I have decided to do my persuasive topic on whether men that have been misidentified as the biological child should still have to pay child support. I just saw a Dr. Phil show on this topic. A man found out (through a DNA test) after 10 years that he wasn't the father to a girl whom he thought he was. He stopped paying child support and stopped seeing her. He was angry that his ex wife (the child's mother) knew that he wasn't the father and still continued to say he was the father for the 10 years. The mother says it's his fault- his new wife shouldn't have told him she thought the girl wasn't his and that yes she didn't tell him but he should still be seeing and taking care of her because he had a 10 year established father/daughter relationship with the girl.
So ladies, what do you think? I should say- I know already which side of the issue I am taking and why- seeing it from other people's perspective I think will help me be better able to connect this to the audience. So, do you think that a man that has an established relationship with a child and finds out he is not the father should still required to care for the child in all aspects (financially, emotionally, etc)? Oh and 8kidsdad- I hope you read this and respond- I am VERY interested in a man's opinion.
Keep 'em coming ladies- I am loving all the opinions!
@ JB- say how you really feel! LOL Thanks for being so frank!
@CoffeeMama- tell your hubby thanks!
@JessinTexas- thanks for the movie suggestion!
Oh and in the case of the couple on Dr. Phil- they were fighting about continued child support or not in court at the time. Another man had initially been ordered to continue paying but he fought it and eventually won, after he took his case higher. There was also 2 attorneys on the show- the woman attorney was for the continued support and the man wasn't. Both had participated in court cases dealing with this issue. From what I understood from the show there are laws that after so long- even if it's not your child biologically you still are required to support the child. It made me curious as to how other felt about this.
Thank you to everyone who answered! I loved all of the responses. Everyone seemed to truly think of the child's feelings first which the couple on the show seemed to put themselves before the kids which is unfortunate for this poor girl who is the only victim.Everyone's opinions really helped solidify my own opinion as well as gave me some ideas for new arguments. Thanks everyone!
Oh and my opinion is the father should be released from all child support and have the money he put out repaid to him. I also agree with the Mama who said that DNA testing should be required for all child support cases before a ruling is made. I also think that the welfare laws that require a mother to come up with a father in order to receive services should be struck down. I also think that the time limit should be done away with. In the case of the Mama who posted on here- her husband passed the time limits and now no matter whether the child is his or not- he's on the hook. Why a time limit? To prevent the child being abandoned? Either way the child is going to suffer damage- the father leaves the child will cause damage as will finding out that a man was forced against his will to care for him/her can damage a child as well. Why should a man who was duped be punished because he didn't find out in time? The argument for that I guess is he should have had testing done to be sure in the first place but when you are in a relationship and there is a pregnancy, questioning like that is paramount to saying I don't trust you. That can damage any relationship. And as far as required DNA testing, although it could be a solution it can be considered an invasion of privacy. I think the welfare of a child's psyche trumps that but there are plenty of people who would balk at the thought of Big Brother putting their nose into yet another aspect of private life. As my husband pointed out- there are many people that would not want their DNA to be taken and possibly stored in a databank.
There are a whole lot of sides to this issue and answering one question opens up a whole world of questions and what ifs/ Paternity fraud, as it is called, effects so many people. Not only the mother, supposed father, and child but their respective families, other children, as well as the true biological father and his entire family. Isn't it amazing how one action has such a ripple effect?
I am only on the child's side. Whatever is the very best for the child, at any given moment in that child's life, then THAT'S what the adults should do, sigh.
:(
still "required" to care for this child in all aspects? - no I don't think it should be 'required' by any means.
This is a moral issue. If this guy has a heart and has any real true love for this child he's been a father to for 10 years, then he will continue to be the father.
(Rent the movie CATCH & RELEASE with Jennifer Garner. Similar type of situation)
He can be extremely angry at the mom but he should not have anger towards the child. That child IS his child in their mind...and hopefully in his after all that time. To do the right thing would be to continue loving and supporting the child. My grandpa was not my mom's father but he never wanted us to know...he loved her like a daughter and she was his daughter in his mind. It sucks that the mom lied to him like that and he does have a right to be angry. But wouldn't he still love "his" child very much? He is not required to take care of this child by any law but you would think in his heart he would want to.
