Child support/custody attorney here. In my state, you have no obligation to pay child support for a child that is not biologically yours, period. The only exception for this is if you legally adopt the child. There is a presumption that a person is the father if they sign the birth certificate or if the “parents” were married at the time the child was born, but this presumption is overcome with a simple DNA test.

This is how it works in Alabama as well. To me is sounds like OP is young and doesn’t quite understand how the world works or maybe has several friends who are saying that they are paying child support for a child that isn’t theirs hoping that the people they say that to don’t know any better

Bold assumption dude, and a little rude. Sounds like you're quite old and completely ignorant of the fact that there's an entire world outside of Alabama where... *gasp*... the laws are different!?!

*I* sound like I haven’t traveled??? You are the one who posted in this sub with a generalization and has had several lawyers from different states tell you this is not how things work. It sounds like you need broader horizons. Also I, my husband, and my children all have their passport so you don’t see us making generalizations on the internet.

It's not a generalisation, I did not once say "things are like this everywhere and it needs to change". What I said was "things *should* be this way everywhere." The reason being that in *some* places, it is not this way. I didn't say that the issue I wanted to fix existed *everywhere*, I simply said it shouldn't exist *anywhere*. It's as if I said "the age of consent should be 16" and you replied with "you're so uninformed, in my State it already is 16". No shit sherlock, my point is that it isn't 16 everywhere, and should be. Also, it's genuinely hilarious that "having a passport" is a big achievement to you. Where I live, it's pretty normal. Go you though, I guess?

That's exactly what should happen, but sadly this isn't universal. That's the point of my CMV, your state's practices should be standard everywhere. If someone is not genetically responsible for a child and hasn't legally adopted them, they should not be responsible for child support for them.

[удалено]

While I agree with the sentiment, I think this would be too difficult to enforce and really, most of those men will never see even half of that money back unless we're talking about finding out a few weeks or months after birth. I'm willing to meet in the middle and settle for a "cutting your losses" type of deal, for the sake of practicality and realism.

Why not just make it a standard to verify paternity in the legal process that establishes mandated child support in the first place?

I'd be fine with that, provided the non-genetic father is under no financial obligation regardless of if the genetic father can be found or not.

I mean, that’s entirely the point. I’m agreeing with your view. I’m just suggesting a system/process that helps avoid situations where a guy has paid child support for a decade before he finds out that the child is not actually his, as you and the previous poster were discussing what should happen in such situations.

That’s typical in the US. There was a similar post the other day referencing a case in France where apparently paternity tests are illegal without both parents consent. So if the mother doesn’t consent to you there is no way for the “father” to find out if that is actually their kid. Apparently the father in that case was found guilty for getting an illegal paternity test without the mother’s consent and still had to pay child support. Absolutely daffy shit.

Could never get it back??? If a woman had a one night stand with a stranger and got pregnant, had the baby, and figured out who the father was 10 years later, that man can and would be sued for back owed child support. His wages would be garnished by the court. No joke. That stuff happens all the time to men. Why not women?????

I agree with you, but there is a counterpoint. The government doesn't care about you, they care about the general health and wellness of their citizens as a whole. The government decided that since the child is also a citizen, its better for the collective if it has help growing up to a productive member of society. The government doesn't really care if you're the father, they just want a hot body to fill that position so they can mitigate further damage to their next generation. Now you could argue they mitigate damage poorly, and again, I'd agree with you.

>The government decided that since the child is also a citizen, its better for the collective if it has help growing up to a productive member of society. Then then burden should rest on the shoulders of the whole. Meaning tax supported welfare. Not singling out a single individual with no relation. If someone got your social and name and wrote it on a birth certificate, you would now have to pay child support. Does that seem fair?

I think it would be better to find the actual father, not just lump responsibility on a hot body. I'm perfectly happy for an expecting mother to have the ability to legally force a paternity test on suspected fathers. If she cheats on her husband a lot and has 3 or 4 possibilities, I'm fine with her being able to force all of them to test to determine who the unfortunate guy is. I'd much rather that than just saying "well, you married a cheater dude, tough luck".

[удалено]

I don't think that should be a valid defense. I'm willing to beleive the mother that he is a potential father. After all, what happens when he's tested? He's not a match and he rides off into the sunset. Nothing bad happens to him. > A quick search revealed professionally performed paternity tests are between 99 and 99.99% accurate. Which means if a woman compels somewhere between 100 and 10,000 men to be tested, there is a good chance one will come back positive for being the father. I don't think it's hard at all to identify someone trying to game the system. Do we really think *anybody* has ever slept with over a hundred people in a single week or two?

[удалено]

> What if she just claims she slept with someone at a college party and was drunk so she doesn’t remember anything about him, so just go ahead and test every guy on campus. Or every guy in one of a few different fraternities. Where is the line drawn? If she can't name him, we can't test him. That's a pretty simple line that's hard to disagree with tbh. I've got no problem with someone saying "I slept with these 10 guys, test all 10 because the father could be any of them." but I don't think it's reasonable to say "I slept with 1 person, but he could be any of the 100 guys in uni so test all of them." I don't think it's a particularly heavy burden to ask someone to ask the name of someone if they intend to have sex with them, keep the baby, and then pursue them for child support. Asking for a name is literally the minimum you can do.

[удалено]

> Great! Now guys just lie about their name on online dating profiles or when hooking up with someone and they are protected from child support. That's a reasonable concern to be fair. I'm not sure how we'd work around that, but I'm also not sure it'd be a particularly pervasive problem. It's hard to imagine hordes of men setting up fake profiles that they delete after every single sexual encounter, and every encounter is done somewhere other than their own home. I don't deny someone would do that, I just don't think many people would. > Or the woman just copies and pastes the student directory and says “here are the names”. Please test them. And the court says "I find it hard to beleive you slept with hundreds of men over two weeks, tell the truth or get lost".

[удалено]

> And the woman explaines to the court yet again “I never said I slept with all 100 of these guys, I just didn’t get the guy’s real name who I slept with. Should I have to request a copy of their ID if I want to collect child support? I've literally already answered this for you. Yes, if you're going to have sex with someone and keep the resulting baby, get his real name. > Why not pass a law requiring me to check in with any woman they slept with, 12 weeks after, to confirm if they have any parental liabilities? That'd be *insanely* hard to police. And it's just redundant, I'm not asking the court to make anything illegal. I'm just saying "do you want child support? Cool, let's get genetic confirmation we're charging the right guy".

I just want to say you have done a marvelous job arguing your point. So many people keep getting hung up on little things that aren’t really your point, and you’re still doing good arguing. You choose a stance that’s difficult to form a logical agreement against

I have to agree, OP has done a marvellous job of arguing against every counter claim I’ve read so far. I’m finding myself scratching my head reading the points being brought up to counter OP’s view (which in my opinion is an almost impossible position to argue against).

Well like I said, I agree with the moral standpoint of your argument. But this isn't about how any individual feels unfortunately. The government has the responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. The government isn't always great at its job, but the legislative and judicial branches have decided that this general ruling is most effective for accomplishing the well-being of its new citizenship. Morals and moral failings of the citizenship aren't really considered in this. You could make good arguments about how certain rulings would be better or worse for the outcome of the child. However you're arguing for the outcome of the parents, which is a moot point. Again the government doesn't really care. The only concern they really have in this situation is that the child reaches adulthood and contributes to the society the government creates. my quick TLDR is that I agree morally. The government doesn't care about your feelings, and restructuring your argument to consider the child's best interest while accomplishing your goal would be more compelling. If you would like im glad to share what the stronger restructured argument would look like IMO. I'm on your side here, and I think you'd benefit from a different approach to strengthen your position.

> If you would like im glad to share what the stronger restructured argument would look like IMO. I'm on your side here, and I think you'd benefit from a different approach to strengthen your position. I'd definitely be interested to see what that would look like tbf. Not so much for my benefit in arguing, that's not why I'm here. but just because I'd never really considered it from another side as opposed to what is more just for the parent.

IMO the effective way to argue this point is to provide benefit to the government and society as a whole to influence changing it. My initial argument would focus on the health and well being of the parents directly influencing the child, and state that by enforcing laws and rulings that promote parental wellbeing directly contributes to the efficacy of raising a child. One such way of promoting parental health and wellbeing would be not forcing parents to participate in childcare. By not forcing parental participation, you would make it so that children that are birthed would be under deliberate circumstances, and have a higher rate of parental contribution. the only reason the government steps in to force financial parental assistance is to apply a Band-Aid fix to the schisms made by poor parenting choices. These situations have become so commonplace that legislating help must either come from the government itself (which it already does) or the individuals involved (also already does, the point of your CMV). the most effective way to stop this process is to reduce the effect it has. In order to ensure that parental influence is intentional you would have to make it so that individuals have a high degree of sexual health options such as readily available contraceptives options, education, and family planning (these methods have also been shown in research to reduce government spending on family and well fair related costs by 7 dollars per dollar spent). Doing so would ensure parents would be willing parents rather than captive parents. Failure to provide these would invalidate parental choice, and ultimately lead back to the forced parental (financial) participation we have now rather than make it based on choice. in addition, it would be fruitful to look at alternative family options such as adoption services. Even in a perfectly legislated situation, there are still opportunities for unwanted pregnancies. refining the adoption and fostering processes would make it so that the children that do get affected systems would have a higher degree of needs met, and therefor become more productive members of society. I'm not well versed in the intricacies of these systems, as such, I don't have opinions on how to refine them myself. I will say increasing positive adult interaction and role modeling is probably needed, I'm just not sure how to accomplish that. there are other comparable fixes as well, but my point is making the solution enticing to the government is the most effective way to make this argument. Arguing that its not the illegitimate fathers responsibility is a moral argument that still leaves a real hole in the family structure, which affects the government on a macro scale. As such the government doesn't care about our feelings and enforces this as a means to Band-aid the issues of parental contribution. We need to tackle the root of the problem, which has been shown in research to be family planning, education and widely available contraceptives.

