Should the non-biological father of a child he is paying child support for be allowed to see the child?

Question

With the increase in DNA testing, a growing number of cases are coming forth where divorced fathers are learning that the children they have been supporting are nto theirs. Despite this, they continue to support the children and demand visitation rights. What is happening now is that mothers are asking to the courts to cut those rights, because the man is not the father, but still require child support, as the children deserve the support.

Colorado is attempting to pass a law to correct this, giving men who are support children the right to be a father to the children.

What is your opinion, should a man who is not the biological father of children, born during a marriage be allowed to see them, or should this be considered similar to a stranger danger case?

In every state, except Maryland and Illinois, a non-bio dada can be required to continue paying support, once the order is in place, even if he learns he is not the father of the children. We are seeing this in solders who have been hit with orders while on active duty and cannot return to fight them. By the time they can return, a default order is in place and they cannot have it expunged, even if they are not the father.

Answer 1

He should absolutely be able to see the kids!

Answer 2

Wow, I am a woman but women that do things like this are whats wrong with the world. It is getting more and more where I think the majority of women out there are just stupid and rights should have never been given to them. If the man is a father to the child, biologically or not, he should see that child. I think if a woman has a child and lets her husband believe the child is his while they are married and then divorce him and have it found out the child isn't his and to top it all off wants child support with no visitation should actually have the child taken from her and given full custody to the man that his been the father with only visitation to the mother. That man is the father even if its not his DNA that made the child. He has been the one there for the child and he has been just as much a victim in this as the child has been. These women are so twisted and sick to want to do this to their children. The men are in a hard place, in one way they probably feel like if they are not going to be allowed to see their child and biologically the child isnt theres then why should they pay, and on the other hand they don't want to see the child suffer from not having the money to be take care of. The man should not have to pay child support for a child that is not his if he isn't going to be given the visitation rights of a father. Women use children as a way to control men and get money. Sadly too many women have custody of kids they don't want and take care of, children are just paychecks to them. If a man has been the father to a child being divorced shouldn't make him not want to be the childs father all of a sudden even if the child isn't biologically his. If he is going to continue to be in the childs life and pay child support then he should get visitation. That man is no stranger to the child. So many men would simply want to walk away from the child if found out it wasn't his just to be rid of the mother completely and not have child support. Either way you look at it the mother is the cause of so much pain for the child, the children always suffer the most. You would think, if just for the childrens sake, that a mother could put hard feelings towards the father aside but NO, they do everything they can to get to the husband even if it means hurting the children. I am the kind of woman that thinks a woman can do just about anything a man can do, but crap like this makes me wish that women were still kept quiet and at home in the kitchen raising the kids. The world was a much better place and the children way less messed up and better behaved back then. More people knew the difference between right and wrong and had morals then.

Also, soldiers hit with this is a bunch of crap. They are off fighting for our country and being screwed over at home while they are gone. Those states should be ashamed of theirselves for letting such a law in. If a non bio dada and the children are not close it shouldn't even be an issue, no visitation and no child support. Go find the bio dada. If the non bio dada is close to the children then give him and the children a choice. If a woman keeps it from the man that there was a reason to do a DNA test and has kept the children out of his life and it is found out later that he wasn't the father, she should have to pay back every dime of the child support. She may have to wait til the children are out of the house so it won't take food off their table, but she should have to pay back. Too many men are being screwed and it seems to be getting easier and easier for women to do it to them. If the woman is going to go out screwing around and gets pregnant because of it, the man she is with at the time shouldn't be made to suffer because she is a trashy woman.

Answer 3

There is what's called the Estoppel Doctrine, (already an existing law) which means that if a man has taken on the role of "father" and had been supporting the child emotionally and financially, he is considered the father, regardless of the DNA. In turn, bio-fathers who crawl out of the woodwork and demand "rights" to children they have not been involved with do not have "rights" based solely on DNA.

In addition, if a couple divorces and the baby turns out to not be the bio-child, the husband is required to pay child support because he accepted the role as father without question prior to the divorce. By the same token, a mother can't deny the father any rights to the child by claiming the child "isn't his".

Basically, the definition of Estoppel means "when a man (or woman), by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it when it would be unjust or inequitable for him to do so."

Answer 4

If he is still supporting the child, he should be allowed visitation. If the mother doesn't want visitation rights, the child support should be stopped, and pursue the real father. Perhaps the visits should be gradually stopped so it isn't such a shock to the child, or let the child make their own decision if they are old enough. In the heat of the moment you might say, "Well, I've raised them for this long, I want to be in their life", but what happens 5 or 10 years from now when each parent has moved on?

Answer 5

Biological fathers but keep in mind that you can't count on child support from people who don't have jobs. At least not as a sole support for your children. Get some training - get a job support yourself - child support would be a bonus. Meanwhile learn how to make better choices and not get pregnant again.

Answer 6

What a mess! No, men who are not the father and are not allowed to see the child, should not have to support this child. Also, if a man is willing to support this child, then he should also have at least partial custody of the child. The child deserves to be supported but let Mom go after the real father. DNA is DNA. The old rule still holds true. You play, you pay.

Answer 7

There is an African saying which translates to " Giving birth is not work, work is bringing up the child". My point is that these dads providing support for these kids are playing a much more fatherly, humane and supportive role than the guy who simply did his thing with the lady, even dogs can mate. The basic human needs of food, shelter and clothing, at a bare minimum is what distinguishes us from all other evolved animals. The non-biological male provider is by all means entitled to all rights of a father, including, in agreement with the lady, conjugal rights!

Answer 8

I actually think the father should pay. So whoever biological dad is about to get a rude surprise.

As far as visitation goes, allow the dad (non-biological father) to continue seeing the child if its appropriate. Bonds may have been formed whose severance may be detrimental to the child. This should be done on a case by case basis. For the actual biological father, again a decision is to be made as to whether or not visitation is to be granted.

That can obviously lead to some very messy situations.

Answer 9

If the child is not yours and the child was born into your marriage you then become the step parent. If you get a divorce after... lets say 10 years of marriage and you did not adopt the child... you are under no obligation to pay child support but you also do not have any rights to see the child either. But... if it would be in the best interest of the child to continue a relationship with the stepdad... then that is what the mother needs to consider.

Answer 10

My opinion is that if the man has been a father figure to the child and has treated the child as his own than he should have parental rights regardless that he is not biologically related. Unfortunately some people use their children only for the money. Very sad situation. Parents need to look at the childs interest not their own.

Answer 11

If he is paying support, he should have visitation. It takes more than sperm to make someone a dad, and if he is a father in actions, then he is the father. Period. On the other hand, if a man finds out that he is not the father, after being led to believe he is, he should not be required to pay child support unless he chooses to stay in the child's life. He should have the option to relinquish his rights and his child support responsibilities.