Financially, no. He is longer responsible. I find it hard to believe a good man, would just walk out on a child he thought was his...for 10 YEARS. Did he not develop any love for the child? How could you just wash your hands of her? DNA doesn't make a family. Love does. I'm not saying he has to be dad to this child, but he was for a decade. How can it be so easy to just leave and be done with her? That poor child. She has a liar for a mom, and she thought she had a dad. Now, she still has a liar for a mom. And a man who decided it was easy to leave her behind, like it never mattered. A good man wouldn't have done that. It's NOT the girls fault. Why should he look at her and see betrayal? SHE is the real victim in this.
I think the man should be reimbursed for the 10 years of fraudulent child support he did pay to the mother. Although, I would hope he would want to maintain a relationship with the child after that kind of time period.
I also think that no child support cases should be ruled on without a paternity test to prevent these things - unfortunantly there will always be lying, cheating, manipulative women trying to take advantage. Yuck!!
I personally think that the man should not only stop paying but the deceiving mom should have to pay him all the $ he has paid in child support back, in my opinion it is the same as fraud!
I also think and hope that the man would continue to emotionally be connected to that child and continue to see them and act like their 'Father' b/c for all intended purposes he is...
So, basically I believe that the child should not be penalized in any way (by loosing the child/Dad relationship) and the man shouldn't be penalized (by loosing the child/Dad relationship + the financial burden) in any way.....BUT the deceiving woman should be penalized...and penalized greatly! Not only would that woman have taken advantage of one man and robbed him (child support) but also she would have taken away the right of the bio-dad to even know he had a child. I HATE hearing about these types of things...it is SO wrong!!!!!
***I hate this topic but I love to read the answers, it really makes me think of some posters differently... you better believe I will not forget how shady those *few* that answered that think the woman should not be penalized in any way are...good grief!
Each situation is different... My brother and his wife are divorcing and have a 5 year old dd. The wife has/had a history of cheating and there is a very good possibility that my brother is not the father. But, he was there when she was born and has raised her to be his daughter. If a paternity test is required when they do the custody agreement and it turns out she is not his daughter he has already said he will still be there for her, financially and emotionally, b/c she IS his dd not matter what dna says.
Wow -I feel that any man who acted as the father to a child for 10 years and had a relationship with that child that he just automatically drops when finding out he's not actually the father is a complete and total CAD! What a JERK! I would imagine feeling anger, depression, like I was taken advantage of, etc. but I would fight to keep the child in my life if I had a relationship with the child. It would be different if I had just sent a check every month and had no relationship with the child (although I think that's pretty pathetic as well if you think the child is yours). I feel terrible for that poor little girl -a lying, manipulative mother and an a-hole for a dad/fake dad. Maybe her real dad will be delighted to discover he has a little girl.
As far as being FORCED to continue to financially care for a child who does not belong to you -no -I don't think our courts or laws should go there. That's not right when you take the emotion out of it. One would hope that most men, after having a parent/child relationship for years would want to continue that aspect, but sadly many will be like the sorry case you mention. The real fault here lies with the mother, but he's still a horrible person for dropping that little girl like a hot potato.
I'm sure that man was very hurt by the deceitful ex wife that used him. I feel so bad for the daughter. I'm on the daughter's side. In her eyes, she probably doesn't want to lose the only father she's known for ten years. Financially he should be released of a court ordered child support, but on an emotional side and for the daughter's sake, he should maintain a relationship with her. Children are such a blessing and it is really sad that his ex deceived him so badly with this, but in the long run, the daughter will realize what her mother did and be very upset with her and have all sorts of questions....while in the meantime, she can have the only father she's ever known to lean on while she goes through this. I hope it all works out for the daughter's sake.
WOW. What an awful situation. I can understand why he would feel hurt and betrayed. For sure he shouldn't be held financially responsible, and quite honestly, the mother ought to be paying HIM back at this point. However, he is still the only father this child knows! I would hope that he could get past the sense of betrayal and anger toward the child's mother and continue the relationship with the child. How sad for the little girl - her mother is a manipulative liar and her father only feels a sense of obligation toward her, and abandons her the minute he can. That is heartbreaking.
Edited to add: Just asked DH what he thinks about this. He was quiet for a minute and said, "That just makes me want to cry." (He is a big, burly construction worker, so that's saying something.) He went on to say that if I lied to him about one of our girls being his, and then he found out 10 years later, he would sue me for custody and then file charges of fraud! So there you have it, a man's opinion!