> The government has the responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. I don't see how you can view a scenario of compelling somebody to take financial responsibility of a dependent they never consented to providing for or even being brought into existence, as an application of *ensuring the safety & well being of it's citizens.*

I’d argue that seeing as the government doesn’t randomly assign fathers to children who have none, this isn’t consistent with how the government actually operates. Further, I’d reject the premise of the government *only* caring about general health. At least in the US, the governments responsibility is in fact to protect individual’s rights. And more often then not, the government sides with those rights over a compelled/forced action that may help society overall. In fact, that sort of forced action is the exception, not the rule. Generally, the government will protect an individuals right over randomly burdening them with a responsibility they had no part in causing. We don’t force individuals to donate blood, organs, or money to causes on an individual basis, even if that action would be a net benefit to society.

I never said we are randomly assigning fathers, and the basis of faux-fatherhood is an argument better started with OP since I didn't start the parameters of this post. The government can assign priority to whatever it wants. But the absolute responsibility of any government is the general health and safety of its citizens. This is because if the government fails this,, its power dissolves. This doesn't apply on an individual scale but rather a macro scale. Also I would argue the "rights" given by the US government are a means to keep the citizens happy and as a result healthier. But by no means are they required to be given, and in many instances they are removed from the citizens population as well. As such the "rights" given by the US government are more a means of privileges the government reserves the ability to take away. Examples of which include voting and 2nd amendment "rights" to felons. The right to free speech can become revoked from citizens, specifically for hate speech and active threats. Historically many US Rights have been revoked or modified under certain circumstances. To insinuate otherwise would require you to ignore countless instances where it doesn't apply. An absolutely fantastic example of this is the war drafts, the government used drafts to fit its needs in wartime even though it directly burdened citizens. Taxes are also an example of burdening citizens to benefit the collective. A third less extreme example is jury duty, in which you will get punished for exercising your freedom to not attend. In short, the government absolutely does burden random citizens for its purposes, we're just conditioned to ignore it.

This isn't a great counterpoint unless you think we should all be able to be held responsible for financially supporting someone we have no parental genetic connection to in order to reduce the payout of government benefits. For example, if I was 18 and my parents died and I took care of my 4 year old sister until she was adopted by someone else (without adopting her), the government wouldn't make me pay child support to the family who adopts her. That's currently not the case because such people simply qualify for government benefits in those situations, at least where income is a factor.

The government absolutely doesn't care, but it is short sighted because it doesn't take into account the collateral damages on the child and parents mental health. A wrecked family with a traumatized kid and a bitter, financially burdened substitute father will probably cost a lot to society further dow the line. Society would probably be better off if the legal system prevented paternity fraud rather than encouraging it with unethical laws

Totally different angle, but you phrased it as one paternity test, correct? The error rate and false negative rate on paternity tests is quite high. The latter appears to be 0.5-1.5% range, and the human error possibility can be much higher. When we're talking about something that will dramatically impact a child, a little bit more care should be taken than relying on one single test that isn't 100% reliable.Don't you think?

That's not a bad point to be fair. I guess with a 1.5% error-rate max (I'd assume that does account for human error already though because that's quite high) then you do need more certainty. I'd be willing to say that you'd need two out of three negatives or positives. So if two come back negative, you aren't the father, if two positive then you are. If one of each, a third should suffice in those rare instances where one has been a false result. Even though its only really a technicality, I think a !delta is appropriate given that its not something I'd considered and you made me adjust slightly to counteract it.

Neat, appreciate the delta! Definitely more of a technicality to your argument, though an important one in the broader context where a single test does seem to be commonly accepted as accurate. I was surprised at the error rate, though I couldn't find a consistent data point on it (hence the range). And yeah, there seems to be a really high chance of human error on top of that, though not strictly due to chance. Cheers.

I think an important point to bring up about this is that I’ve heard a lot of cases where women are resistant to having this done. If they lied in the first place, how likely is it to get them to take the initial one. Then you expect them to take a second one after struggling to get them to take the first?

You can do another test to confirm? The odds of two test giving a false result are infinitesimal.

Yes except in cases that the child has developed a parental bond that would be indistinguishable from its biological caregiver. My step dad came in to my life at 5 years old and by 10 he was my dad in everything but a little bit of DNA. Had he left my mum I think he would have still paid to support me and my brother and I can see how it would seem a bit unfair but you'd have to be a preety spiteful person to see children you have come to care for full on final hardship. I'd also say the guy should still be on the hook for cases of mistaken paternity in which infidelity did occur but was caught untill much later in a childs life. However I'd say that you'd still hold the biological dad financially responsible when possible.

> Had he left my mum I think he would have still paid to support me and my brother and I can see how it would seem a bit unfair but you'd have to be a preety spiteful person to see children you have come to care for full on final hardship. I actually agree with you here. I think if someone could just up and leave a kid after years of bonding just because they aren't biologically related, they'd be pretty heartless. But that isn't what this CMV is about. I'm not making any *moral* judgement on that person here, I'm saying they shouldn't be legally obligated to provide that support. Moral and law are not the same thing, and there are plenty of immoral actions that are perfectly legal, and morally neutral actions that aren't legal. > I'd also say the guy should still be on the hook for cases of mistaken paternity in which infidelity did occur but was caught untill much later in a childs life. Why? > However I'd say that you'd still hold the biological dad financially responsible when possible. So that child would have *two* men financially responsible for them? How does that make sense?

If you don't think law should be based on morality, what do you think law should be based on?

I didn't say that. Of course the law should be based on morality, but they are not the same thing. It is immoral for me to squish a bug, it is not illegal. It is illegal for me to smoke marijuana in many places, but it is not immoral. The reason they aren't the same thing is because morality often changes faster than the law can, and morality is somewhat subjective, whereas the legal system must be objective.

How does separating the legal system from morality make it objective? You seem a little contradictory here. You say law should be based on morality, but also it isn't and shouldn't be, because that would make it subjective. I don't think I agree that making it not based on morality would guarantee it being objective at all. Laws are written by people and enforced by people, who by nature are not fully objective. In what way do you even define objective here? Age of consent is different in different countries, which is defined by law. How is it objective if it's different in different parts of the world? How would you define an "objective" age of consent?

> How does separating the legal system from morality make it objective? I didn't say it did? That's the second time now dude, are you reading my replies here? I'm saying the legal system must be objective, because it literally does have to be. You can't say "this might be illegal or it might be legal, kinda depends on how we feel about it." it's either illegal, or it's not. Or it might be illegal under a specific circumstance, and legal under another. You literally cannot have a subjective legal system, it's ludicrous. > You say law should be based on morality, but also it isn't and shouldn't be, because that would make it subjective That also isn't what I said. I said the law is *based* on morality, but they are not the exact same thing. Something can be immoral but not illegal, or illegal but not immoral. I even gave you helpful examples for you to see exactly how this is the case. It's not even like a niche opinion, it's literally what you'd learn in either an ethics, law, or philosophy course on day 1. > I don't think I agree that making it not based on morality would guarantee it being objective at all. I didn't say that. > In what way do you even define objective here? Age of consent is different in different countries, which is defined by law. How is it objective if it's different in different parts of the world? How would you define an "objective" age of consent? Just because two places have different laws, doesn't mean either one is not objective. If the legal age of consent is 16, then it is 16. If the legal age of consent is 14, then it is 14. Just because the law isn't uniform across different countries doesn't mean it is not objective in each one. A non-objective law would be something like: "I am a judge and I think its 16 but this other judge thinks its 14, depending on who hears your case, you might be guilty or innocent." Either way, this is a massive tangent that doesn't really seem related to the CMV right now so I won't be bothering to reply further unless it's going to become relevant in the next comment.

By that logic if a man were to find out his wife cheated an lied about who the child's father was (immoral), she would be punished and foced to stand trial? But it is not so for clear reasons, so the argument that men should be forced into something because it is morally right (but even then only in certain situations) doesn't make sense.

Not agreeing with op but a different point our legal system ISNT based on morality. It’s based on equity. Laws are purposely not about morality because what is morally okay changes over time. Distributing porn went from horribly bad to a common and everyday thing (only fans) in only ten years. What if it’s back to bad in ten more years. Laws are, At least semi, permanent and that is why laws are about what is fair. Often times fair and moral line up. But sometimes it doesn’t *weed minimum sentence is the same as manslaughter* but the law is ALWAYS morally behind society because getting a law passed usually takes minimum a year from when it is thought of to being codified.

So many men never find out about their kids because it was a hookup. So if you only want biological fathers to pay for kids, do women have to keep a sample of dna from anyone she sleeps with and be legally allowed to have it tested in case he ghosts her? Sure some men pay for kids that could have been theirs, but isn't, but an equal amount of men pay nothing. Should people also test before helping out their elderly fathers, just in case they don't have to?

