Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
I think it depends at what point you find out its not your child.
Here im germany and probably most of Europe you have to aknowledge your fatherhood after the child is born.
Basically like signing the birthcertificate.
If you don't do this, no child support.
If you find out years after birth, i would still consider the father the father of the child, like an adoption.
Also you are traumatising the child, by abondoning him. This kind of relationship is not based on shared dna.
You may be angry on the woman, but the child still sees you as the father.
No. He shouldn’t. At least not if he was unaware that it wasn’t his kid and he has no relationship with the child. Parents aren’t always biological. If he still considers himself the kids dad, or if he knew the kid wasn’t his and chose to pay at first anyway, then he should have to. Also, if the other parent deliberately lied to him, he should be able to press charges. But only if he can prove that the other parent knew that he wasn’t the father (not just that he might not be) and lied and said he was. So logically, most cases wouldn’t get very far.
At the same time, I understand why guys often do have to pay. All laws relating to child custody in the United States have to do with what is in the child’s best interest, not what is in the parents best interest, willing or unwilling.
Yeah it sucks and this is just another instance of the man getting screwed by being required to pay child support for kids that are not his. I guess you should never marry or have a relationship with anyone who has kids. I wonder if the woman would have to pay child support if the kids were not hers? Nahhhh! Would never happen!
Voted "No he shouldn't." and if the child is left to starve to death, eh, these things happen. The most important thing is that the adult - who can think ahead, should put reasonable restraints on his own conduct, and has the means of his own care - should feel vindicated and justified.
The baby, as I say, can fend for itself. One feeling only pity for the child who, through no fault of its' own, found him or herself caught between such feckless and so-called adults.
Welcome to life in the shark tank.
Opinion
65Opinion
The premise is that child/divorce jurisdicion is the only thing that's feminist in the world. But I do think that is good that the law stays by the side of children and make it so that they don't suffer from their parents faults. As long as it can look harsh it's good that they don't have the double shock of finding out their father is not their father and being also financially abandoned. Also the law is also telling that you shouldn't be tied by biology, if you raise a kid that kid is your and the Mother can't Just take it to it's biological father. If you find out your father isn't your father would it change anything of your life? He's still the same person and you still have the same relationship with him
I mean it would be pretty heartless of anyone to just abandon "his" child when he learns it isn't his child. It's like caring for a sibling all your life and then discover that you share no blood relationship, would you severe all ties and say he/she ain't your brother/sister anymore. Well I think it's pretty much the same for a child. It isn't the child's fault after all and paying for child support until he/she can earn for her/himself can be unfair in some way but... I don't know I would keep paying if I was in the man's place.
He already doesn't have to pay, assuming he files a motion to modify child support, with paternity testing established, at his county's domestic relations court. You're asking about something that doesn't exist. If it's established via paternity testing that he isn't the biological father, and he files a motion to stop support after that, then the judge or magistrate 99.99% of the time (as in, literally every case other than one that may have some type of weird extenuating circumstances) will stop his support, and may even support the idea of back pay, as in she would owe him some money.
I don't think he should be made to pay. The child is not his. Now if he has a close relationship, then I sure he would give from the heart. Let him provide what he can and buy what he wants the child to have. If he and the mom have a pretty decent relationship, then maybe she can say what the child needs. But he shouldn't be made to do for the child if not his.
Nope and if that was kept a secret then He should be able to sue the mother and the father for damages and for all expenses paid into supporting that child. We really need to start holding women accountable for their actions because how it is now in another generation of two zero men will want to get married and that will be the end of us as a species.
he should not have to. however in many states once your on the paperwork as the Childs father. you only have able a year or so to claim otherwise. if you don't you are the legally still viewed as the Childs parent. and can be court ordered to pay support for that child. even if your proven to not be related by blood afterwards. which is why they need to do paternity testing. before the guys name can be put on an legal documents.
18 or up to 25 if their in collage in same cases.
I'm so embarrassed to admit this, but my absolute ultimate dream is to serve a beautiful, plus sized woman who gets pregnant by another guy, and she makes me sign the birth certificate and assume all legal and financial responsibility for the child -- even though she never, ever lets me have any penetrative sex with her whatsoever... I hope that's not too weird!
I chose option b because I don't think so that he has to pay necessary. I mean that's not right. Suppose you get to know that the child who you thought is yours only to find out later that he/she has never yours to even begin with! So, that's crucial for a person because A man will have to support himself, then he has to pay for the child care..
Any family court judge will just say that the paternity test is inadmissible as evidence.
They do it all the time.
You pay out the ass for the kid whether it's yours or not, just being a man makes you liable for child support. Any child's child support.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. This is like if you dated a woman she cheated on you and
did not know the kid was not yours. They even make you pay if you become a father figure to a single mothers kid specially if you have above average income.
For example let's say you dated a single mother you meet her kid a few times maybe babysit it they will say you're a father figure and now you have to pay child support.
The law does not support my opinion but no a man should not be forced to support a child that is not his.. Here is the sad part of that.. As much as 25% of all men are supporting children that are not theirs and in most cases that's because the woman cheated on him and lied about it.. its sickening.. Paternity fraud is a thing.. and it royally fucks men.
I am going through a divorce because my ex cheated, if I learned one of my boys isn't mine, the child wouldn't know any difference. I would still spend just as much time together, spend the same $ on him, love him the same, etc. But paying my ex for his care while with her? Hell no, that is her responsibility.
Not only should he not have to pay, but his wife/girlfriend/baby mama should be forced to repay him, with interest, and it should be legal to charged her with fraud since she is aware that someone else busted in her and could easily be the biological father..
Eh, it depends.
If a father-child relationship reasonably has been established, yeah. But that depends a bit on how you define it and the thresholds on that. But anyway, finding out at 2 y/o is completely different from finding out at 12 y/o
I think society as a whole has agreed that family isn't necessarily who you're related to by blood. An adopted child is your child, and the parents of an adopted child are the parents. However, while I agree that it is a dick move that should be shamed, I don't think it should be required by law.
He should not have to pay for the child he did not help bore and they should actually refund his money to him.
No.
In fact, he should be able to sue the mother or criminally charge her to send her to jail. But that won't happen as there is a child to think of. A woman can lie and saddle a man with debt for a decade and he's the asshole if he finds out he's not the father and shuts off the money tap and finds his own life.
Fuck no we shouldn but IF you wants to then thats his choice but shouldn't be made to. i sure the hell wouldn't if my wife or girlfriend cheated and spread her legs for another guy or guys while im with them and got knocked up by someone else she can rot in hell.
He shouldn't have to pay. If the child's father is never found, I have a hard time saying the mother, alone, should have to pay all of that money back (even though it isn't fair on him), but if the father is found, that father should start paying for the child as well as gradually paying back what the not-father has paid for that child.
What the fuck is this bullshit? It's like saying if a person had been found guilty of a crime and incarcerated, but then new evidence proved him not guilty and he's exonerated - he should remain in prison because prisoner-prison relationship have already been established. As stupid as it gets!!!
You can also add your opinion below!
