Because he had a very shitty lawyer.
2007-09-19 05:26:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The system is totally unfair to men. They look at the man like he is the only one that is responsible. You have to pay child support but she does not need to account for how she spends the money at all.
You can be married to a woman and she cheats on you and has a baby. Maybe you don't find out until a couple years later. Guess what? Your stuck with the bill. I really hate the system. It encourages women to treat men like crap. I think it is one reason why there is so much divorce. Women get over confident because they know that the system gives them all the power. If you ask the court they would answer you, 'we want to make sure that the child is provided for'. Well, "how bout if you make me pay for some poor kid in Mississippi instead?" I am no more responsible for some kid five states away than I am for another mans child. It's those liberal do-gooders who do 'good and responsible things' with your money. I think they should all be shot.
2007-09-19 05:37:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It really depends on the situation as to whether he pays support or not. Its called in loco parentis. Which basically means if the man has 'acted' as father to the children, caring for them, supporting them, they view him as 'dad', perhaps its the only dad they know etc... There are many different circumstances in which a man can end up paying support for children that are not biologically his. Just as he has rights to gain access, visitation and even custody of children that aren't his. I'm in Canada (ontario) and my common law husband has paid support for my kids (and alimony to me) when we seperated a year ago. He was willing to do so on his own (rare!!), but would have been ordered to pay had I taken it to court.
We have since gotten back together, tried to make it work (for the kids)... no luck and I am currently in the process of support proceedings again. My children are now 8, 6 and 3 (the eldest children..not his were 2 years old and newborn when we got together and obviously the 3 yr old is ours by blood) and he will have to pay support and in my opinion he should have to. He took them on, didn't want me working to support them (i go to school), he let them call him dad from such a young age, and didn't allow me to collect support from their bio dad. So in my eyes, his eyes, our families eyes, and most importantly a judges eyes he has become responsible for supporting them until they are 18 regardless of whether we stay together or not. Why should they be the ones to suffer. They didn't ask for any of this to happen, it isn't there fault. He took on the responsibility, stood in loco parentis of them, and now he will pay for there upbrining... its no different than if they were related to him by blood or if he legally 'adopted' them.
Thats here anyway....not sure where your from
2007-09-19 09:41:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by busymum 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
What kind a lawyer told you that? You DO NOT have to pay for another man's kids.
2007-09-19 05:27:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by MiaMonique 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
because you are the one who supported them all the past 6 years, I'm a woman and I can tell you this law stinks big time, But they say it's because the kids don't suffer and get neglected.
2007-09-19 05:29:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Shaima 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
that shouldn't be an issue unless you've "adopted" the kids. Sounds like you got a REALLY raw deal. Where are you at?
2007-09-19 05:27:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by sunflowergal 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
if you didn't legally adopt another man's children, then you don't have to pay child support for them...
why do you think you do? and if you do, get an attorney... if they are not your kids, you don't pay support. it's simple as that.
2007-09-19 05:34:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by letterstoheather 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because the court figures that his kids now see you as their father figure. Let this be a lesson to all guys...DON'T GET INVOLVED WITH A WOMAN WHO HAS KIDS FROM A DEADBEAT. It almost happened to me.
2007-09-19 05:28:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I didn't think the common law marriage was a law anymore...beats me? Google it. It doesn't seem right to me unless you adopted them.
2007-09-19 05:28:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Jay 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
This would not happen in TEXAS....where are u located????
and very few states have common law anymore...but TEXAS is certainly one of them.
2007-09-19 05:25:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by sunbun 6
·
0⤊
0⤋