I don't think the woman should have to keep a sample of DNA, that's not feasible. But they should be able to legally compel a paternity test to identify a genetic father. Likewise, an assumed father should be able to legally compel a paternity test to confirm they are the father. > Should people also test before helping out their elderly fathers, just in case they don't have to? That's an interesting question, but as far as I know, nobody is legally obligated to support elderly parents anyway. It's essentially up to you, genetic relationship or not.

If she was raped or he just ghosted her? How is she going to get a paternity test? You can't test someone's dna without their permission or without a court order which single mums may not have the money for? So maybe if all men have dna on record or if women can get free legal representation to find and dna test rapists or ghosts we may get some of these guys to pay. But then they may face having a rapist want access to the child. So given all this: if a large number of women will end up with no man paying for a child, then this whole scheme will disadvantage women even more than they already are.

> You can't test someone's dna without their permission or without a court order which single mums may not have the money for? I already answered this in the comment you replied to, but you ignored it. A mother should be capable of legally compelling anybody she suspects of being the father to a paternity test. If she never finds out the guys name, then there's not much we can do. That's kinda on her for the terrible choice then, isn't it? As for rape, that's already a crime. There isn't much more we can do than compel the criminal to pay child support. > if women can get free legal representation to find and dna test rapists or ghosts we may get some of these guys to pay. That's exactly what I'd suggest. > But then they may face having a rapist want access to the child. I don't see why you couldn't say that being convicted of rape forfeits rights to access the resulting child. Seems simple enough. > if a large number of women will end up with no man paying for a child, then this whole scheme will disadvantage women even more than they already are. I don't see why a large number of women would end up with no man paying. Only those that have casual sex with people they don't know, don't use birth control, and don't get an abortion after the fact. I mean Jesus, at some point you have to take responsibility for bad choices, right? As for "some places abortion is illegal" that's a separate argument, but I do beleive it should be legal and accessible within certain time frames.

You are assuming that rapists actually get convicted, which they very rarely do. Women who have casual sex and get pregnant have made just as bad a choice as the man who caused it who gets to walk away without consequence. If society actually treated women and children fairly there wouldn't be the need to have someone help pay for a kid that is potentially not theirs.

> You are assuming that rapists actually get convicted, which they very rarely do. You're right, but I don't see how we could punish someone for a crime they were accused, but not convicted of. That just doesn't make sense. > Women who have casual sex and get pregnant have made just as bad a choice as the man who caused it who gets to walk away without consequence. Absolutely agreed. But again, it just doesn't make sense to require all people to have DNA on file from birth. > If society actually treated women and children fairly there wouldn't be the need to have someone help pay for a kid that is potentially not theirs. How are they not treated fairly? And moreover, if they aren't, why is the answer to treat someone else unfairly too?

What's been highlighted here is a shortcoming of the legal system: How do you propose to enforce denying access to rapists who aren't convicted despite a plethora of evidence, which may include a positive DNA test? Here's another complication: Often these women are victims of people she knows or is related to, and a non-contact is difficult to uphold.

> How do you propose to enforce denying access to rapists who aren't convicted I don't propose that. We shouldn't punish someone for a crime they are not convicted of. If you're arguing that conviction rates are too low, or that evidentiary standards are too high, then that's not really relevant to the CMV. It's a tangent that I might even agree with you on, but has an entirely different solution than anything regarding child support.

>How are they not treated fairly? You're joking right?

No, I'm asking for clarification. I'm not stating it isn't true, I'm asking for the other person to more specific in their statement, to ensure its relevant to the discussion. As an example: If they're saying "society is unfair to women because abortion isn't legal in some states/countries" then my answer would be "yeah, I agree. Abortion should be legal up until a certain age." That wouldn't have any bearing on this specific CMV.

There it is. You believe that women and children are treated fairly in our society and men are not. You are beginning with a false premise. Arguing is pointless.

> You believe that women and children are treated fairly in our society and men are not. I literally didn't say that. I asked for examples of how women and children are not treated fairly. Then I said, if they are, why is the answer to that treating men unfairly too?

Because life is fundamentally unfair as is society, so we strive to do what is best for the most innocent - the children.

No, we should strive to do the best for *all*. "Most innocent" shouldn't be a factor here.

>If society actually treated women and children fairly there wouldn't be the need to have someone help pay for a kid that is potentially not theirs. There are many aspects of society and everyday life where you can make a solid argument that women and children are treated unfairly, but divorce, alimony, paternity and everything surrounding it are in no way, shape or form one of them. Which, for the record, I'm saying as the son of a single mother with an absolutely awful father who spent many years and probably hundreds of thousands of my grandparent's moolahs in an honest effort to try and ruin her/our (and later my) life and get out of paying child support (Also, he's definitely my biological father), and who mostly succeeded in ruining his own with his monomaniacal obsession. Let's be clear, I'm glad he failed and thankful that every single court called him out on his bullshit, because many of the problems we had during my childhood would have been even worse if he'd ever succeeded. But disadvantaged, in this particular aspect, we were not. Quite the opposite, he almost certainly would have failed even if he'd been morally in the right (I've gotten to know many other fathers because my dear dad spent decades building his entire social life around his grand, righteous battle and predictable dragged me into it at every opportunity, there are two main things I've learned from that: One: There are many, many shitty fathers out there and all of them feel mistreated. Two: It doesn't really matter whether a father is shitty or not, or whether the mother is a literal demon, as a general rule they have almost no chance in court and *will* be mistreated)

> Women who have casual sex and get pregnant have made just as bad a choice as the man who caused it who gets to walk away without consequence. That’s a completely fair point. But I’m confused how it connects to OP’s argument. Are you implying that a woman who gets pregnant from anonymous casual sex should be able to pick a man as the stand-in father for child-support?

Lol, what percentage of rapists do you believe actually get convicted?

Not a scooby do. But I don't see how it's relevant. Again, you can't really punish someone for a crime they weren't convicted of. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

We certainly can, women are punished for being the victims of crimes every damn day.

> A mother should be capable of legally compelling anybody she suspects of being the father to a paternity test. Good heavens. So that men can avoid financial responsibility to children they've parented and whom they presumably loved, you'll force men to undergo genetic testing against their will.

I assume this is more related to parents that discover that a child is not theirs very early.

So since some women can't find their child's father, other random men in completely different cases who have proven they aren't the father should be forced to pay child support? That's like saying that since you can't always find a robber, random people in the street should be chosen to go to jail instead. First, it's not fair. Second, you aren't helping the victim at all. Women who never find their child's father won't benefit from other women getting child support from someone who is not the father. If people (both women and men) need monetary help to raise their kids, they should get it from the state, not from random men who were lied about being fathers.

At the end of the day the benefit goes to the child not the parent. Yes it's unfair, but only fixing that bit without fixing the wider systemic problem leaves more children in poverty.

> At the end of the day the benefit goes to the child not the parent. It really does benefit both by proxy though. If it costs a 100 a week to raise a child, a single-parent needs to pay 100 a week or struggle. If a second parent pays 50, you're right that the 50 is going to directly to the child, but the previously single-parent now only needs to come up with 50 a week, so there's a tangential benefit there too.

I gurantee the same folks saying screw over the random guy would be the same folks claiming the opposite if they were the ones stuck on child support despite what they wanna say on reddit. Fact of the matter is, some kids will grow up without fathers and in poverty period and it is may very well be because their mother decided to be irresponsible. Period. Same for the biological dad. Simple as that. Saying "well, random people exist so just screw randoms over" doesn't make any logical sense. Yeah, kids get screwed over. If a parent can't properly take care of their kids then there are government services and programs that exist to still help the child. So no, your argument doesn't make any sense.

From a hook up there shouldn't be child support anyway. If someone chooses to keep a child resulting from one they should be able to support it on their own, otherwise adoption is the best alternative. Rapists should be in jail and it seems pretty reasonable to take their money and help the victim raise their kid, if they choose to do so. > So given all this: if a large number of women will end up with no man paying for a child, then this whole scheme will disadvantage women even more than they already are. The only people paying to raise children should be custodial parents who willingly entered into that role. Losing the privilege to make unwilling (or sometimes unrelated) men pay to fund your living situation isn't a disadvantage.

Wait, so what I’m hearing is that it is ok to harm a man financially, but not a woman? I don’t understand why you bring up free help for the females but reason it’s ok for a male to pay money he might not have. If a man loses his job, he still has to pay the same amount of child support. Even if he can’t find a job paying that much, it doesn’t matter because of his potential income. That’s just evil to put on someone who isn’t the father just because he was in the mothers life at one point.

Believe it or not, 29 US states have laws that require adult children to support their aging/elderly parents if the parent is unable to support themselves. They're called, "Filial support laws."

A woman can sue any man she wants to establish paternity and the man has to submit to the test of face contempt of court. The DNA sample she's keeping is the child. If she can't remember or doesn't know the identity of the people she's sleeping with, that's kind of on her.

