Why do some states still make you pay support after you find out you are not the father?

Question

FYI not me i am married and I know the baby is mine because she looks like me
In some states if you go to court for support and you don't contest paternity (for whatever reseaon you really believe the child is yours etc) Later you have a test done and the child is not yours you still pay support till the child is 18 unless the mom goes to the court to have it removed. That is so wrong they say you had the chance to find out and did not to bad so sad. That is horribel

Answer 1

Because otherwise taxpayers would be paying for the child (welfare) and they don't want that.

The argument that is most commonly used is that by not contesting the paternity you have "adopted" the child if it turns out not to be yours.

I don't feel this is right, but there's not much I can do about it except remind everyone that condoms are very cheap and children are very expensive.

Answer 2

There are two issues from the stated post.

First, a right not exercised is lost. In your post you state "...and you don't contest paternity...".

That is the key. It's called a default adjudication and although the defendent has the right to contest paternity upon a finding of reasonable doubt the child is his, his inaction results in a finding, either judiciously or administratively, that the child is his by law.

You don't get to say at one time, "It doesn't matter" and then, when the decision is against you, come back later and say "Oppps, never mind, now I say it does matter."

Therefore, if given a chance to contest paternity, the defendent must ALWAYS avail themselves of the chance or lose it.

Secondly, There are many ways for a persumed or adjudicated father to contest paternity. However, the right to do so is an assertive one. Because there is only one situation wherby paternity is foisted upon a man without action of either the courts or the father, (that being a child of the marriage is considered, by law, to be the product of the married couple) the father must assert he is not the child's father by petition of the courts for DNA testing.

Again, failure to act results in the court finding in a default adjudication for paternity because the father did not assert rights to which he is entitled.

Once such adjudication is made, the only way to appeal is on fraud or mistake of law. And as to both, there is a very slim timeframe in which to assert either of the two, usually 60 to 120 days.

There is no pity here in my office for a father who ignores or, as you say "doesn't contest paternity" when the question comes before the court. He is choosing to let his rights lay dormant. Rights that cannot then be revived.

Answer 3

I suppose it's thought of this way: If at first the man did not contest paternity he probably thought he was the father and thus established some kind of bond to the child. If that is the case, then the child needs supporting and the presumed father should pay it.

People act as if child support arrangements are some plot by former wives and girlfriends. It's not - it's about the children and their interests. Men are impregnating women and leaving children around all over the place. They need to step up and be responsible for them.

Answer 4

First - let me say this - other than an instance of forcible rape if a woman cannot say with 100% certaintly who the father of her child is she should be taken out front of the courthouse for a public flogging, and then she should be taken to the nearest hospital for emergent sterilization!

It is RIDICULOUS that women are sleeping with so many men so close together they cannot determine the paternity of their own child OR that they suffer no ramifications when identifying a WRONG father!

That being said - in an assinine round about way these laws are set up to protect the best interest of the one innocent victim in the case - the child. To assure that even a child from a promiscuous lying mother can be cared for until the age of majority. Like I said it is sad that in this day and age a woman cannot be held more accountable for her inability to keep her knees together!

Answer 5

you're misinformed. Your ex isn't signing away his parental rights. he's entirely signing over custody to you jointly as he's serving interior the armed forces. A father can in simple terms relinquish his parental rights if the youngster is given up for adoption, or in case you marry and your new husband is prepared to undertake your infant. Your ex will nonetheless be answerable for infant help. sure, you ought to establish direct deposit. the armed forces might require which you get an order for courtroom ordered infant help. FIY, infant help isn't probable evaluate infant help till it is paid interior the direction of the courts. sturdy good fortune

Answer 6

Answer: Not only can I relate, but if the child moves in with you...You still have to pay the mother support under the original order! And bet your hat and house cat that she will drain every dime until you hire a lawyer and take her back to court.

Answer 7

The reason for this policy (with which I disagree vehemently) is that it's in the child's best interest to have a father, and that the father should have contested paternity in a timely manner.

I agree with you that it's horrible.

Answer 8

I would suppose if it were really an issue for someone that was paying support they could find an attorney that could fight the original ruling and get it changed.

Answer 9

Think really hard! You don't have too think really hard. People in the government could give a ****!! Really they don't care. It's not your kid, but your stuck with the bill for 18 years. So one way is to claim this child on income tax!! This is too crazy! Just like so many other stupid laws.

Answer 10

Perhaps it is so the child that you were previously loving as a parent can continue to eat and have shelter...