2007-01-27 15:13:52 · 25 answers · asked by XoXoTomato 1 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
this guy i know went to court for some kid they proved that the kid was not his biological and then they tried to get him for being a father figure. he has never met this kid yet he has to pay 86,000 dollars
2007-01-27 15:30:55 · update #1
No WAY! I saw a t.v. show about a guy that found out that the 2 boys that he THOUGHT were his were not, his wife was a dirty ho and basically mocked him and told him he had to pay no matter what because he was on the birth certificate, meanwhile she shacks up with the "other man". He took a DNA test and proved that he is not the father and he still had to pay. I think that is a total outrage! I think he should get every penny back, PLUS INTEREST! and she should be thrown in jail for fraud! The only time I think a non biological parent should have to pay child support is if the child was legally adopted by that parent and they have knowingly agreed to take full responsibility.
2007-01-28 15:34:21 · answer #1 · answered by Princess Veronica's Mom 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It shouldn’t happen unless he was married to the mother at the time of the birth, then the courts see the husband as the legal father even if he isn’t the biological father. Even with a DNA test in the eyes of the court who ever is married to the mother is the legal father and has to pay child support. I know a man that this happened to his wife cheated on him got pregnant but they were married at the time and he was deemed the legal father even after it was proven the child wasn’t biological. luckily he pays child support with out a grudge since he knows it wasn’t the baby’s fault the mother was unfaithful.
There acutal a lot of guys paying child support for children that arent bioloigcal theirs but are legally theirs.
2007-01-27 16:43:53 · answer #2 · answered by Spread Peace and Love 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A key fact there is "father figure". If he was a father figure to the kid then there is a chance he'd have to pay child support. I mean it really depends. If he was close enough to the child where he/she considered him their father, then it's perfectly justifiable. If he made the commitment and took on the role of a father, then he shouldn't complain. It was something he was willing to do. But he must have agreed to pay... they can't MAKE him pay if he isn't biological. But if he was just the mother's boyfriend and it wasn't his kid they can't hit him up for support.
2007-01-27 16:00:45 · answer #3 · answered by Alene 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would depend on the situation.
Is this someone who has adopted a child of their spouse or someone who has not demanded a paternity test? In this day of 50% divorce rate it is hard to comprehend that people still adopt someones child knowing if there is a split they will have to pay child support.
I say no, if the child is not theirs the biological father / mother should support it, if they are deceased the child is entitled to Social Security Benefits - which is probably not as financially lucrative as tapping someone for 17 - 20% of their income.
People should be responsible for themselves.
2007-01-27 15:27:27 · answer #4 · answered by PD 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are probably thousands, if not hundreds of thousands doing just that. I suppose that is one reason back in the stone age that we were taught not to have sex before marriage. Usually if a girl or woman will have sex out of wedlock the probability of being the first is very remote. Unless of course she is under the age of 10. And now days that could be kinda iffy.
So Gentlemen one might say it is the screwin you get for the screwin you got.
This is not to say that you don't deserve it. You could have kept your pecker in your pants or gone to a good whore house. It would have made a lot more sense and cost far less. However there is always the possibility of Death by Disease. Well you just can't win .
As far as the poor child goes, yes it is terrible. As far as the poor mother goes, bull shittt. She could have kept her pants on.
So it comes down to a matter of choices. Another choice would be, God forbid BIRTH CONTROL.
I am confident this answer will be the best .
2007-01-27 15:53:05 · answer #5 · answered by scallywag 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the kid is not biological child no, why would you have to?
Its someone elses kid. Yeah you can be like a father or mother but if there is a break up you should not be expected to support the child.
2007-01-27 15:27:41 · answer #6 · answered by Sowhat 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. The biological parent of the child should pay child support.
2007-01-27 19:43:45 · answer #7 · answered by Andy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if you tell me, it is a crock. See what happens is if a woman that is married cheats on her husband and becomes pregnant from her infidelity then the child is legally the husbands. Well if the husband leaves the wife then he will have to pay child support, even if tests are proven that he is not the father. So the father is legally and financially responsible for that child because they consider this child to be born in the bonds of holy matrimony.
2007-01-27 15:22:25 · answer #8 · answered by Miss Vira 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It depends. If they have had no relationship with the child then no, but if there has been a relationship, then yes.
I was married 15 years and my son is not my ex's biological child. We were married 4 weeks after he was born, and my ex is the only father my son has ever, and will ever know. Just because my ex didn't formally adopt my son, it doesn't make him any less of a father to him.
It would, however, make him less of a man if he just said "look kid, you're not worth $400/month".....my ex is the best father, and a wonderful man.....my son is lucky to have him.
Just my two cents.
2007-01-27 15:23:00 · answer #9 · answered by salemgirl1972 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, they should not, unless he openly held out the child to be his own after knowing the possibilty of not being the biological father.
2007-01-27 15:35:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