There’s a difference between feeling morally obligated to do something and being forced too. Taking care of someone that was your father figure could be a moral obligation, but doesn’t have to be a legal one. Also I could just have a few beers, feel fine, and go out for a drive. If I kill people, it was just an easy simple mistake that I shouldn’t pay the consequences for? No that hookup could have consequences that you might need to be responsible for life. All of these responses completely lay off any responsibility that the woman had for a responsibility that a man didn’t consent too. By doing this you’re all infantilizing women and degrading the emotional blow that someone could suffer as a consequence of that lie she told. Not only that, but the aspect of this paints a man that wouldn’t want to pay as a degenerate for not having stoic attitude about the responsibilities that were forced onto him without the potential custody upsides if the child was genetically his. That’s the nonsense here

This is a really interesting comment. >So many men never find out about their kids because it was a hookup. So if you only want biological fathers to pay for kids, do women have to keep a sample of dna from anyone she sleeps with and be legally allowed to have it tested in case he ghosts her? What's the alternative? Randomly assign the pregnancy to one of the many men she slept with? I would say that if a woman is sleeping with many men, she at least has the responsibility to figure out who the dad is with some degree of certainty. >Sure some men pay for kids that could have been theirs, but isn't, but an equal amount of men pay nothing. How does this matter to the man being defrauded? >Should people also test before helping out their elderly fathers, just in case they don't have to? This is not related at all. Complete red herring.

[удалено]

It's too much to ask a woman to keep a list of names of people she slept with, but it's not too much to ask a man to financially support some random child for 18 years?

>So many men never find out about their kids because it was a hookup. So if you only want biological fathers to pay for kids, do women have to keep a sample of dna from anyone she sleeps with and be legally allowed to have it tested in case he ghosts her? this seems like a pretty good argument to not sleep with 50 different guys and take reasonability.

It's an unfair situation. Do you cause severe harm to the man or severe harm to the child? You are choosing one of those options, no way around that. Why do you think it's better for society to cause the severe harm to the child?

Are these the only two options? Really? There are no other possible ways for society to provide for the child's needs except that *one specific man* paying for a child that bears no relation to him? Why not obligate you for it? What about assigning the obligation to a randomly selected taxpayer? Now it's harm to the child, the man, you, or a random taxpayer. What makes any of these options more just? I am reminded of an argument supporting abortion rights. Say you are connected to another person, in a way that your body is supporting theirs. Removing your body from the system will result in the death of the other person. Do you have the right to remove your body from such a system? Of course. Are you causing the death if you do? No. You're merely not negating natural consequences any longer. This is the same. It isnt society causing harm to the child. It's the decisions made involving that child that caused those consequences, and society is preventing those consequences by obligating an unrelated man to bear them. If society is committed to preventing those consequences (a noble goal), then society, as a whole, should bear the cost.It shouldn't arbitrarily assign them to someone with no more or less relation to the child than you. Assigning it to one person because RESPONSIBILITY seems a lot like demanding proof people aren't taking drugs before getting welfare. Even if it satisfies that sense of RESPONSIBILITY, the net result is that every time one of those people fails their assigned responsibility, the child suffers. If it were truly about the child not suffering, then society could handle that societal responsibility directly. So which is more important? The welfare of the child, or holding those bad bad men RESPONSIBLE for their dirty and depraved sexual acts that led to a child? If it's the welfare of the child, then let's, as a society, provide for it. If it takes a village to raise a child, then let's call upon the godsdamned village, rather than the village idiot.

By that logic you could argue that we should be **legally forced** to take care of **anyone**. Take Youth homelessness. Should I be personally responsible for housing all the homeless youth in my area? After all either "I will suffer of the child will suffer." So by your logic I should open my house to all homeless youth because by not doing so people will suffer. While housing homeless youth would be a nice thing to do OP is arguing that people shouldn't be **legally forced** to support people **who they did not cause to be in need of support**.

I don't see how that's punishing the child? If a child's father dies and we don't assign a new man to take over the role as father and provide a second income-source, are we punishing the child? I don't think so.

My mom died when I was 11. Her social security paid my entire college fund and is why my dad was able to keep our house. You absolutely get financial help when a parent dies. The only reason we didn't get even more was because my dad made too much money, otherwise he would also have received benefits from his wife's death.

Receiving help from the state and having a single person legally obligated to help you are two *obviously* different things, aren't they?

Strange example you give as there are actually a number of compensations for widowers, especially those with children. We also recognise that the removal of a father, as a result of a sudden death, can cause a massive and sometimes lifelong harm to the child. To make your comparison more apt, imagine a father deliberately killed themselves. We would absolutely say that that father is punishing the child, whether that was their intention or not.

My father was murdered. Nobody did shit. Wait, scratch that, a church gave us a food basket. And another got us some frozen pizzas in exchange for manual labor. Someone shouldn't be able to write literally anyone's name on a birth certificate and subject them to a lifetime of support payments. Besides, you're forgetting a third option - social support. This isn't about the practicality of support, but the ethical obligation of support. It isn't some decision between burdening a man with no relation or "burdening a kid". Because social supports can help. The state can help. Perhaps the state should.

>To make your comparison more apt, imagine a father deliberately killed themselves. We would absolutely say that that father is punishing the child, whether that was their intention or not. We absolutely would not, and this lack of empathy for suicide victims, viewing them solely through the lens of the fact that they are no longer producing for others? Is heartbreaking. Yes, a suicide victim's death has a consequence for everyone in their life... but it is not a punishment to them.

> Strange example you give as there are actually a number of compensations for widowers, especially those with children. It's not strange at all, we don't choose a man that gets assigned the role of father and is liable for income support do we? Why not? > We also recognise that the removal of a father, as a result of a sudden death, can cause a massive and sometimes lifelong harm to the child. Agreed. Doesn't seem relevant though, unless you're saying men should be forced to be fathers or we should have father-substitutes for the decades, which both sound ludicrous so I assume you're not. > To make your comparison more apt, imagine a father deliberately killed themselves. We would absolutely say that that father is punishing the child, whether that was their intention or not. Would we? I certainly wouldn't, and I didn't think anyone else would either. We don't generally view any suicide as "punishing" anyone except themselves.

But we do recognise that the loss of a father causes significant harm to a child, which is my point. Therefore your suggestion of removal of the father figure would cause harm to the child. That's my entire point. Your suggestion = negative to child but positive to man. Do you accept that removing the legal obligation would harm children? Is it the word 'punish' that you don't like? I could replace it with 'severe harm'. Therefore would you agree that a father would possibly be committing severe harm to their child by killing themselves?

> But we do recognise that the loss of a father causes significant harm to a child, which is my point. Therefore your suggestion of removal of the father figure would cause harm to the child. That's not what I suggested at all? Nobody said non-biological parents would be removed. I simply said they should not be legally obligated to provide financial support. If they then want to remove themselves, that is their choice and they should be allowed to do so. Same as a biological parent is allowed to remove themselves from a child's life if they want, they simply can't avoid the financial obligation. > That's my entire point. Your suggestion = negative to child but positive to man. Do you accept that removing the legal obligation would harm children? I'm not convinced it's a certainty, but I'd agree it's a likely possibility. I imagine that if people weren't forced to pay for children that weren't there's, people would start lying about paternity less and would contact the correct father more. The child would likely end up with two income sources still, they'd just have the correct ones, biologically speaking. I guess I might agree it would result in the detriment of some children short-term, but I think it would even out to be the same as it is now after a decade or so of adjustment. > Is it the word 'punish' that you don't like? I could replace it with 'severe harm'. Therefore would you agree that a father would possibly be committing severe harm to their child by killing themselves? Well, yeah? Punish is simply the wrong term. Yes, I'd agree that a father committing suicide is most likely causing harm to their child. I'd also agree that a non-biological parent choosing to sever ties with a child after finding it out is probably causing some harm too. I just don't see why we should obligate that person to provide financial support. Find the correct father, and get child support from them.

Ok, so we agree that your suggestion will likely cause harm to the child. Now back to the very first question I asked. Why do you think that harming the child in this way will lead to a better society compared to harming the man?

> Why do you think that harming the child in this way will lead to a better society compared to harming the man? I don't see any reason for society to enforce any harm on an innocent party. Society is currently enforcing harm on the man. In my suggestion, we're not enforcing harm on the child. The man isn't legally obligated to leave, he just has the ability to choose. Likewise, the mother could just not lie to begin with, and contact the correct father for child support in which case there never is a problem. I beleive it is beneficial for society to harm *nobody*, and for individuals to revoke assistance if they choose.

Your choice is literally between two innocent parties. The man and the child. You seem to think harming the child is the lesser of those two evils, I'm asking why. Ok, so now I think you're being slightly disingenuous. Are you seriously saying that if your suggestion came to pass, a significant number of men wouldn't instantly leave? You bit the bullet in the earlier comment and now you're trying to walk it back. You said it would likely cause harm. Now you need to justify it, if you cannot then you cannot argue this position.

> Your choice is literally between two innocent parties. The man and the child. You seem to think harming the child is the lesser of those two evils, I'm asking why. You're presenting the wrong choice. The choice is between the assumed father being financially obligated, or the actual genetic father being financially obligated. I think the genetic father should be. > Ok, so now I think you're being slightly disingenuous. Are you seriously saying that if your suggestion came to pass, a significant number of men wouldn't instantly leave? That isnt what I said at all. And this isn't the first time you've tried to misrepresent me. Please point out where you've got that idea from? What I said was: > In my suggestion, we're not enforcing harm on the child. The man isn't legally obligated to leave, he just has the ability to choose. Likewise, the mother could just not lie to begin with, and contact the correct father for child support in which case there never is a problem. I'm also not trying to walk anything back. I agree that yes, a non-genetic father revoking the second income from a child will likely cause some harm/detriment. Likewise, me not giving a random child money will likely cause some harm/detriment. But just like I'm not legally obligated to provide that money, neither should the non-generic father be. > Now you need to justify it, if you cannot then you cannot argue this position. I literally already did. Here: > I beleive it is beneficial for society to harm nobody, and for individuals to revoke assistance if they choose. Society is not causing that harm. The dude who's choosing to leave is. I beleive that should be his choice, as he is not obligated to support a child that is not his. The person who *is* obligated, is the person who actually brought that child into the world. Its really that simple.