I think that the best interest of the child argument in these cases is RIDICULOUS. I think that not only should the non-biological father be relieved of any future obligation to pay child support but that the biological mother should be punished for paternity fraud and have to pay him back. It's not that hard for a woman to recall whether or not she was sleeping with more than one guy when she finds out she is pregnant and SHE should be held accountable for letting the purported father know that he MAY NOT be the only possible father so that they can determine paternity by DNA test.
An easy way around this would be to require all unmarried couples to submit to DNA testing before paternity is adjudicated and child support is set.
My husband never asked for a paternity test for his daughter. He trusted her mother and thought that asking for a test would be insulting, inflammatory and would make the situation worse. I met him when his daughter was 3 so it was too late for him to ask for one anyway and be alleviated of his responsibilities as father even if she wasn't his (the limit in Massachusetts is 2 years after the father signs an acknowledgment of paternity). So he's never had the test. It is as likely as not that she is not his (he looks like neither parent - she has blond hair and both families have nothing but very dark B. hair; she has a button nose and both families have large, pronounced, angular noses). But he's afraid to know the truth at this point so I'm sure that if it ever comes up later, it will be very painful for all involved.
This is not 1950 where the illusion of an intact family is incredibly important. In cases where the mother deliberately failed to mention the possibility that the father she designated is NOT the father, she should be held accountable financially to both the non-father and the child for the mess she made. If a father in this situation chooses to remain in the child's life, great. If not, I don't see how making a non-father continue to have the obligations of a father benefits a child. Not to mention, there is another guy out there who DOES have rights and responsibilities and that guy should know he has a child and the child should know who his or her birth parent is.
Again, I think it's absurd that in these cases, it ends up being about the moral character and imperative of the wronged father when it should be on the fraudulent, dishonest skanky mother who knew of the situation, had the chance to do something and decided to play God and possible wreak havoc on many lives because of her own selfishness.
ETA: In a lot of states (including Massachusetts) a victim of paternity fraud has NO RECOURSE even if it is proven that he is not the father and the real father is identified. If all parties agree, the non-father can be relieved of future support if and only if the bio father agrees to pay support going forward. If the bio father refuses to pay support, the non-father is still on the hook for future support. That's just wrong.
No, I do not think he should be forced to still pay support for a child that is not his, although I would hope he would still try to see the child for the child's sake. I also think it would be a good idea to start doing paternity tests at birth for all babies as standard practice, then no one would have this issue.
It doesn't take blood to make one a parent....
It is in VERY poor form for a W. to knowingly lie to a man about a child, have him love him/her and pay for the child....personally - if I was that man - i would sue her for all my money back...cold and mean - yes...but that was 10 years of my income that should NOT have gone to her...
No, if a man, via DNA testing, has been found to NOT be the father, he should NOT be required to pay ANY form of support to the child or the mother. PERIOD....
The man who quit seeing the child - that's just wrong as well...he spent 10 years loving this child...I can't see that just stopping with one DNA test...
So while I'm not on the fence - I see both sides...a man NOR A W. should be held financially responsible for a child that is NOT biologically theirs (EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF ADOPTION!!!)....
I too would love to see if 8kidsdad could respond to this. At any rate, he really is the father emotionally and whether he pays child support or not, for the little girl it would be a wonderful thing if he stays in touch with her. By the way what did happen on Dr. Phil?
I think he should be responsible emotionally but unlike a biological father, he should not be obliged to pay. It just wouldn't be fair.
I think after 10 years, that guy is an a-hole.
Yes, after 10 years, he should be required to pay. But I personally am less concerned about finances than the fact that a man who had been a child's father for 10 years would just dump her. Unbelievable.
That's a tough topic, try to narrow it down some. If a guy finds out after 5 years, should he be required to pay? 2 years? One year? 6 months?
There is a point at which I don't think a guy should be required to pay. But I don't know where that point is, and how you would determine some kind of cut off point.
It will be interesting to see your responses.
REQUIRED to ... absolutely not. Especially not financially. But this all falls on the mom.
