I read a case about a woman who separated from her husband who got herself knocked up while they were separated and then later divorced. Because they were still married at the time she got pregnant, California law made it an irrebuttable presumption that the ex-husband was the father. That meant that he had to pay child support.
Except, the baby wasn't his. He was white. His wife was white. The baby was black. But under the law, even though DNA testing proved conclusively that he was NOT the father, the court said he was.
Has the law gone berzerk? And are most of the women out there as greedy and self-centered as the woman who wrote this piece? She seems to think that a man who has done nothing wrong (not cheated on his wife, honored the marriage commitment) should simply accept it when his wife cheats and has children with other men.
What do you think?
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20060418.html
2006-11-28 08:36:58 · 6 answers · asked by A_Patriot 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
Unfortunately, some states have mandated that if a child is born within a marriage then the husband is the father regardless of who the biological father is. Good men end up paying for kids that belong to some other deadbeat.
2006-11-28 08:49:38 · answer #1 · answered by glibby3 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can definitely see your point. At the same time, I see what she is getting at, also. She's not necessarily trying to say that men should "put up, and shut up" but that in these kinds of proceedings, the man and woman are NOT the only interested parties. What OF the child? I can't imagine the pain he/she would go through, not only having to deal with a divorce, but having to face outright rejection by the man who loved her/him, depended on, and called "Daddy." THAT makes me sick to think about. Yes, the man is innocent, but so is the child. What did they do to deserve this? Their paternity is not their fault, but ultimately, THEY are the ones paying most dearly, something that monetary "payments" could never come close to. And what of the father? How can it be so easy to walk away after loving this child as his own? Because the (presumed) biological bond is no longer there, there is no longer a bond, at all? Well, maybe not, but I'm not so sure I could be so cold hearted toward a child I loved. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that making men pay for children that are not theirs is the right solution either. That just doesn't seem right, but neither does the plight of a child who has to be told "Daddy isn't your daddy, and you can't see him anymore." Obviously the woman is in the wrong, and should take the blame, but, again, it's the child who suffers.
On a personal note (if I may). Is this a personal issue, meaning, is this something you have experienced? If so, perhaps your experience with this could help others understand how a father would feel in a situation like this. If not, why are you so obsessed with it? No offense intended, just wondering...
2006-11-29 04:50:29 · answer #2 · answered by wendy g 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a woman and I think that is wrong. A man should not have to pay for a child that is not his.
2006-11-28 16:51:28 · answer #3 · answered by beattyb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Been there, got the tee shirt and the support payments to prove it too!
2006-11-28 16:57:28 · answer #4 · answered by open_phunguy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is too sad. For "daddy" and the baby.
2006-11-28 16:40:38 · answer #5 · answered by Ari A 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sucks, doesn't it?
2006-11-28 16:39:42 · answer #6 · answered by johnnydean86 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