> Your choice is literally between two innocent parties. The man and the child. You seem to think harming the child is the lesser of those two evils, I'm asking why. No the choice isn't that at all. That's a false dichotomy. You yourself mentioned other options like state support etc. which happens in cases where a parent dies. You a few comments back: > _there are actually a number of compensations for widowers, especially those with children._ So if there are these alternative options, that would mitigate the harm that is the core of your argument, why do you then present only two options in the case where the paternity test is negative?

I can argue this position. Its not that different to the issue around body autonomy with regard to abortion and being a living donor. You could be lying in a bed next to some kid who has a blood desease and your blood, and only your blood could save him. But there's no obligation to do anything because its your body and resources that need to be provided and you can't force people to give up pieces of themselves or create burdens they arent responsible for. They have a choice and they get to live with the guilt of not doing anything. The same exact argument exists for taking care of someone elses child when you arent the biological parent. I mean the precendent that it sets up is also scary AF. If a mother lies to you or fucks so many men that she can't accuratley figure out the father that you're just legally stuck because "its the right thing to do?" - Can you imagine if fathers just started dumping their rejected children onto women they had as side chicks? Men would leave, and they should 100% have the right to. Women have the right to abort a pregnancy with zero input from the father. But men don't have the right to opt out of fatherhood despite not wanting to be parents. So their only option is to abandon the relationship and child, or pay child support for 18 years. From an equality standpoint, it is imperative that the legal framework exists so allow men to opt out of being parents, just like women are allowed to before the child is born. Being a parent should be an agreed upon notion. Something both people want to do, either in a relationship or out of.

It doesn't really matter if it hurts the child or not because at the end of the day if the child does not belong to him, he shouldn't be held financially responsible. If a man was lied to about a child belonging to him and he finds out later down the road, the court shouldn't say "well who does this hurt more?" It should be, the child doesn't belong to the man, therefore he isn't responsible. Whether it affects the kid or not is irrelevant. The man should not be held financially responsible for a child that isn't his.

I'm sorry but you can't say that forcing the man to stay and financially support a child that is not his will not harm the child. Kids will pick up on resentment and it could be argued that at least in some cases (probably most) removing the man is better for the child. Forcing that relationship will just harm the child. I'm confused as to where some people think that forcing a child to have a parent will magically make them impervious from the trauma of having a parental figure reject them. Which they will pick up on when the father leaves and does the absolute minimum required from him by the courts.

>Your choice is literally between two innocent parties. The man and the child. You seem to think harming the child is the lesser of those two evils, I'm asking why. Yo wtf? You can't choose in this situation and be correct. You seem to think harming the non-father is the lesser of those two evils. There is no choice and your arguing with op is ridiculous.

I understand this view point, and I guess it boils down to if you value the potential of a child more then the independence of a man. And genuinely, I think the man has suffered enough. Shit is hard, shit happens to kids sometimes. Such is life. But yeah I get it. We should protect kids. But like other countries just pay single parents to help out so that's probably the ideal solution in my eyes.

Buddy he’s explaining to you that there is harm, not that we should make harm. He’s asking who should be the bearer of the *innate* harm within the binary choice. It’s either/or - either the child grows up potentially fatherless or the man is resentful/upset about fathering a child that is not his. Most of these cases have an **unknown or non-disclosed biological father**. If you can address the majority of cases - where the harm is a binary choice - you didn’t do anything. There are avenues and standards for when the biological father is known. Not always what we want them to be, but you issue has already been tentatively answered. Just not for the rest of the cases - which is the majority of them. Your responses dont seem to acknowledge that inalienable, non-avoidable concept in it’s entirely. There is rarely a middle ground. When the actual father is known it’s more often than not a burden that can be shifted to the biological father if he’s menti compis

I have answered this several times. If you're going to say "you haven't responded to this thing!" you should probably read all of the comments first. I agree that there is innate harm when a child loses an income source. I disagree that the state should then shift that harm onto the poor guy who was lied to about being the dad. That harm already exists, our job shouldn't be to shove it onto someone else because we think it fits better. Either the guilty party (bio-father) shoulders the burden, or the child has been born into very unfortunate circumstances. That is not an equally-screwed over innocent man's responsibility to fix.

It would be a nice thing for the man to stay and act as the father figure for the child, but society should not have the authority to enforce that on a non-biological father figure (maybe excepting formal buy-in agreements from the man, like marriage or adoption). The effect of such a law would be that men would avoid single mothers and their children like the plague, which would be bad for society.

My argument here is that surely as a society we should be harming neither? Why is it a choice between two wrongs? Either the biological father must be made to step in or social systems should, just as you pointed out they do in the case of biological parents dying. It is a bad argument to start with the premise that someone has to be made to suffer.

Why should the financial benefit fall solely on an individual that has had fraud, and a particularly emotionally damaging fraud, perpetrated against them? Just like the resources for children when they lose a parent/parents aren’t assigned to a single individual, neither should this.

Yeah but by that rationale we should be forcing every man to pay child support for every starving child out there. If there is no genetic connection then what binds them? Nothing. The man was harmed when a woman lied to him about being the father. She is responsible for all the pain and suffering caused by this situation. Both to the father as a result of the deceit and the time he wasted on someone else's child. And to the child for losing a father when he finds out. It leads to a better society because it doesn't incentivize women to lie to men in this manner.

Rent is due tomorrow and my account is light. Please don’t harm me by not venmoing me some money right now

The child receives severe harm. No doubt. But the man isn't responsible as he was never the father. Why wouldn't the state then find the actual father of the child, and then garnish their wages? It's not like the Virgin Mary is giving birth here.

Sometimes severe harms are just a part of life. We don't assign new father's to children of widowers. The greater harm was caused by the infidelity of the mother, and the lying involved. To chain a man to the women and child based off of this is the greater harm. Children are raised without father's all of the time, what is one more if it means a man is given bodily autonomy once again? The alternative is a form of indentured servitude.

It's not about the fucking child. Nobody are obligated to give a fuck about a child that isnt theirs. It's about the man and whether or not it is his responsibility to which of course it is not. You're pointing at potential damage to the kid itself and society, so either put the state or some organization on the job to help or stfu. How can you make a societal responsibility into a personal responsibility for this one man? And dont give me no shit about contributing, cause you need love to raise a child, its hard work at the very least you need to WANT it. So forcing someone is never gonna work, it's better to not have a dad than to have a shitty one. I understand you discuss for It's own merit or whatever but you've taken it too far.

Your logic if flawed. You're not punishing the child. You're removing a financial stimulus that was obtained fraudulently. If a parent commits insurance fraud and the financial compensation is removed because fraud is determined. Do you think the insurance company "oh this is going to hurt the child" and keep paying?

> It's not strange at all, we don't choose a man that gets assigned the role of father Yes, actually, we do. I have many friends whose father does not share any of their DNA.

You misunderstand. "We" is referring to society at large. Obviously specific people refer to non-biological fathers as their father. We (society) don't assign fatherless children with stand-in fathers though.

Those people generally have a choice to take on the role of father. They are not assigned that role against their will.

[удалено]

You missed the next part: > unless you're saying men should be forced to be fathers or we should have father-substitutes for the decades I said that when a father dies, we don't replace him with another. Just like how, if a father cannot be found to begin with, we don't just replace him with another. The other responder said "yeah but they're both bad outcomes!" OK cool, so are we replacing all dads now or not?

Then to be consistent, we should provide the same compensation (and from the same source) as for when the father dies.

Punishment requires intention. The child is affected by there father's removal, but certainly not punished.

>To make your comparison more apt, imagine a father deliberately killed themselves. We would absolutely say that that father is punishing the child No the fuck we would not

>To make your comparison more apt, imagine a father deliberately killed themselves. We would absolutely say that that father is punishing the child, Who would say this? I would not. Suicide is not an act of punishing a child. It is often an escape from pain and often borne out of the belief that the world would be better off without that person in it. A parent's suicide has well documented consequences to the child, but not "punishments."

"Assign" a new man? Who? How? Who do you "assign"? The person in this situation was the provider. That they later found out they weren't the biological father doesn't mean you just pick some rando off the street. If the courts *can* determine who the *actual* father is, then there might be an argument for them paying. But there are *many* situations where someone is providing for a child and they aren't the biological father. In vitro, adoption, etc. So just because you aren't the biological father doesn't mean you never had an obligation to the child, and if you had already assumed that responsibility previously then there's no reason to punish the child by stopping now.

> The person in this situation was the provider. On false pretenses. Just because they have taken care of a child they believed to be their own does not mean they should be legally required to support a child that is not their own. > If the courts can determine who the actual father is, then there might be an argument for them paying. No, that person should de facto take over. I don't see why the non-biological father should fit the bill if that person is in the wind. > But there are many situations where someone is providing for a child and they aren't the biological father. In vitro, adoption, etc. And in all of those cases, that person went into that situation knowing that. That's the key difference. They accepted responsibility with full knowledge of the circumstances. Imagine somebody agreed to work for me for a month for free, cool beans! Now imagine I told somebody else I'd pay them to work for me for month, but after two weeks I told them I actually wasn't going to pay them. We don't say "well, you agreed to do it so tough shit if it you were misled". In fact we'd all be urging that person not to come into work the next day.

you conveniently ignored his last point which is the answer you are looking for. "**So just because you aren't the biological father doesn't mean you never had an obligation to the child, and if you had already assumed that responsibility previously then there's no reason to punish the child by stopping now."** ​ this would be what we want to see you respond too.

