Would you get behind a law like this?

Idea. If it has been proven that a father has been raising a kid that isn't actually his, should he be able to leave without paying child support?

  • Yes
  • No
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy


Most Helpful Girl

  • he shouldn't be able to just leave. he should be able to sue the woman for damages. she should have to pay him back double what he spent taking care of that kid because that is a really sh*tty thing to do to somebody.


What Girls Said 2

  • Well... Assuming there were ZERO chance of a false negative... it'd be nice if paternity were just made into a routine part of the prenatal or neonatal test batteries. Honestly, that's the ONLY way anything like this could possibly be implemented.
    Any other implementation would have to be case-by-case, AFTER the fact, and so would impugn the dignity of the mothers themselves -- not to mention revealing a complete lack of trust in the relationship.

    This *could* be something that a father could opt OUT of... but that's the point, he would have to opt OUT.

    I feel the same way about prenuptial agreements, too. Those should simply be required of ANY couple before they get married... unless they specifically choose to opt out.


    That said:

    You need to think long, and hard, about the justification behind this proposal of yours.

    This proposal relies on the assumption that "fatherhood" is literally NOTHING more than a DNA connection... and that actually, y'know, **being a father** is WORTHLESS.
    That's what you are implying, here.

    Is that REALLY what you want yr legal code to enshrine?


    If anything... honestly... if ANYONE should be on the fucking hook for child support, it should be the kind of morally bankrupt asshole who'd turn his back on a child (ren) he SUPPOSEDLY LOVED... just because they had the "wrong" DNA.
    If someone's gna fuck up the KID's life like that... a little financial support is the LEAST that could be asked of him.

    I do think child support payments need to be a LOT more accountable and transparent. Right now it's WAY too easy for the custodial parent to spend the money on her/himself... Receipts and statements should be REQUIRED, any unspent money should be refunded to the noncustodial parent, and appropriating that money for oneself should actually be a CRIME.

    But... yeah.
    Fatherhood is not about DNA.
    If anything -- for mostly the same reasons -- I think some schmuck who knocks up a random girl... maybe *shouldn't* owe support. I haven't really thought all the way through that one (since so many of those would just fall to the taxpayer instead)... but yeah.

    Just to be extra clear, I am NOT excusing deceit on the part of the mother. But, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, here, is for the law to enshrine the interests of the child FIRST, and for the law NOT to encourage someone who's been a responsible parent to just cut and run.

  • Sure, I guess.


What Guys Said 5

  • He should also be able to sue the woman.

  • Nope.

  • Of course he should. I dont see why a kid is entitled to a mans money.

  • Nope.

  • Yeah but if he was married during that time to the mother when kid was born then he will be stuck paying anyway but yeah it should be a law for him not to

Loading... ;