree but why is the father made to pay while the sins of the mom are not addressed? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342.md?page=7)