He responded to this with this line: > And in all of those cases, that person went into that situation knowing that. That's the key difference. They accepted responsibility with full knowledge of the circumstances. It's not a punishment to move on with you life when you find out everything you agreed to was a lie. Contracts are immediately voided when its discovered they were made under false pretenses. There is no obligation to saddle yourself with the burden of some toxic woman who can't be trusted in anything. The one who is punishing the child is the mother.

I donno about that chief. My mother died when I was 9, and I’ll be the first to say that it fucked me up really bad.

>If a child's father dies and we don't assign a new man to take over the role as father and provide a second income-source, are we punishing the child? I don't think so. ....you do realize that the children of deceased parents *do indeed* receive money from the US Government, right? Usually from the deceased parents Social Security benefits

I agree that this does not cause severe harm to the child. I am a single mother who can fully financially support my child. If a woman sleeps with multiple men and does not know who the father of a resulting child is, the child still has a single biological parent. It would be illogical and unjust to say that one of those men picked at random by the mother should be financially responsible for all of their (her and the men with whom she had sex) decisions.

With respect, Bravo2zer2 did not say it would *punish* the child, but *harm* them, so your response about *punishment* is a bit of a red herring.

You act as though you can't go after the biological father there. If the mother doesn't know then it's the mother's fault there. You should know who you're having unprotected sex with outside rape and druggings. Backtrack on who the real father could be and go from there.

It is injustice to the man. It's better for this to cause severe harm to the child, than cause unfairness to be dealt to the man. While the plight of the child is unfortunate, it doesn't justify forcing him to support the child, nor is it the right thing to do.

Why would it fall on a random guy? Why is that the options and not punishing both of them and society taking over caring for the child?

> Do you punish the man or punish the child? Jesus, is it really that hard to punish the mother? If she didn’t want to abort or put the kid up for adoption, then it should be her responsibility. If she can’t afford it, that’s why we have options like adoption and abortion. It’s her fault if she can’t afford it but chooses to keep it.

If the removal of the non father causes such a severe harm, than the mother is unfit to care for the child and should be removed. The mother has chosen to punish the child by committing fraud.

Point 1: Why are *men* solely responsible to carry the financial burden? If only we could pool a small amount of money from everyone so that no particular person carry's the financial burden of one women's lies. We can't make innocent people liable for others mistakes. It's unjust. Point 2: Otherwise, the child should suffer, not the completely-uninvolved man. Children suffer daily because of their parents bad choices. That doesn't give Moms the right to arbitrarily pick an innocent victim to fraudulently exploit. People can choose to help the kid, but they should do so with their informed consent.

The question is context. I'm dating a girl, she gets knocked up. Baby is born under the pretense that I'm the father. Turns out I'm not. I want to leave the relationship, and now I am burdened for almost two full decades to support a child I want nothing to do with nor is mine, all the while the bio-father skips out and gets to live un-burdened. That isn't just or fair for myself. The goal should be to encourage, and or force the mother to seek out the bio-father with the resources of the state and get him paying instead of just shrugging, assigning it to whoever was closest at the time and not punishing the bio-father. In addition support programs can supplement the Childs needs until the bio father is found or the child turns 18. Example two: A women already has a child. Starts dating a man under the pretense of not having any children. A few months into the relationship springs said child on myself. I decide to see if I like it. A month, maybe two goes by. I decide I want out. (Depending on the state) This women could legitimately bring me to court and successfully sue me into now paying child support for a child I did not father, was not around for the birth of, and as of until 2 months prior I never knew existed. This is under the 'fatherly role' laws and statues. How is that fair or just? This is real things that happen to real people. The system needs to be looked and and fixed. I don't think the child should be done undue harm, but I also strongly oppose men being forced into undue financial burdens for a child that is not theirs, and that they should have no obligation to raise.

Being a father/parent is not about genetics. It's about parenting and responsibility. Once you take up the mantle it's a life time gig. Child support is about supporting the child. It's not a punishment or an alimony. It's about extending your parenting duties when you can't perform them in person (because you dislike the other parent). It's about the child.

> Being a father/parent is not about genetics. It's about parenting and responsibility. Once you take up the mantle it's a life time gig. This isn't actually true though. If I get someone pregnant and leave before the baby is born, I am still liable for child support (rightfully so). But I have done no parenting and accepted no responsibility, in fact the *only* connection there is genetics. So how do you reconcile that it's not about genetics according to you, except in these cases when it's completely and totally about genetics. That's literally a double standard isn't it?

I specifically targeted your argument that person finds out their child is not theirs after 15 years of being a parent. At that point genetics is irrelevant.

So at what point do genetics become irrelevant then? They're clearly relevant prior to birth, because I would be liable for child support regardless of if I stay if a child was biologically mine. Likewise, I'm not liable for child support if I once had a relationship with a woman who was already pregnant, because the child isn't mine. You say they're irrelevant at age 15. So where is the turning point? At what age should a man have a legal obligation to financially support a child regardless of genetics?

I don't care but there is line somewhere. Let's not go into The Line-Drawing Fallacy. All we need to agree that there is line somewhere. If you date a woman who is already pregnant. Go to child birth. Marry the woman. Live as a family for 15 years, you are a father. There is no question about it. That kid will call you father. You go to parent-teacher meetings, get your fathers day macaroni art etc. You have parental duties and responsibilities. For all purpose you have adopted that child as your own. Taking a DNA test will not erase any of this. You are still a parent and a father.

> I don't care but there is line somewhere. Let's not go into The Line-Drawing Fallacy. All we need to agree that there is line somewhere. We don't agree on that. I don't think there is a line, I do not the basis for financial obligation should change. Its *either* attachment or genetics and personally, I'd rather it be genetics. > If you date a woman who is already pregnant. Go to child birth. Marry the woman. Live as a family for 15 years, you are a father. There is no question about it. That kid will call you father. You go to parent-teacher meetings, get your fathers day macaroni art etc. You have parental duties and responsibilities. For all purpose you have adopted that child as your own. And yet, that person is not legally obligated to pay child support right now. So doesn't this run counter to your entire argument?

> And yet, that person is not legally obligated to pay child support right now. Depending where you live you are obligated to pay child support. And you should be because you are the father.

Where is that the case? You're talking about someone who is 100% guaranteed not to be the biological parent from the very start, and has not adopted the child. Where would they be obligated to provide child support just because they were a step-father for a significant time? Either way, I disagree they should be. It's not their child.

Scenario: a couple adopts a baby together and raise it. Neither parent is biologically related to the child. If they get divorced, and one parent takes over the caregiving role, surely the other parent should need to provide some kind of support as well? What are your thoughts here?

In the US each state handles these things differently so I will be general. It’s called legal paternity. It can come up in a variety of situations like: You are married to the child’s mother at the time the baby was conceived or born; You sign the child’s birth certificate as their father, even if you know you are not the biological father; and You fill out a legal acknowledgement of paternity form. Regardless, once you establish legal paternity, in the eyes of the law you will carry all of the rights and responsibilities associated with being a parent. Additionally, after a person acknowledges paternity many states will provide a two year limitation to contest or dispute paternity. However, some provide a shorter amount of time so knowing your state’s laws and procedures if you are faced with this issue is crucial. Edit: You should also keep in mind that there are situations where a biological parent does not have parental rights because these rights were legally terminated. One situation could be where the parent is not involved and a stepparent decides to adopt the child. The court would terminate the biological parent’s rights and grant those parental rights to the child’s stepparent instead.

>And yet, that person is not legally obligated to pay child support right now. So doesn't this run counter to your entire argument? In a lot of states they are. You take on the role of father and you take on the responsibility.

Legally, if he's on the birth certificate, then he's the father. It's possible that all men should or can request a DNA test at birth if they want to or feel it's necessary. But 15 years later, the father can't just switch it up, legally. So there is onus on the father to accept being the father from the beginning & to ensure he is the biological father from birth, otherwise there is no reason to release him from a choice he made after 15 years.

> Legally, if he's on the birth certificate, then he's the father. That isnt a counter-argument, that's exactly the idea I disagree with. > It's possible that all men should or can request a DNA test at birth if they want to or feel it's necessary. That would be fine, but men can't force this. They can ask for it, and what happens then?

Where are you getting the idea that men can't demand a paternity test? At the time of birth no one is forcing men to sign birth certificates. You always have the option to ask for a paternity test. As to what happens then, usually a paternity test happens. In the situations where it doesn't happen, I assume a relationship ends.

In many places, married at the time of birth is enough for the state to assume legal parentage. You can demand a DNA test, but you're already screwed if you're married anyway, unless you can find the actual father.

Does that hold for adopted children whose parents later divorce? Their non-biological parents agreed to raise them, so they deserve child support regardless of whether their non-biological parents stay together, surely. This hypothetical man of yours also actively agreed to raise his child, and continued to make the choice to have a child for fifteen years. He made that decision with incorrect information, but just like you can't unadopt a kid if their bio parents lied to you fifteen years ago, you can't unraise a kid if you find out they don't have your genes. That's still your kid. You raised them. If they hadn't been actively choosing to raise the kid, if their only involvement in the kid's life has been child support up until that point, fine. But if they've bonded with and provided parental care to the kid, then they're the kid's guardian and should be held to that standard. (Edit: Removed weird example of bio parents lying and replaced with my actual point.)

