Author Topic: If the genes don't fit, you must acquit (Read 354 times)

Mickey1992 · « **on:** December 03, 2002, 09:47:57 AM »

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=676&e=5&u=/usatoday/20021203/ts_usatoday/4667711

I think that all kids should be loved and cared for, but if I learned that a child from a previous marriage wasn't mine, the ex-wife shouldn't get a dime.
==========================

......''Think of it. I can get out of jail for murder based on DNA evidence, but I can't get out of child support payments,'' says Bert Riddick, 42, a computing teacher in Carson, Calif.

Riddick is paying $1,400 a month for a teenage girl born out of wedlock whom he has never met. Strapped, he and his wife are living with in-laws. Their three children, ages 3 to 11, cram into one room. He lost his driver's license for missing support payments and rides a bus 75 minutes to work.

Gradually, legislators are reshaping paternity law. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia now permit ex-husbands and out-of-wedlock fathers to end child support through DNA. Maryland has made the same change via court decisions.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2002, 09:51:18 AM »

If the child isn't yours (proved thru DNA) then one shouldn't be financially responsible...can we all agree on that? Or are there some out there that still thinks the father is financially responsible even if its not his kid?

Wlfgng · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2002, 10:12:25 AM »

I agree.. go with the DNA.

Pongo · « **Reply #3 on:** December 03, 2002, 10:34:53 AM »

oh my god.
1400 a month for a kid he has never met and that there is no proof is his. That is over 2000 canadian a month for one child. What needs does this child have?

Shamus · « **Reply #4 on:** December 03, 2002, 12:31:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
oh my god.
1400 a month for a kid he has never met and that there is no proof is his. That is over 2000 canadian a month for one child. What needs does this child have?

It's not based on the childs needs but on the guys income.

shamus

Dune · « **Reply #5 on:** December 03, 2002, 01:02:12 PM »

Let me play devil's advocate here for a moment, before we make a sweeping law that anytime a man can disprove paternity through DNA.

Mom has child out of wedlock. A year later she marries another man. Couple is married for 12 years and he is the only father the child has ever known. After 12 years the marriage fails (for whatever reason).

Does this man not owe child support just because the child isn't his? He knew about the child when he married her. He helped raise and support the child for 12 years.

Thrawn · « **Reply #6 on:** December 03, 2002, 01:11:49 PM »

Dune, not if he didn't legally adopt it.

Family law has been pretty unfair to men as it is. If the child is not yours biologically or you have not adopted it. I don't think you should be obligated to pay child support.

Mighty1 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 03, 2002, 01:20:07 PM »

Dune wrote:

Quote

He helped raise and support the child for 12 years.

Sounds like the Child owes the Guy something!

The GUY owes NOTHING!

That's like saying because you give the bum on the corner change every day for 12 years that if you move you OWE him money.

Curval · « **Reply #8 on:** December 03, 2002, 01:23:18 PM »

Thrawn....I think Dune has a valid point. Living with a woman for more than, what...2 years in Canada, makes it a legal marriage. It is called a "Common Law" marriage. Why wouldn't 12 years with a child make it a legal adoption, or "Common Law" adoption?

miko2d · « **Reply #9 on:** December 03, 2002, 01:43:06 PM »

Dune: Does this man not owe child support just because the child isn't his? He knew about the child when he married her. He helped raise and support the child for 12 years.

If he knowingly accepted that responcibility by signing the papers - sure, he should pay. If he was tricked into it - no.

In both cases, the original biological father should be tracked and made to pay.

Curval: Why wouldn't 12 years with a child make it a legal adoption, or "Common Law" adoption?

Because that would mean "cheat successfully for a period of time and you are off the hook and the victim of the fraud is stuck". Sure, the guy can be considered an adoptive father - especially if he knowingly consented. That does not release biological father from responcibility of sharing teh burden.

There is a guy who is paying over 30% of his income to his wife for 4 children 3 of whom are not his while his and his new wife and children suffer.
At least one of those three children has severe genetic disorder (requiring expencive treatment) which he could not possibly have suffered if that guy was a father - that is how he learned the child is not his in the first place and tested the others.
The new boyfriend of his first wife is not legally married to her to avoid responcibility and keep child-support coming and the fathers of those three kids are completely off the hook. How can it be fair?

Marriage - any kind, presumes responcibilities on woman's part too - not the least to tell her husband if he is the father of her children. Preferably before conceiving them.

miko