I watched the tail end of one of these court television programs this morning, where a guy apparently turned out to be the father of a 6 year old girl that the mother never told him about. The mother is married to another man, who is convinced that he is the proud Pop, having, I surmised, been seeing the lady when she had a fling with guy number 2.
Anyhow, guy 1 feels the child is his, has been doing a good job of being a Dad and is still married to the lady. Guy number 2 apparently has been blind sided by the lady with this disclosure because she wants child support to ease financial woes. He has had no contact with the lady since she married.
So the judge has a DNA test done, confirms that guy 2 is the Pop, and he apparently has no interest in the child, which he did not know was his and has never even seen. The judge then informs him that not only does he need to pay child support from now on out, but he must start visiting the kid as is his right as the biological father.
He was not real happy over the whole thing.
I questioned the judges decision because:
1: He never knew the lady was pregnant
2: He was never informed that the child was born.
3: He has no interest in the child at all.
4: The lady did not mention a thing to him until her and her husband started having financial problems.
I can understand the child support, but I don’t understand his being required to visit when he has no interest. Should he be required to do so?
I think any father who does not have an interest in caring for his child is scum. It doesn’t matter to me WHEN he found out about the child.
However, I would give him a grace period to fully digest the new information. I realize that this could be a little earth shattering.
About the money…
There is no doubt in my mind that the biggest loser and bearer of responsibility in this mess is the mother. From your post it looks obvious that she is looking for a little extra financial support. If there is not an obvious need for the money to provide for the childs well being, I say screw them on the money. Otherwise, some provision needs to be in place so that only the child gets the money.
If the judge was acting within the realm of the law, then he is not to be blamed for his ruling. Blame the stupid laws if you want to, but don’t blame the judge. The same can be true for forced visitations. Personally, I can’t imagine that there is a law that would force someone to visit another person they had no interest in seeing. I think enforcing this would be an obscene waste of resources.
If, however, the judge was acting outside the scope of the law, then not only can I fault his ruling, but the guy has grounds for appeal.
I tend to agree that it’s not a good idea. The only thing I can comfortably say the bio. father for is responsible for is having sex with the mother in the first place, so I suppose that as a result of that act he can be held financially responsible - but only minimally, since the mother didn’t see fit to say anything until 6 years later. As for forcing him to visit with the child, I guess in a best-case scenario he’ll become a positive part of her life, but the likelihood is that he’ll resent her intrusion on his life as he knew it, if the tone was the way you described it.
What kind of mother puts her 6-year-old child in this position? “Sorry, sweetie, the guy who’s raised you since you were a peanut isn’t really your father, and now since we’re having cash flow problems, you’ll get to meet your REAL dad, and he’ll buy you stuff!” I certainly understand that bad stuff happens and you deal with it, but to 1) have an affair; 2) get pregnant; 3) conceal the baby’s paternity for six years; 4) six years later, come begging for cash from the bio. father; and 5) discuss it all on television is pretty disgusting to me. Certainly she could have handled this differently.
I hate seeing women do this sort of thing. It gives the rest of the world a reason to expect the same of other women.
Poor guy got stuck in the middle of a legal and social re-think of what it means to be a father…
There are a lot of cases that are going one way or another, where a guy is ‘forced’ to act like a father because of biology, or is told he doesn’t have legal rights to visit a child who he raised as his own once it is proven that he isn’t the biological father, etc. Mothers are having the same problem, except she knows that she had a kid… But hospital mixups are hitting the same issue. You raise a child as your own, but it turns out they were swapped at the hospital and it isn’t your kid. Can they take it away and give it back to the ‘real’ (that is, biological) parents? Yes. Can they make you take legal, social, and financial responsibility for the child who is yours biologically but who you never met before? Yes. Will they? Depends on the court. There’s increasing acceptance of the idea that biology should not always trump the rest of the situation. But the courts usually decide in favor of what is seen (or currently understood to be) the best interests of the child. Since the experts on child development and psychology disagree, and it isn’t a simple question in the first place, and some judges are not entirely current on the research, there is a HUGE variety of ways such cases can turn out.
Maybe the judge thought that visitation would at least get one balanced and sane (and not incredibly greedy and selfish) adult into the child’s life? Even if reluctantly…
Not only should the man not have to see or interact the child if he does not want to, but he should not have to pay child support, either,and I am astonished that anyone can think he should.
I created a thread about this last year called Abortion For Men, here’s the link:
Bottom line? Even though I am a woman, i think the way all reproductive choice and rights in this country are in the hands of women is grossly unfair. And I believe that if women did not have the power to decide for both men and women who would be parents, there would be a drop in unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children.
The thread went on so long it went to a part 2. That was before UBB got so spiffy.
I’ve also heard of many instances when, after a divorce, a man is required to pay child support for kids his wife birthed during his marriage even if paternity tests conclusively prove he was NOT the sperm supplier. Putting these two cases side by side, it’s clear that they violate the old legal (well, it SHOULD be) concept of “you can’t have it both ways.”
I can’t imagine that a judge can legitimately order a parent to visit his child. Support, yes. Visit, no. In a case where a parent is the sole support for the child, obviously abandonment would amount to punishable neglect (and part of the punishment would be having the child taken away, not forcing the parent to be there). However, when the child is being cared for, no parent, AFAIK, can be forced to associate with the child. If you have enough money, you can bear a child, hand it off to nannies and boarding schools, and never see it again. Not to mention actually giving up the child for adoption.