It's not HIS fault ... it's hers. And I think he's justified in his anger and cutting ties. Honestly I think in situations like this I'm not sure it would be a good thing for the child to keep a relationship with him unless he could put away the anger, and not see the betrayal when he looked at the child.
.
I think about my husband and his 10-year old daughter and the fact that there were questions at first on his paternity. He's never checked, and never wants to. (His GF was cheating on him at the time--so the child COULD be someone else's).
He LOVES his daughter. He has assumed much of the financial burden of raising her because he loves her. I can imagine the mental pain if he found out one day that she wasn't his biologically, but she will ALWAYS be his daughter and he would never treat her otherwise.
I feel bad for anyone who never feels that bond with a child. They are truly missing out.
Ok I did not read anyone else's bc I wanted to give my opinion unbiased. While I think it would be great for a man to maintain a relationship for the sake of the child, if he so chooses, but I do not think he would have any more financial obligation and also I think if he chose to break relationship, he is not in the wrong. I think in the case of a divorce or relationship break up it is probably best to just do an obligatory DNA test. I mean on the part of the woman, just get it done to avoid any crazy issues even if it is certain and then the man never has to get crazy wondering if that is his child etc. A woman who does know that a child is fathered by one man and name's another as the father is really the one in the wrong and of course the one who ultimately suffers is the innocent child. Sad, but no I don't think a man would be financially responsible in a situation like this one. The only time a father who is not biological would always be financially responsible would be in the case of adoption in my opinion.
I know people like this. This guy's wife told him for years that she didn't think the kid he had with his ex-gf was his and when they finally tested it wasn't his. The boy was about 10 years old at that point and I really felt sorry for the kid, because the dad didn't have anything to do with him after that. (He really didn't do much with him before then though.) The ex-gf/mother (of course) insisted that he was the father, but wouldn't retest and still wanted support.
Anyway, I don't think the men should be required to continue to pay child support and should not be forced (aka: court ordered) into a relationship with the child. I think it would be noble to continue to do so though. I understand some men don't request a test so to keep peace, but since they had the opportunity and didn't take it then that's their own fault. So, I don't think any money should be given back to them unless they were married or common-law married and the mother never disclosed that she was with someone else.
i dont think he should be forced to continue to pay child support. BUT, after 10 years of being a father to that girl and just to stop contact makes that guy a total dou$$e bag!!!!!!!
Interesting. The man should have no legal responsibility to take care of the child...financially or anything for that matter. However, if the child views him as "daddy," he most definitely has a moral responsibility to continue in this role, in all regards. I think it depends on his relationship with the child...if there even is one (or if he's just writing some checks).
I think he should have the option of keeping the relationship but not being responsible financially. I feel sorry for everyone in this situation except the mom if she knew.
After having a father/daughter relationship for 10 years, he definitely is her father no matter what the dna test says. And even if he doesn't support her financially, he should be there for her, he is the only dad she's ever known.So many times we hear "what's best for the child/children" but it doesn't always happen. I agree with Bug...the poor little girl has a liar for a mom and a dad who can give her up just like that. And I do wonder...if the "dad" is disappearing from her life, how is it all being explained to the little girl?
no i dont, its unfortunate that the man might want to stop all contact and financial help, but that is his right. A real man would go on as nothing happened and take up his issues with his wife and not involve the child.
But we cant legislate manners, and we cant force a man to be a father when he had no part in creating the child, men already have no paternity rights as it is.
It is actually really hard for me to conceive that this would be an issue. To me it is a no-brainer. He should NOT be required to pay any additional support. Additionally he should have the option of suing the child's mother for the payment provided as will as requesting the court to pursuit this as a perjury to the court and exact justice. Lying like this is unnaceptable and is esp sad since it is the child who will most suffer.
My husband's response is no, he should not be legally required to pay child support to her, because he was lied to about being the girl's real father. Not only did the woman cheat on her husband, she lied to him about who the true father of this girl is. So not only should he not be legally required to pay child support, he should also be compensated for all the support he paid in the past. If he was to be legally required to pay child support, then it is basically justifying this woman's actions in lying to her husband about being the biological father.
Yes, it is sad for the daughter, but that is not her fault, nor is it the man's fault. It is the fault of the mother. Anyway, this is what my husband said to me (with a few swear words thrown in :-) and I agree with him. It's a sad situation, and I hope that the guy would choose to continue to have a relationship with this little girl, but LEGALLY he cannot and should not be required to do anything.
