Court Orders Man to Support Another Man's Child

Phoenix:

This type of case has repeatedly appeared in law courts. The Judges always rule in this fashion.

New Haven- But do you think that this is equitable?

I do not. But for the life of me, I've never been able to follow the legal logic for this type of case.

Personally, I think that these sorts of cases are decided more on expediency than equity.IMO the judge was possibly more concerned that the woman would have to turn to the state for financial assistance, so it was easier to "stick" the man.

Phoenix:

I think you are correct in your assessment.

These cases are also decided based on previous decisions on these types of cases. That's one thing about the legal system that bothers me.

i had a friend that was married but away to S.Korea for two years, wife got preggers in that time, no way child was his, he came home filed for divorce and was charged with child support. he paid said support for 18 yrs. fair? i think not.

I'm surprised the Judge didn't make the guy pay for the kid to attend college for 4 years .

this very thing has happened to a friend of mine, and it sucks.

when he told me he had a kid out of wedlock and that the woman left the relationship before the child was born, but told him upon the girl's birth it was his, i immediately asked him if he had demanded a blood test to confirm his fatherhood. he said he had not and that is the story, and he continues to pay support even tho 3 years after the girl was born the mother revealed that the child was not his. he stopped paying support, then was forced by the courts to give the woman additional support.

i consider the state forcing a man to pay to support the child of another man pure slavery.

more than one friend has told me that when they broke up with a woman that the women told them they were pregnant. in each case my friends called they women's bluff and told the women that they were going to have to prove it, none of the children were theirs, and none of the men ever had to pay support.

We had a very similar case here in MA last spring and the ruling went pretty much the same way.

At the time I posted a thread about it in another forum and rthe majority of responders seemed to think that the man should continue to pay because the only person that was going to be hurt if he didn't was the child.

There are a lot of quirks in the laws. In most states any child concived during a marriage is presumed to be "of that marriage" so the man is automatically considered the father an pays whether he actually is or not. If they can force a single mother to disclose the men she slept with to collect state aid so that the state can track down the biologoical father why can't they do the same here?

Groups like NOW have fought any reform in this area tooth and nail. It seems they only want equality when that equality benefits the woman's position. If the system is blatently unfair to the male that's just to bad...

I think that these sorts of decisions are grossly unfair. In these cases, I am definitely FOR the rights of a man. I wonder why there are no groups (I started to write "men's groups", but then I realized that this issue is about fairness, not gender.) that lobby to support this kind of issue!

There are several groups Phoenix.
http://www.abs-comptech.com/frn/frlinks.html

In the late 1990's there was a bill pushed by VP Gore called the "Fathers's Rights Act" that tried to address some of these issues but groups like NOW which are better funded and have a higher political profile fought it hard and it died.

fishin'- Did a quick perusal of the links that you supplied. Looks very interesting. When I have some more time I am going to delve in more depth.

I am a feminist, in that I believe that women have gotten a raw deal over the years. But getting past that, I don't think that one group of people needs to find equity by depriving another group of it.

I am a big believer in win-win situations. Too bad that I seem to be part of a minority group!

This is amazing! Even now they rule this way? I thought divorce laws were getting more fair....

Very similar in Oz. It's disgusting. The family courts consider men to be nothing but walking wallets.

This is a link to the MA case I was referring to:

http://www.malawyersweekly.com/masup/1006501.htm

"Men as walking wallets"?

How do they consider women?