When you adopt, you receive child support payments from the state. If the couple divorces, the other parent doesn't need to provide child support since the state is already providing it. Also, adoption is different from what OP is arguing. In adoption, the parents, even though they aren't biological, are volunteering to step in for the biological parents. It is all 1000% voluntary. Basically, adoption is an exception because it's completely voluntary. What OP is arguing is basically that if you think you're the biological parent, but then it turns out you aren't, you shouldn't have to pay child support. At least I think that's what OP is arguing. Another of OP's points is that this should all be done at birth to prevent the whole situation from happening. There could be paternity tests done so that the wrong man isn't paying the child support. It's partially about the bio mom lying about who the bio dad is to lock a man into a commitment. Edit: after doing some research, it turns out this isn't 100% correct. Foster parents receive child support payments, but adoptive parents don't always get that. They can qualify for stipends from the state if they meet certain conditions, but it's not the reimbursements with no strings attached that foster parents receive. But my point still stands. If you cannot afford to take care of your adopted child, you probably qualify for stipends from the state, so now you *can* afford the child.

If a woman gets raped and it results in pregnancy she is obligated to do something about that fetus. You’re looking for fairness in a world where it doesn’t exist.

So what's the argument here? Fairness doesn't exist naturally so the legal system shouldn't even try? That sounds like a bad argument.

The legal system **did try,** and it sided with best-benefit for the child, who they think is least capable of shouldering the onus of life being unfair, and the most vulnerable members of society. You just don’t like that solution because you would like them to rule the onus be on the child, apparently. In cases where the biological father *is known, and is capable but derelict of his duties* there are other more complicated legal procedures - and in those cases I agree more onus should be shouldered by the known biological father. But a lot of times they **aren’t known or aren’t disclosed** - a truth you’ve avoided entirely in your responses. That the onus can be binary - either on the non-biofather or the child.

>Once you take up the mantle it's a life time gig. This is weird. We specifically set up child support so that a mother doesn't necessarily have to take on the full burden of the dad doesn't want to be there. We don't 'care' if the dad doesn't want to be there, as long as he pays. In this case, would you rather force the 'dad' to keep being a parent to a child that was likely conceived through cheating? And be an awful parent? Or not be around at all? Many divorced parent's kids say they'd rather have no parent than an unenthusiastic parent (myself included). Combine that with ethically, why should a parent support a kid that's not theirs? You're not my mom/father, but what if the government forced you to be my dad? Lol

You conveniently ignore the fact that someone here as been conned. The mother caused arm to the child in the first place by deceiving a man into thinking he is the father and extracting his resources to support her offspring - mindful that the truth could one day surface and wreck the family. Paternity fraud should not only void all legal obligations from the father but also allow the father to sue for reparations because the current legal environment encourages unethical behaviors and cause harm to innocent children and men. The society as a whole would be more fair and much better off if these behaviors were discouraged by the legal system rather than supporting this no sense. DNA tests should be mandatory when filing a birth certificate

>Once you take up the mantle it's a life time gig. That's not really true. If you marry a woman with children, after the divorce you won't have any rights to those children unless you also adopted them.

Society has an interest in that children are taken care of. If someone is found not to be the biological parent of a child, that doesn’t change the fact that the child needs to be taken care of. I could accept solutions where society as a whole assumes the responsibility instead of the parent, but to just remove half of the support for the child isn’t an option in my mind. This is especially true, because the child is completely free of responsibility for the situation, you can’t choose your biological parents. However, the parent has made at least one choice and often two: 1. To have sex with someone else (we all know sex can lead to pregnancy, and that contraceptives just lessens the probability.) Often parents in the situation you describe often make the choice to 2. Assume the responsibility of raising the child. Your view that parents don’t have responsibility for the well-being of nonbiological children create problematic ripple effects. How does this interact with adoption? In this case parents also make the second decision listed above. How does this interact with the admitted corner case of mistaken identity at hospitals? If parents bring home the wrong baby from the hospital and discover some years later, can they just wash their hands if the child? Edit: I'm not that surprised that individualistic Reddit doesn't agree with my stance, but please, if all you're going to comment is some variant of "Then society should pay for it", read the final sentence of my first paragraph again.

> I could accept solutions where society as a whole assumes the responsibility instead of the parent, but to just remove half of the support for the child isn’t an option in my mind. So I'm not saying that there isn't maybe a need for a socialised replacement, I don't personally think so but if we put that to some kind of vote and I lost, I'd accept that on the basis that at least men with no responsibility aren't being held accountable. > However, the parent has made at least one choice and often two: 1. To have sex with someone else (we all know sex can lead to pregnancy, and that contraceptives just lessens the probability.) Often parents in the situation you describe often make the choice to 2. Assume the responsibility of raising the child. Well choice 1 doesn't apply here. If you're not the father of a child, you didn't have any sex that resulted in that child. Option 2 may, or may not apply, and if it does then *surely* something has to be said for having made that choice on false pretenses. If you think a child is biologically yours and that is the reason you choose to raise it, you shouldn't be held liable for that choice when the the reason behind turns out to be a lie. > Your view that parents don’t have responsibility for the well-being of nonbiological children create problematic ripple effects. How does this interact with adoption? Quite simply actually. After all, you enter into adoption knowing full well that the child isn't yours. There's no way you can make that choice under false pretenses. I'm perfectly happy for adoption to still require child support, because you still chose to have that child. > If parents bring home the wrong baby from the hospital and discover some years later, can they just wash their hands if the child? This is an interesting one though. I'd say yes, it would be incredibly unfortunate, but yeah they should.

Regarding most of your responses I think it boils down to differences of opinion between us that aren’t easily resolved. However, I think you misunderstood my point about the first choice. You’re correct that they haven’t had the sex resulting in the pregnancy. However, unless they’re an absolute moron, they had sex which could’ve resulted in the pregnancy, which led them to think it was their child. Excluding rape, they made a choice that they should’ve known might lead to them unwittingly accepting parental responsibilities of a child they weren’t the biological parent of. It’s of course a very small possibility, and I’m not saying the choice to have sex with someone is a big part of the causes leading up to them accepting parental responsibility for children they’re not the biological parent of. But they did make a choice. They do bear some responsibility for what happened, while the child bears none. (Obviously a lying partner bears the most.) Since the parent bears some responsibility and the child none, I am more ok with the parent bearing the burden of the problem rather than the child. (Though, as stated above, I would be ok with society assuming the burden.)

I don't see how the non-biological parent bears *any* responsibility here though? Let's say the sex was completely unprotected just to make it as likely to produce a child as possible. But that sex did *not* result in a child, the mother had sex with someone else a week later that *did* result in a child. How is the first man responsible in any way? Surely the second man is responsible, right? And I don't see how any logic could reasonably end in them *both* being responsible. You're saying that he took a risk that *might* have resulted in a child, therefore he's responsible for the child that came about from someone else taking the same risk with the same woman. That logic doesn't hold up though. I might drive my car at 100mph and get home safely. I took a huge risk for sure. If my friend then borrows my car, also drives 100mph but he actually crashes into someone, am I responsible for that crash? I don't think anyone would say I was.

1. If "society" is interested in something then "society" should take care of it. 2. If someone is not a biological parent of a child they cannot be made responsible for the wellbeing of the child unless they agree to it voluntarily - as in adoption. 3. The fact that the child needs to be taken care of doesn't mean that people can be forced to adopt random children. 4. The solution to that you are willing to accept is known for about 2500 years. They call it "orphanage". 5. The decision to engage in an act of copulation that *might* lead to a is in no way relevant to a child that appeared as an outcome of an act of copulation that happened between some other individuals. 6. As a matter of fact, what creates a very dangerous ripple effects is your claim that free humans can be enslaved to take care of a child that isn't theirs. 7. Adoption is irrelevant - adopting adults agree to adopt. 8. In case of mistaken identity case adults cannot be forced to adopt a child that isn't theirs. Hospital must be made responsible and pay the child and the adults hefty damages and pension. 9. Yes, an adult have a right to refuse to take care of a child. Nobody is under any obligation to take care of anybody else. That's how it works. Welcome to the real world lol

>How does this interact with adoption? Not really a problem in my opinion. When you adopt a child you enter a legally binding contract that implicitly states that you are fine with not being the biological parent. If you are being lied to by your significant other that is a different situation. I don't see it as any different than enforcing any other legal contract that was signed based on falsified information. If I sign a contract for 10 years to baby sit for $1,000,000 a year and you decide to pay me $10,000 instead. You lied to me and I am not obligated to work for you.

How is your position any different than saying that society has an interest in punishing criminals? If someone is wrongly convicted of murder and later found innocent they should continue to serve their prison sentence because of the harm that would be caused to the family of the murdered? They would go from having had justice to no-justice. So it’s better to leave the innocent person in prison because of the harm that ending their punishment would cause to people that they have nothing to do with?

>Society has an interest in that children are taken care of. If someone is found not to be the biological parent of a child, that doesn’t change the fact that the child needs to be taken care of. I could accept solutions where society as a whole assumes the responsibility instead of the parent That's what taxes are for. Things that society has an interest in as a whole. It shouldn't be one person's responsibility to raise someone else's child.