Good luck with your assignment!
Neither of my parents were my biological parents, ya know, adoption. Would have sucked for me if they after ten years nope really don't want her anymore. I know that it is different in that he thought the child was his. Still the child didn't know he wasn't their father either. So basically the dad is saying to hell with the child's feelings I am mad at the mom so I am going to punish them both. The mom was of course ignoring the potential end result of her lie, that it would punish the child. Then of course the new wife was only concerned with keeping more money in her pocket.
I get the feeling none of this would be an issue if the parents acted like grown ups.
I guess my final answer is after say one year you have in effect adopted the child because the child knows this is mom, this is dad. Even if you find out otherwise the needs of the child should trump the needs of the childish parents.
If the woman knew, I think she should be made to reimburse the man the previously paid support and he should no longer be financially responsible. I would hope that after functioning as the child's father for 10 years he would LOVE the child and continue the relationship.
No, he has no legal obligations to this child. I would like to think that his choice is to remain in this child's life in some capacity however he has no legal obligation.
Per my man it depends on his relationship with the child. If there is an easy loving relationship then he would continue to help support the child and see him ... if it's forced and difficult that is a different story.
I just happend to see this. Thank you for asking.
If they were married during conception and at birth, then he is responsible for the child's emotional and physical welfare. If he and the mother were just living together, then he has no economic responsibility.
He has an emotional responsibility because he has a relationship built up over time. But I suspect the mother is after the economics and doesn't really care about the emotional well being of his and her daughter. If she really cared about the emotional needs of her daughter she would let him see her regardless of whether he paid child support of not. BUT, if she really cared about the emotional needs of her daughter, she wouldn't have cheated and she would still be married or living together with her husband.
But an emotional relationship is built up over time can be destroyed by an emotional shock. Look at how many divorces there are. Both parties claimed to love one another enough to get married "until death do you part", but they end up divorced anyway. The same can happen to the emotional relationship with a daughter (or son) with this kind of emotional shock.
Some people actively seek to adopt children. Such a person would have no problem keeping an emotional attachment to an adopted daughter. (I said adopted because none of his genes are in the daughter just like he woud have no genes in common with an adopted daughter.)
Some people/couples would not adopt children. If they can't have thier own children, they choose to not have any children. It all depends on this man's attitude and how he feels.
If it were me, I'd still love the daughter, and I'd stop the child support for non child things. I'd be the one to buy her clothes and get ready for college and make sure she had enough to eat. I wouldn't give money to the mother so she could buy that stuff. If she didn't want the daughter any more, I'd take her in and adopt her if the mom would release all claims to her prior to adoption.
Good luck to you and yours.
I feel bad for the guy. The mom shouldn't have let him think he was the dad for so long!! She should have to pay him back, just like guys have to pay back child support for years before they knew they were the dad. The guy probably is upset at the mom, understandably, and is unfortunately taking it out on the child. The mom probably wanted to trap the dad. So sad. He should DEFINITELY not have to pay any more money. If he wants to be in the child's life emotionally, that is up to him. I'm sure it is so hard on him knowing it isn't his. Poor guy.
If the mom knew he wasn't the father, she should have to pay him back, IMHO. If she didn't know, that might be a bit more murky. If she did, it should be considered fraud. That is terrible for the man, and for the poor child. They should definatly not force him to pay for it, if he finds out he's been deceived all that time.
Hi,
I think a man that has been told he is the father and then finds out he is not, should have his child support money given back to him. He would hopefully want to continue a relationship if he had one for awhile, but if not, he should have the choice not to continue. I also think that if there is any doubt about paternity, hospitals should require parents to get a DNA paternity test done before they leave the hospital---it would eliminate alot of issues like this. Thats my 2cents!
M
Three cheers and a truckload of flowers for Theresa N's answer! That's going to be my stance and I'm stickin' to it! :)
The fact is there's someone out there legally required to contribute financially (You know. The real biological father.) As far as emotional ties, if he is so callous and cold to the feelings of a 10-year-old who knows him as "Daddy," then good riddance. They're all better off not trying to force a relationship when there seems to be a serious lack of moral fiber going around.
