# Why do some states force men to pay child support **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 9, 2006, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100 "2006-09-09T22:47:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2006, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100/1 "2006-09-09T22:47:12Z")
even if they find out the child is not their child? I saw something on Nightline years ago that profiled four men who were ordered to continue paying child support, even though they found out the children weren’t their children. This isn’t meant to be a debate, I was wondering what law states (if there even is a law) that these men must continue to pay support and also, which States do these laws exist in? I think one of the men lived in Delaware. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2006, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100/2 "2006-09-09T22:55:57Z")
I am under the impression that some states have what can be called “implied paternity”, wherein if you treat the child like your own, long enough, you can be liable for the child, just like an actual biological father. So… yeah. YMMV, and I’m not a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100/3 "2006-09-09T22:57:09Z")
I’ve contributed to a couple of threads on this topic. I don’t have time to search for them right now. Basically, it’s about res judicata: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/012004/&invol=130120\_2004](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/012004/&invol=130120_2004) ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100/4 "2006-09-09T22:57:09Z")
I thought the principle was that if it is in your net, it’s your fish. If it comes out of your wife, no matter how it got in, it’s yours. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2006, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100/5 "2006-09-09T22:59:37Z")
Here is one of those threads: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=295759](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=295759) ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100/6 "2006-09-09T23:20:43Z")
A little while back there was an article in Reason magazine about this happening in California. Apparently there the rule is they have to make an attempt to contact you if someone has said you _might_ be the father, and if you don’t dispute it before a certain deadline, you’re considered responsible for child support even if it’s been shown that you’re not the father and you never even knew the mother. I think they had one guy who was out of the country when the notice came. Apparently it has to do with them not having money to put the people on welfare, so they just take it from some random slob. It’s outrageous, but there you have it. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100/7 "2006-09-09T23:52:14Z")
> [@](#): > > The Wyoming Supreme Court has held that entry of a default order in a paternity case does not violate the alleged father’s constitutional due process rights. See D.M.M. v. D.F.H., 954 P.2d 976 (Wyo. 1998) [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c8.html#foot\_31](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c8.html#foot_31) > [@](#): > > C.R.B. v. State, 974 P.2d 931 (Wyo. 1999). Placing the service-of-process summons and complaint in the putative father’s mailbox was sufficient, given that the putative father had refused to accept service and was told that the documents were being placed in the mailbox. [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c8.html#foot\_31](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c8.html#foot_31) What **riker1384** describes is possible because of the combination of these three principles. 1. Service by mail (or at least by mailbox) is adequate. 2. Once service has been accomplished, paternity may be established by default if the putative father does not contest it. 3. Once paternity is established by default, it can’t be relitigated because of _res judicata_. Interestingly, the Michigan Supreme Court just ruled that the same rule does not apply to a determination by default that the marriage produced no children: [http://family-law.lawyers.com/news-headline/Michigan-Supreme-Court-issues-ruling-in-paternity-lawsuit-l:420594406.html](http://family-law.lawyers.com/news-headline/Michigan-Supreme-Court-issues-ruling-in-paternity-lawsuit-l:420594406.html) [http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/20060726\_S129606\_53\_barnes129606-op.pdf](http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/20060726_S129606_53_barnes129606-op.pdf) The case is technically different because in that case, the court only found that there had been no children of the marriage. Dad (who sought the divorce) didn’t know about the baby. The Court held that the court that issued the divorce decree by default had not considered the paternity of the specific child. ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100/8 "2006-09-10T01:19:29Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] I thought the principle was that if it is in your net, it’s your fish. If it comes out of your wife, no matter how it got in, it’s yours. [/QUOTE] That’s… um, friggin’ scary. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2006, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-states-force-men-to-pay-child-support/372100/9 "2006-09-10T03:20:40Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] I thought the principle was that if it is in your net, it’s your fish. If it comes out of your wife, no matter how it got in, it’s yours. [/QUOTE] Generally, children born during a marriage are presumed to be the husband’s. The presumption is usually rebuttable (I haven’t checked the law of every state on the issue). But some states impose a statute of limitations on such challenges. \*See, e.g., \* [David V. R. v. Wanda J.D.](http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=4225) (two-year statute of limitations).