Child Support as Politics.

The father has a choice not to "put his dick in crazy".

I don't think men are idiots. They know if they impregnate a woman that there are consequences that they can't control.

I believe that a father should have a 50-50 role in how the child is raised.

He does that by being a dad.

And when the mother doesn't tell the man he is a father, What then? Should she be able to Sue years later for back child support?
Or what about a man that pays support for years, then finds out the child is not biological child? Should he be able to get his money back?

Or should a woman that has sex with a minor and gets pregnant, should she be able to Sue that minor for child support, even though she committed a crime by having sex with a minor?

I am sorry, mysteryman, but birth control is just as much the responsibility for a man as it is for a woman. If he doesn't want to be a father than he better use his brain instead of his penis.

Well I and not the fathers or for that matter the state was placing a roof over their heads and helping them do their homeworks and taking them out to visit museums and parks and such.

But what the hell maybe being just a male after all I were not all that important in their lives. We males are only useful to children in providing money to the mothers it would seem.



In any case we did consulted a lawyer that was supported to be an expert in the field of adoptions and I then consulted a lawyer who besides being a personal friend was very well regards in the area of family law in the local area.

Both gave me the same answer as in not a snow ball chance in hell unless the fathers were in agreements.

So off hand as both those lawyers practice every week before the families courts and the very family judges who would rule on such a request I would give their opinions somewhat greater weight then your.

Still does not change the fact that it is the woman who had the choice of having a child or not while the man even a man married to the woman having zero legal say in the matter.

It is about time that we stop allowing women to have children by men who do not wish to be fathers with the the idea that the state is then going to go and chased the men down and pull out their pockets.

It is also about time that we required women to used their brains in picking mates that the state will no need to play hide and seek with and will aid them in rearing a family without court orders.In fact the last few generations of women seems to be the first ones to be that dumb that they can not select men that are not only willing but eager to take on the burden of supporting a family.

What I love is that a woman under current law can knowingly lied to a man about him being the father and if she can talk him into acting as a father for some given time period he will be required to keep paying child support for that child even if it is proven beyond question latter on that he is not the father.

So not only does he not get the money he had paid to her up to the point due to her fraud on him but he is very likely at least in a large numbers of states to need to keep paying and paying and paying.............

The state does not care who the father is or is not all the state care about is that there is a male any male pocket to go after.

I 100% agree with you, however you didnt answer any of the questions I asked.
Should a woman be able to hide the fact that a man is the father, then come back years later and demand back child support?

If a woman has sex with a minor, should she be able to demand child support even though she committed a crime by having sex with a minor (statutory rape).

If a man pays child support, and later DNA tests prove that child isnt his, should he be able to sue to get his money back?

mysteryman,

you're bringing isolated cases into this. How often does it happen that a woman commits statutory rape, gets pregnant an asks for child support?
To answer your question, a court would determine what's right or wrong
in this case. Dto. for women who present a cuckoo's egg to their partner
and DNA proves that he's not the father - our judicial system will take care
of such cases.

As I said, they're not the norm and should be addressed individually in
court, for the vast majority however, child support is straight forward.

You are full of it as anyone can google many cases where men are force to keep paying child support even after it is proven that they are not the father.

Also cases of minors who was rape by adult women and as soon as the minor reach adulthood he is order by the courts to pay child support to the woman who raped him as a minor.

How many links to such cases would you care for?

Footnote studies had shown that is not uncommon for a woman to lied to a man over him being the father. fI memory serve me correctly up to 20 percents of the men listed as the fathers of children are not in fact the fathers.

"In the courts where paternity cases are heard, only a minority of the accused men deny paternity. This group, therefore, are the only ones who are privileged to request blood tests to sustain their denial. It has been shown that 30 to 40% of these men who deny paternity are falsely accused. In the majority of cases heard in the courts, however, the accused man admits paternity and accepts the burden of support imposed by the court." p.249

"Blood-grouping tests [A-B-O, M-N and Rh-Hr] in 67 cases of uncontested paternity indicate that in 6 cases, or 9%, the men admitting paternity were not the fathers of the children they accepted. Since only 50% of wrongfully accused men can be excluded by present methods of blood testing, it follows that not 6 but actually 12 men in this small series who admitted paternity were probably not the fathers of the children in question." p.250

From: Sussman L N and Schatkin S B (1957) "Blood-grouping Tests in Undisputed Paternity Proceedings", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol.164(3), May, pp.249-250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Dickens, a specialist in health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said that in another British example, the non-paternity rate was three times that.

