Open marriage, death, and child support question

[Futurist110]

@LinusK

On the other hand, if he lived in a state that allowed him to prove he wasn’t the father - and he did so - then presumably custody would go to the father, not the husband.

And such states are?

[Kimstu]

@Futurist110

And such states are?

You’d have to check individual state laws for details but this general overview says:

Laws: State laws vary about the procedures and rules for establishing paternity. Some call the action a Complaint for Legitimization. Uniform Acts have been developed for adoption by States including the Uniform Act on Paternity, 1960, Uniform Parentage Act, 1973 and the Uniform Putative and Unknown Fathers Act, 1988. States that adopted the Uniform Parentage Act include Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Wyoming. States adopting the Uniform Act on Paternity include Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Utah.

Action by Child: An action for paternity may also be filed by the child. In many states, after a child reaches the “age of majority,” he has another one to five years to seek the establishment of paternity. Attempts to limit the right of the child to file for paternity have generally been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Action by Parent: Some States limit the time period within which a parent may seek to establish Paternity. You should check you State law for current laws but at the writing of this the time periods were as provided below. Special time periods may apply if the child is born to a husband and wife. For example, in California, a husband only has 2 years to file a paternity action.

No Time Limit: Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Virgin Islands.

The State’s “Age of Majority”: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia.

Age 18: Mississippi
Age 19: Alabama, New Hampshire and Wisconsin
Age 19: Age of majority plus one year: Iowa and Tennessee
Age 20: Two years after child’s 18th birthday: Texas
Age 21: Vermont and Wyoming
Age 21: Three years beyond the child’s 18th birthday: Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, and North Dakota,
Age 22: Four years after the child’s 18th birthday: Florida
Age 23: Ohio
Five years beyond child’s 18th birthday: New Jersey
Four years after child’s birth if brought by mother or alleged father;
18 years after child’s birth if brought by guardian or next-friend of child: Nebraska
DNA Testing: DNA testing which creates a positive reading creates a rebuttable presumption that man is the Father of the child. The threshold percentage varies from State to State as follows:

95%: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma (Conclusive if 98%), and Puerto Rico (Conclusive 98%)
97%: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wyoming.
98%: Missouri, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
99%: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota (Temporary Orders With 92%), Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
99.9%: Louisiana.
California-Paternity index of 100 or greater per California Family Code Section 7555(b)(2).

The abovementioned Uniform Parentage Act rules, in part, as follows:

In Article 2 of the 2002 Uniform Parentage Act, […] the legal father may be one of the following: an unrebutted presumed father (a man married to the birth mother at the time of conception, or a man who resided in the same household as the child during its first two years of life, and openly held the child out as his own), a man who has acknowledged paternity under Article 3, an adjudicated father as the result of a judgment in a paternity action, an adoptive father, a man who consents to an assisted reproduction under Article 7, or an adjudicated father in a proceeding confirming a gestational agreement under Article 8. The genetic father or the presumed genetic father is the legal father in the first three of these categories, but is not necessarily the legal father in the latter three categories.

[LinusK]

FWIW, there are many situations where men are forced to pay child support for children that aren’t theirs.

One is when a woman has cheated on her boyfriend/husband, and the truth doesn’t come out until later:

Imagine This

A young couple is together but not married. Sometime while they are together a baby is born. The couple is naturally very excited. The automatic assumption is that the baby is theirs – a product of that young couple. There is no reason to be suspicious, no reason to feel anything but positive, wonderful thoughts. The time at the hospital is a time to experience amazing things – the birth of their child…

Then, something happens to the relationship and they break up. The breakup doesn’t seem permanent at first but slowly it becomes apparent they will never get back together again. The mother may be in a position to immediately need financial support. She may go directly to the Florida Department of Revenue to apply for child support services. Or the mother may apply for subsidized health insurance or food stamps. In either case the Florida Department of Revenue may automatically become involved. Meanwhile, all along, there is no doubt in the father’s mind that the child is his. At some point the courts create an order to the father to begin paying child support. Some fathers may do that willingly; some fight it to the end. But inevitably the father will begin to pay support.

In many situations, several months later the mom may say to the father “This is not really your child; I won’t let you see him/her anymore. But I still want child support from you. And you had better keep paying me” In many situations the father immediately gets cut off from seeing the child. He not only cannot see the child, but he also begins to learn he has no real rights to see the child. All the father has is an existing court order to pay support and that obligation rolls on. There is no option to stop payments because the full power of the State of Florida is behind the enforcement and collection of that child support.

Another is when a mother needs to put someone’s name on the birth certificate, in order to get benefits, and - for whatever reason - puts down the name of a man she knows, but who is not the father. Good candidates include men who aren’t likely to find out about it, such as men who are in prison or jail, or on active duty in the military.

They may not find out about it for years, and by then the time period for contesting paternity will have passed.

Alexander said the paternity case started in the 1980s when the woman gave his name to a case worker so she could get assistance for her baby, who was born in 1987.

The woman agrees that Alexander wasn’t the father and a DNA test taken in 2013 backs that up. But that wasn’t enough to sway McCarthy, who ruled that despite the case being decades old, Alexander still has to pay…

Alexander said he first learned he was considered a deadbeat dad during a traffic stop when an officer told him there was a warrant for his arrest.

[Emiliana]

So many women, so much evil.