He is absolutely not responsible for anything with that little girl, sad to say. Shame on the mother for 1) taking money from this man who was not the father. She should've been taking money from the REAL father. 2) Creating this relationship for her daughter and this man that could have very well resulted in sadness, which it did. Why would you do that to your child... it breaks my heart. I think she should pay him back! Now whether he wants to continue the relationship with her daughter is completely up to him, but she shouldn't hold her breath. If she needs that child support, she needs to take the real father to court. And, she will probably not be awarded back pay for the previous 10 years because of her behavior. What is wrong with that woman!?! Obviously it was for selfish reasons and she didn't take anybody else into consideration. I'm getting worked up about it haha but it's because my heart goes out to that little girl... this is one of those moments where I want to shout "It is just not fair"
If the woman *knew* he wasn't the father and got money from him over the years for child support, I would imagine that qualifies as fraud. Not only should he NOT have to pay any more, there should be some sort of recourse for him to recover the money he "lost". Now that being said, I would HOPE that if the man has an established relationship with the child, he'd CHOOSE to continue that relationship and not punish the child for the mother's trickery. That's what I HOPE, but probably most men would only see THEIR side and quit the relationship. Complicated and sticky with potential for life-altering repercussions for the poor child.
Financially, that is messed up and she should have to pay him back if she knew he wasn't the dad. On HIS part, a guy who would just disown a child after 10 years is seriously messed up. Who does that? Did he not care about the child? I could never disown a child after 10 years even if I hated the parent (if I were a guy anyways, since it's pretty impossible for a girl not to know it's hers or not) THAT disowning tells a LOT about that guy's character. I'd probably turn around and make sure he didn't screw the child up in those 10 years. Gosh, I'm just so mad that someone is that much of a jackass to a child like that. Apparently he didn't deserve to be her father, real or not. And if her mom is all about money then wow I hope that little girl turns out okay in the end b/c it doesn't sound like she has good role models in her life. I'm on that little girl's side. Honestly if the child support went STRAIGHT to her care I'd encourage it but I would never mandate that on him. I'm a big believer that kids shouldn't suffer for their parents mistakes and definitely shouldn't be punished for them. I just think that speaks a lot about his character.
I think that if the man is on the birth certificate, he has accepted responsibility. The fact that it was done under false pretenses is not the girl's fault and she shouldn't be penalized because of it. However, given the state of society, I think that paternity testing should be offered at birth. I also think these states need to revamp their laws that state if a man and woman are married, paternity is presumed to be the husband's.
A biological (or adoptive) connection, not an emotional connection, should be necessary to acquire financial support. The reason I say this is because if financial support is required based on an emotional relationship then what would stop biological fathers (or mothers) from trying to get out of paying child support by showing that they do not have an emotional relationship with the child. As in, look Judge, I don't have anything to do with the child, I never wanted the kid, etc. I don't want it so I don't have to pay.
After 10 years I would hope that the man would do what was best for the child and remain a part of his or her life but you cannot force people to have relationships with others. You cannot force people to be parents.
I don't think he should be liable for support. But, I would hope he would still care for the child and wouldn't abandon her. If the mother filed for support knowing he wasn't the father I believe the man should have legal recourse in repayment from the mother. She should be able to narrow down who the actual father *should* be. I think it's a shame when women pen paternity on a man knowing he isn't the father. I think in cases of child support there should be an optional DNA check by the state.
Best wishes-
I think it's his choice. Unfortunately the child will have the hardest time accepting this kind of rejection. The mother should have to pay back all child support, especially in a situation where she knowingly misrepresented the truth to the child & father.
I like Dr. Phil & I missed this episode, sounds like it was an interesting one.
I'd leave the decision at the discretion of the surrogate father. It's a personal non-legal choice.
A man has no moral obligation to support a child that is not his child.
Although, it seem to me that all parties in this situation are guilty for ruining this child's sense of financial and emotional security, so the question is moot. In the situation you describe, there is a low view of marriage by a man and a woman. A married woman who sleeps with other men while married and then lies when she gets pregnant. Then, a married man who, by choice, leaves his wife and only daughter. And a woman who deceives a man to con him into "loving" her daughter.
Other posts talk about "emotional responsibilities" and "responsibilities to the child's feelings". I'm not sure what they are referring to, or what code of conduct they are referencing. The truth is neither the man nor the woman have the ability to give this child emotional security.