"In the early 1970s, a schoolteacher in southern England assigned a class science project in which his students were to find out the blood types of their parents. The students were then to use this information to deduce their own blood types (because a gene from each parent determines your blood type, in most instances only a certain number of combinations are possible). Instead, 30 per cent of the students discovered their dads were not their biologically fathers. "

All the 50 State Courts order only set fixed amounts, and I can give you info from my Maryland, as below:

“The adoption of the child support guidelines was intended to restrict the equitable discretion of the trial court and produce an award of support that is grounded in specific description and numeric criteria. Reuter v. Reuter, 102Md. App. 212,649 A.2d 24 (1994).”
[ Prior ruling from: Voishan v. Palma, 327 Md. 318, 322, 609 A.2d 319 (1992). ]

Then the Maryland Child Support Guideline online is HERE.

The Federal Guidelines order percentages and NOT based on percentages, link HERE, and the States violate this guideline.



The "collection" is the problem as it turns parenting into a crime, and it turns parents into criminals.



It is only needed to get a majority vote as we do not need everyone to agree.

They have the opportunity to deny parentage and be tested but they don't. If they don't have a problem with it why do you?

It's basically the same law that would require a man to pay support to a child that is not biologically his, but that he has parented, that allows a person to adopt a child without the parent relinquishing their rights.

If your state requires one, it allows the other.

Your lawyer was shitty. A lot of them are. I was told it was "impossible" by several lawyers. It wasn't impossible at all.

So your interesting theory is that if a man is dumb enough to trust the words of his sexual partner that therefore grant her license to committed fraud on him to the tune of a few hundreds thousands dollars over the 18 years or so of a child or children support order?

So then if a person trusted his lawyer or CPA and then the lawyer or CPA used that trust to defraud him why should the society care as he should had have someone doing audits after all.

We should in no way punished the lawyer/CPA or demand that the man be made whole for the funds defrauded out of him over the years?

With DNA testings becoming so cheap how about no man name is any longer placed on any birth-certificates until DNA testing is done?

You say that as if the American courts abusing the citizens is a rare thing....it is not.

No. I'm saying maybe the man loves the child and wants to see him cared for despite his lack of biological connection. I'm saying that maybe he wants to continue having a parent and child relationship because he loves the child.

If you act as a parent in the eyes of the law you are a parent. That might lead you to adopting a child or paying child support to a child.

I agree and I know about the crookedness of the Courts, and even though I dislike it I still can understand how the Courts do not like giving Constitutional rights to known violent criminals.

The Bill of Rights was not meant to make things easy but to provide a form of justice which most (or many) people would rather not give.

The thing about Child Support is that the same Courts treat Parents as if they were criminals, and the Courts treat parenting as if it is a crime.

The legal system and the Courts were meant and designed to prosecute violent criminals and not to function as a Parenting police, and as such the Courts are making a mess of families and undermining our social structure which the Courts have no business doing.

We need to help Parents with their parenting, but instead we have turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals.

The Courts doing wrong is a side issue since the Courts do not belong in the parenting business at all.

The courts aren't in the parenting business. They are in the business of ensuring that parents don't abuse parenting.

That's not to say, of course, that the court system is perfect. It isn't.

Being lie to is not however the same situation to say the least and is not an act of willingly and knowingly assuming an obligation to raised another man child.

To say nothing of the likelihood that lie even if the man knowingly go along with it is denying the real father his rights and the child his or her rights to know his or her true father.

Sorry lying on a birth cert. is not the proper way of going about adopting a child.

Who said anything about birth certificates?

All the man going through the divorce has to do is question his paternity and be tested. That's it. Easy. If he doesn't want to do it should we force him to do it? Maybe learning he isn't the father would be devastating for him. Maybe he wants to continue being the parent.

I simply can't wrap my head around the kind of person, male or female, who love a child but don't give a **** about how it lives or what happens to it. It costs money to live.

Back when I was a kid lots of dads simply walked away from their family. My own husband's father did that. He walked out the door and never paid a penny in child support. A lot of father's did that. It forced single moms onto welfare in most cases. The state had to pick up the tab for raising the kids.

You keep trying to make this about women. It isn't about women. It's about it.

Maybe you married a bitch. I don't know. I know that they're out there.

You are now taking about married men and divorce only?

Sadly you do not know the laws at all even in that case.

The majority in fact the overwhelming existing states laws is that a man is the father of any child born into the marriage by default and if he wish to challenge being the father he only have a very short time frame to do so. The time frame is measure in terms of months after the birth.

Once that time frame had pass it does not matter one little bit if he can proved beyond question that he is not the father in fact as the law/courts will demand he support that child as his own.