[slash2k]

@Futurist110

As far as I know, though, a terminal of parental rights does not necessarily mean a termination of parental responsibilities.

This may depend on state law. In my state (Kansas), termination of parental rights means you’re not legally the parent anymore, so yes, child support and every other responsibility based on parenthood likewise ceases. (So do more remote rights–e.g., a grandparent’s rights terminate at the same time as their child’s parental rights to their grandchild are terminated.)

Termination of custodial or visitation rights is something altogether different. You may be legally the parent and not have the right to see your child (e.g., in cases of abuse), but that’s not the same as termination of the parent/child relationship.

[UltraVires]

@Futurist110

After all, based on the causation principle, this man would be responsible for this woman’s death and for this woman’s children being left motherless and being put in a much worse financial situation than they previously were.

We explained in the last thread that under no legal theory of causation does the act of sex “cause” a death in childbirth. The event is far too remote.

[UltraVires]

@Lemur866

As for “causing” the woman to die, and therefore being responsible for caring for her children, this is again quite wrong.

You are not responsible for caring for a person’s children, even if you murdered their mother. Or if you recklessly or negligently caused her death.

You might face criminal penalties for the death. You might face a wrongful death suit. But unless you have a lot of money, it doesn’t make financial sense for the family of the dead person to sue you for wrongful death. You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.

In a case where you “caused” someone’s death, but you didn’t act maliciously or recklessly or negligently, then there’s no cause of action. You were driving your car down the road at a safe speed, obeying all traffic laws, and a freak gust of wind knocked her over into the road, and you hit her and killed her. Well, if you hadn’t been there she would have lived. Except you didn’t commit any wrongful act, and the fact that she would have lived if you hadn’t been on the road at that particular moment doesn’t make you legally or morally responsible for her death, or for her orphaned children. We as a society accept that accidents happen, we try to prevent them, but sometimes people die and no one in particular is at fault. We could ban cars, and no one would die in car crashes. But we don’t, we accept a certain level of risk, knowing that people will die randomly from car accidents.

When we look at the alternative, surely more people would die if we banned cars. No police cars, no trucks to bring food from the farms, no fire trucks, no ambulances. But even banning private cars and allowing emergency and public vehicles is no answer. I drive my car to work, which puts food on the table for my children. With no car, my standard of living would drop, as would the economic output of everyone human in America. That means less of everything, including lifesaving food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and so on.

I generally agree with you, but some states allow suits for alienation of affections, adultery, or criminal conversion. If causation could be proven (which it can’t) there might be a viable suit.

[Futurist110]

@UltraVires

We explained in the last thread that under no legal theory of causation does the act of sex “cause” a death in childbirth. The event is far too remote.

Do you have an actual legal document or website to back this up, though? After all, it certainly doesn’t seem very remote to this pro-choicer:

Bodily Rights vs. "The Responsibility Argument"

“11. If abortion is prohibited on the basis of the responsibility argument, it is inevitable that someone will die as a result of an unwanted pregnancy. This means she will have been sentenced to the death penalty for having sex. Even assuming the responsibility argument can be sustained, we should rightly ask if the punishment fits the crime. Death for having sex is completely incommensurate.”

[Futurist110]

@Lemur866

No. Why should there be?

Because having consensual sex certainly isn’t a negligent activity and because causing someone to exist certainly isn’t a harm?

[Futurist110]

@Lemur866

In a case where you “caused” someone’s death, but you didn’t act maliciously or recklessly or negligently, then there’s no cause of action. You were driving your car down the road at a safe speed, obeying all traffic laws, and a freak gust of wind knocked her over into the road, and you hit her and killed her. Well, if you hadn’t been there she would have lived. Except you didn’t commit any wrongful act, and the fact that she would have lived if you hadn’t been on the road at that particular moment doesn’t make you legally or morally responsible for her death, or for her orphaned children. We as a society accept that accidents happen, we try to prevent them, but sometimes people die and no one in particular is at fault. We could ban cars, and no one would die in car crashes. But we don’t, we accept a certain level of risk, knowing that people will die randomly from car accidents.

A similar argument can be used to justify giving both men and women a unilateral opt-out from paying child support, though. After all, having consensual sex certainly isn’t malicious, reckless, or negligent! Plus, the birth of a child after sex isn’t always reasonably foreseeable (unless you want to vindicate my decision to seek surgical castration and to avoid trusting cis-women in regards to abortion and adoption, that is)!

[slash2k]

@Futurist110

A similar argument can be used to justify giving both men and women a unilateral opt-out from paying child support, though. After all, having consensual sex certainly isn’t malicious, reckless, or negligent! Plus, the birth of a child after sex isn’t always reasonably foreseeable (unless you want to vindicate my decision to seek surgical castration and to avoid trusting cis-women in regards to abortion and adoption, that is)!

You don’t have to pay child support because you were reckless or malicious, though: paternity isn’t a tort. You have to pay child support because it’s your kid, and you have a legal obligation to support said kid regardless of the circumstances of conception. Similarly, you have a legal obligation to pay any taxes you owe, not because you did anything wrong but because living in this society imposes obligations. Depending on your local laws, you may have the legal obligation to support your spouse financially, or you may have the legal obligation to register for the draft or serve in the military. These aren’t because you did anything wrong, but because living in a society imposes responsibilities.