I’ve kept alot of my personal life off the boards, but this seems like as good a time as any to share.
I am that man, or at least an example thereof. I have two kids, twins. They are 8 years old now. I found out about them when they were 4. We went through the whole DNA testing rigamarole, and it came out positive, I am their dad. Earth-shattering? To say the least. I’d like to say, that I stepped right on up to the plate, but that is not the case. At least not at first. I cried alot, I broke down to my family wailing about how I’d ruined my life et cetera. But once I got some good counceling from my loved ones, I did step up to do the right thing. I pay my child support, and I visit them and talk to them as much as I can.
Unfortunately, my situation is not as cut and dried as the OP’s.
My kids live with their maternal grandparents. And they have since shortly after they were born. I’m not about to trash their mother, but suffice it to say, she had some problems, much as I did at the time too. Her parents insisted they take care of the kids. Cut to 4 years later, I’m informed of my kids existence, thier mother is making an honest effort to make their lives as normal as possible, and get them back fully into her life. Then, one year later, she dies in a car accident.
So here is my dilemma: do I assume custody being the only surviving parent, or do I let their grandparents (the only care-givers they’ve really known) continue to raise them. God knows, I didn’t want to upset their world any more than it already was. It’s possible when they are older and able to have an informed say in the decision, I may take over custody, but not at the expense of a war with their grandparents.
I really didn’t mean to lay all that on everyone, but it feels good to do so, so what the hell. There is actually a ton more to this story, but I’m not comfortable totally laying it all out publically like this.
Back to the OP. The man should pay child support. He is responsible for giving them life, he shouldn’t be allowed to let wither now that his fun is over. As for visiting them, he should want to. But if he doesn’t, and the mother doesn’t want him to, and her husband has assumed a father role, then it’s just the biological dad’s guilt to live with - his right.
Here we have one father who wants nothing to do with the child, and another man who wants to be a father. In the OP’s particular situation, why can’t bio-dad sign away his parental rights (and responsibilities) while the other gentleman adopts the child?
Jack Batty god bless you. What a terrible situation, but the boys are lucky to have good grandparents- and you.
And I’m this guy. Gee, Jack, maybe we should start some kind of support group.
This is and the OP, is one of the things I’ve been hashing
over for the last three years. There are so many issues. The following are jusdt my thoughts on this and how Ive been trying to handle it. (FTR, Im the custodial parent)
I thought it was neccesary to fing out who the bio was, mainly so I could be aware of any potential health problems.
I couldn’t even began to KNOW if I wanted CS, I mean I raised and loved this child, and don’t really need it, but by the same token isn’t the bio finacially responsible too! I stuck here.
In my case, my son IS the result of a marriage, we’re divorced, c/s and visitation are both spelled out in the agreement,
Both of us could go back to court re: child support (failure to pay or change amounts).
Re: visitation, I can be taken to court if I fail to allow the specified visitation, he can go to court to request more, I can go to court to request that he not be allowed…
BUT: I cannot go to court and demand that he see our child the amount that’s in the agreement. IOW, he can do LESS of that and there’s no recourse. (not that I’m advocating it).
I do NOT believe that the court can order the man to “get to know his child”. they can make provisions to allow for it.
And, by the way, what are you doing watching court tv anyhow?
So a woman who puts her child up for adoption is scum? Obviously she has no interest in caring for the child, or feels she’s unable to care for it properly. How is the father any different?
This was truly an odd ruling by the judge, and one I believe would only happen on a TV court show.
First, I have a strong feeling that the order requiring bio-Dad to visit the kid is unenforceable. As I understand it, on these court shows the parties sign a contract in which they agree to abide by the decision of the TVjudge. I think that the contract is unenforceable in this regard.
Second, the common law for centuries has presumptively determined that a child born in wedlock is the child of the husband. This particular common law principle is a bit anachronistic with DNA testing, but it’s not a bad principle, and I think it still applies in most jurisdictions - hence the cases where the husband must continue to pay child support even if the child is proven not to be his.
In all, it sounds like the TVjudge was off his rocker.
As for the fine people in this thread who say that a man shouldn’t have to pay child support, fortunately the law doesn’t agree with you. The law doesn’t give a damn about who screwed who over, but instead recognizes that the child is innocent of the crap going on between the parents. That child deserves to be cared for. Child support isn’t punishment for the man, regardless of how the man sees it. It is support for the child.
Sua
1: He never knew the lady was pregnant. * Not the child’s fault*
2: He was never informed that the child was born. * Not the child’s fault*
3: He has no interest in the child at all. * Not the child’s fault*
4: The lady did not mention a thing to him until her and her husband started having financial problems. * Not the child’s fault*
I’m astonished at the ease with which all of you literally throw the baby out with the bathwater in your rush to free parents from unwanted financial obligations.
IMO, no. I agree with Sua, I doubt this would be enforceable. You can make a man financially support a child, but you can’t make a man parent a child if he doesn’t want to (and the same goes for women/mothers as well).
I don’t think anyone’s throwing the baby out with anything. The question is not whether it would be a good thing for the child to be supported; I’m pretty sure everyone is in agreement on that topic. The question is about responsibility to support the child.
I always like it when ** Jodi** and I agree ( - hi Jodi!)
BlackKnight- the responsibility lies with the people who performed the actions. One is generally responsible for ones behavior. engaging in heterosexual behavior always has the potential for pregnancy. Odds might vary, but the potential is always there. Engage in the behavior at your own risk.
)
- hi Jodi!)