One of my close friends has a child, age 7, with a man that she never married. They are now split up, and don’t live together anymore. He does give her “child support”, I believe in the form of money orders, although she has never gone to court to get an order for it, and it’s however much he can afford at the time he gives it to her. He has the child at his family’s house, where he lives, almost every weekend. They’ve never gone to court for a custody order, either. He is listed on the birth certificate as the father.
Now he (the father) is having health problems and may not be able to work for a while- these health problems could be fatal at some point.
I am trying to convince my friend that she needs to go to court to get a custody order, a child support order, and legally declare him to be the father. I am wondering if, og forbid, he dies, she will have problems getting Social Security for the child if the only documentation that he’s the father is a birth certificate. I really don’t understand why she wouldn’t already have done all of these things, but I think that now she really needs to. Or does she? Obviously, she does need to get child support ordered, IMO. How can I help her realize that she needs to do these things for her child’s protection?
If the father is in fact giving the money he can afford towards support of the child why, pray tell, would the mother need to go to court for child support? It sounds like he’s already supporting his child, why involve the courts? If he really is giving what he can afford how would going to court benefit anyone?
If he’s on the birth certificate he is, in fact, legally the father. Again, what benefit does going to court over this bring?
It sounds like the parents have worked out the details without need to resort to the courts. Why is this a problem?
Not sure about any of this, but what other proof does anyone have that someone is their father? I know that social services in some areas does DNA tests, but social security?
It’s more his current health problems that concern me. He could decide tomorrow that since he has to take time off work now, that he doesn’t need to pay anymore. It just seems very precarious to me to depend on someone’s good will to live up to their responsibilities. But then, maybe I’m just very cynical.
Birth certificate, SSN’s of the parent and child and proof of the parents death are what the SSA lists as required documents for survivor benefits for a child.
Maybe you’re not cynical enough. A non-custodial parent is *always *going to be depending on someone’s good will to live up to their responsibilities. Judges are very reluctant to lock up deadbeat parents (reasoning that they can’t earn a living from jail.) So she takes him to court and damages what function is left to their partnership, and he gets sick and/or decides not to pay child support. And then what? Then she takes him back to court and the judge says, “pay your child support. Come back in three months to tell me you have a job and you’re paying child support.” And then in three months they all go back (meanwhile, he’s stopped returning one out of three of her phone calls, and was “too busy” to see the kiddo more weekends than not, 'cause he’s pissed she’s taking him to court), and the judge says, “are you paying child support?” and he says “no”, and the judge says, “pay your child support. Come back in three months to tell me you have a job and you’re paying child support.”
Things seem like they’re pretty good. If I were the non-custodial parent (which I was), I’d be delighted things were working out as well as they are, and not rock the boat. It’s certainly not needed for social security.
(Assuming, of course, that he’s paying what they both consider a fair and equitable amount to support their child.)
It is possible that if they do go to court, the court will award less than he is giving your friend. Likewise if he does have a true debilitating condition, it is possible for the court to award no support at all. Picking a fight when you are already satisfied with the situation, doesn’t seem wise to me.
If it is working for your friend, I wouldn’t rock the boat.
How much documentation does she have that she’s the mother?
Seems like this gentleman has set precedent by way of support and custody. I’ve heard of cases where paternity tests prove that someone is not the biological father but they must continue child support because they became the de-facto father when they began making regular payments.
If he should get sick and can no longer work to provide support; well, doesn’t that happen to married people also?
ETA: Babydaddy is a stupid word. We need a new one to cover modern relationships.
I can’t see a win for her in the situation either if she goes to court. He is already providing support that they both deem sufficient at the moment. He is sick and you think he might die from it. If the man is truly dying, she isn’t getting any child support from him if he doesn’t have it and can’t work. Who would she expect to get it from? His family isn’t liable for it.
He is already listed as the father on the birth certificate so that should take care of Social Security for the minor child or at least it has in the similar situations I have known. She will have to pay lawyer fees to go to court, risk a downgrade in support based on his condition, and greatly aggravate the situation and poison relationships. I vote absolutely not.
I also agree that BabyDaddy is offensive and shouldn’t be used in this situation. I am sure he feels the same way about the old BreederCanal in question but that is irrelevant.
You all make good points. And good to know about the proof needed for Social Security. I’m glad I’m not in this situation. I’m the type to like things to be set in stone and not fluctuate week by week- but that’s just me, and not everyone, I realize.
OK… I’m scratching my head here. If his health is so poor he needs to take time off work then he will have no income, and therefore will be unable - not unwilling, UNABLE - to provide support. Taking him to court won’t change that. If he’s that ill it’s not a matter of “goodwill” or lack of it.
Again - what does taking a sick man to court do? It won’t make him well.
What evidence do you have that she needs to do these things for her child’s protection? What protection do you believe the child doesn’t have? How does doing those things, which would probably involve hiring a lawyer she can’t afford, taking time off work she can’t afford, putting strain on an already weak relationship, etc. provide those protections?
And why are you asking these question after urging her to undertake a course of action you don’t know if she’ll benefit from?
Rather than taking him to court, it might be better if the mother encouraged her ex to apply for SSI if he’s unable to work. If he receives SSI, the child receives modest benefits as well, right?
Also, I’m widowed, and when my husband died, all I needed to get Social Security
Survivors benefits for my son was the child’s birth certificate and my husband’s death certificate.
I see your point here in the abstract, but dude demonstrated good will. When – if – he says “fuck you, not another dime” (which is different from “I have no income now, sorry”), then take him to court. Family courts are supposed to look after the interests of the child; I doubt that if she said “he had been paying, then he stopped for no reason” the court would respond “sorry, without a piece of paper you’re out of luck.”
On the other hand, IANAL, but I suspect if she took him into court while the arrangement is working, the court would not be happy about this.
Not enough information about your friend’s motivation. My (soon to be) ex-wife had no court order for child support for her son. She got very little in CS and probably could have gotten more. But she decided that she did not wish to give him any court ordered rights to visitation if he turned into a bigger asshole than he already was. It would be up to him to put out money for a lawyer and take her to court. It never got to that but she wanted the option.
And anything she does in court will cost her money and time. She is getting CS. SSI will not be a problem if he croaks. There does not seem to be a need.
That’s the one thing I can think of where it might be worthwhile. If he wrote a will explicitly leaving something for the child, that’s all well and good - but he could write it leaving nothing to the child (legal in most places).
Now, if he’s working intermittently, and not at all now that he’s ill, there might not be much of an estate to worry about at least not from him.
What about money he might have inherited later on if he lived, that would have passed onto his heirs if he predeceased the person leaving it to him? I don’t know how that sort of thing works if the parents aren’t married; presumably if the person handing that estate doesn’t know about the child, the child might be accidentally or deliberately left out.
My personal position is that everything should be documented in court. This protects both parties. I’ve seen too many cases where people tried to work things out for themselves, and it ended badly because the court had no record of things that were done on a handshake. While it is very admirable that they are able to resolve their problems by themselves, there is no guarantee that one of them will not suffer a change of heart (or fate) in the future.