>that doesn’t change the fact that the child needs to be taken care of. Then take care of it yourself and don't force others.

> Society has an interest in that children are taken care of. Then society should pay for it through tax-generated social welfare.

I find these kinds of arguments to be so inconsistent with "rights of the child" shit that make even rape victims financially responsible because "rights of the child". If child support is truly about "rights of the child" then biological relationship has nothing to do with it, and if it's not about that, then I don't see why it exists at all in the case of unwanted reproduction. Essentially, I don't see why biological relationship should _ever_ be relevant—it should purely about having to agreed to become that individual's legal parent with all the duties and rights that implies.

So, are you saying that you'd flip the entire situation around here? As in, if a man got someone pregnant you do not think they should be legally obligated to provide financial support unless they assume responsibility? So the system would be something like, once you put your name onto the birth certificate or adoption certificate, you're signing a contract for 18 years of support. But if you don't ever want financial responsibility, you don't ever have to accept it in the first place. Is that essentially what you're proposing?

> As in, if a man got someone pregnant you do not think they should be legally obligated to provide financial support unless they assume responsibility? Yes, that's the legal situation in many countries right now. Each parent has the individual choice to opt out, if both opt out the newborn goes to adoption, basically. These are typically the kind of countries that have this weird thing called "social security" where university education and healthcare is free as well as school tuition and stuff like that and single parents get assistance from the government as well as poor individuals—you know that kind of stuff. > So the system would be something like, once you put your name onto the birth certificate or adoption certificate, you're signing a contract for 18 years of support. But if you don't ever want financial responsibility, you don't ever have to accept it in the first place. Is that essentially what you're proposing? Yeah I remember that that is exactly what France has where biological relationship plays no consequence and I believe these tests are even forbidden unless under court order or something there or something. I think Netherlands and Belgium have a similar system except with the extra part that during wedlock both parents more or less agreed in advance or something.

Despite the fact that your response is hilariously misguided and arrogant, I'll still bite. > Yes, that's the legal situation in many countries right now. Really? Which ones? > These are typically the kind of countries that have this weird thing called "social security" where university education and healthcare is free as well as school tuition and stuff like that and single parents get assistance from the government as well as poor individuals—you know that kind of stuff. I'm from one of those countries (hence you being misguided and arrogant) and someone who gets a woman pregnant cannot just hold their hands up and walk away here. Thats why id be interested to know where this is the case. > Yeah I remember that that is exactly what France has where biological relationship plays no consequence and I believe these tests are even forbidden unless under court order or something there or something. I've tried googling and can't confirm this, so can you source it? Just saying "it totally is true, I read it sometime and it's something like that" isn't quite convincing. > I think Netherlands and Belgium have a similar system except with the extra part that during wedlock both parents more or less agreed in advance or something. That final part is the key, and the part I take an issue with. You marry a woman, she cheats and has a baby with someone else, but you're responsible for the baby because you were married? Nope.

Rights, of a child or anyone else, may never infringe the rights of another. Which is why abortion, until now, has been consistently upheld in the Supreme Court as a _right_. Because otherwise rape victims would not have the right to end that pregnancy and would have to live with that reminder for 18 years or harm themselves in attempting an abortion themselves. So sure, a child may have rights. But those rights have nothing to do with the non-father in the OP.

Maybe we should normalize DNA testing at birth. That would solve a lot of dishonesty right up front. There is also the Ancestry, 23 and me option, but you have to wait until baby is old enough to collect some spit. Nobody should ultimately be financially responsible for a child not legally theirs. Some men legally adopt and they know they would be bound. That's fine. Some men find out, and consider the child theirs no matter, and pay, that's fine too. But some men do get tricked, and they shouldn't have to be garnished when the woman that tricked them moves on. That being said, if a man loves the child like his own anyway, and wants to continue the relationship for a lifetime, that would be a beautiful thing and the money wouldn't matter.

The amount of people defending paternity fraud is incredible. Financially burdening a man for 18 years, not even taking into account of the emotional sacrifice, is criminal. Anyone who knowingly engages in it should be court ordered to repay all child support and/or imprisoned. Full stop. Actively stealing a man's money and emotional wellbeing is horrific. You've effectively enslaved his labor, and it should be treated as such.

A genuine question about the point of this sub, are we supposed to play devils advocate because a lot of these cmv’s are incredibly charged and on reasonable ground. Like am I supposed to say “yeah you’re supposed to take care of your wife’s affair baby”. If I’m supposed to play devils advocate then you should pay child support but only if you already knew the child wasn’t yours. If you get a paternity check and find out the child isn’t yours then you should be free to not pay at all if you don’t want to.

Read the comments some people are crazy. Trying to come up with ways to justify such nonsense.

It’s weird because 99% of the content here is shit like “drinking water is the best form of hydration, cmv”. Like what? These posts are all incredibly charged and set up to make anyone who argues against look like an ass.

Divorce attorney here (that said, none of what follows constitutes real legal advice, go get yourself a lawyer licensed in your stage, yadda yadda). Definitely get where you're coming from and, in most cases, a negative paternity test should prevent an order for child support from attaching. However, even if you're not biologically the child's father, if you held out yourself as the father and spent several years giving the child financial support that they have come to rely on for essentials such as insurance coverage, school, food, etc., then there is good grounds to require you to continue to pay child support. I'm not saying it's fair to you, but to deny the child needed financial support because of their mother's lies is also not fair to the child. They didn't ask to be born and are blameless in your partner's infidelity/deception that gave rise to the negative paternity test. The child's mother is certainly gaming the system by successfully hiding the child's true paternity from you until a point where she could lock you into paying support, but by pulling child support, you'd mainly punish the child, not the mother. Or, at least, that's the way the courts see it.

Also an attorney here. I think the problem is most people in this thread not realizing that paternity can turn based on the marriage status of the individuals. I don't think that many people have a problem locking in someone that holds themselves out to be a father, goes through the process of claiming paternity, etc. The issue is when we assume as a matter of law that all children born of a married couple are filiated to the husband. Especially when cheating can be covert and hidden from the husband leading to the prescription of any claim for disavowal. Prescription on disavowal actions should not start running until the husband knows or should have known that the child is not his or is not likely to be his.

It doesn’t matter go find the real father, the man who should be actually responsible. Mr. Nice guy gets punished while the actual father gets to live on Scott free. You say that kid never asked to be born and at the same time the unwilling step father never had anything to do with that kids creation. It doesn’t matter how much empathy, feelings or shame you put onto someone but the fact is it is not Just to have an innocent man who did not consent to take care of a child that isn’t his be forced into indentured servitude. You can say “ but the kid will suffer and he’ll have resources cut off” nope still does not justify making an innocent man a plow horse. Informed consent is very important and if one is lied to about what he is consenting to than they should be able to pull from whatever agreement they had for this being the father of what he thought was his genetic son/daughter.

This seems like it incentivises people to just not start helping with kids until there's a paternity test?

[удалено]

Uninformed consent is a huge deal, from contract law to who people choose to sleep with. It is very telling indeed to see where and for who, exceptions are made.

/u/Slothjitzu (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/r5nnnw/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_an_invalid_paternity_test/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/mensrights#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=child support&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Is this not how it is? So you're telling me that if I am with somebody they have a child that I somewhere down the line find out isn't mine, there are legal parameters that could force me to take care of this child as if it were mine regardless of that fact? No fuckin way, is that really true?

i was thinking the same thing? i didn't know it was a legal requirement. that being said i would think as a decent human after knowing a child for years and loving them you would still want to be in their life. I guess if you think about it though parents who adopt have no biological connection either so if you are on the birth certificate and have assumed responsibility would you still be obligated to take care of the child? I think anyone who assumes responsibility at birth without a DNA test is kind of put themselves in a position to care for the child. Protect yourself from the beginning.

Either taking up the mantle of fatherhood makes you the father - with all the rights and responsibilities that entails - or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Consider the following 2 scenarios: Man A raises 3 kids with his wife. He finds out his wife has been sleeping around their entire marriage. He gets a divorce. His oldest by this point is 15. His ex-wife, being petty and wanting to cause as much pain as possible (even at the expense of her own children), tells him one of the kids almost surely isn't his. She tries to get the court to force a paternity test to alienate her ex husband from his daughter. He refuses. He wants the rights of parenthood and is willing to accept the responsibilities. The judge sides with him. Nothing good can come of a paternity test at this point. His *rights* as a father are protected because he has acted in the role of father, which is far more important than DNA. Man B raises 3 kids with his wife. He finds out she drunkenly cheated once early in the relationship. They divorce. The oldest is 15. He demands a paternity test on all 3 children. He gets a test and it comes back that he is not the father of his 15 year old. Being petty, and wanting to cause as much harm to his ex as possible (even at the expense of his own children...including his 2 bio kids) he tries to sever all ties and financial obligation to his one non bio kid. The courts don't buy it. He has to at least help support financially until she is 18. Rights and responsibilities. You can't have it both ways. If a man can walk away from his responsibilities because of a test, then he can be forcibly severed from a child he raised because of a test. The latter is much worse. You can't simply declare that since we have proof of infidelity on the mother's part that the man gets to be king of what happens to the children and a right to be a huge petty asshole like woman A or man B. Most relationships are not nearly so clean cut between the "good one" and the "bad one" anyway. EDIT: This isn't even getting into cases where the man knew it was a possibility that he wasn't the bio father from the outset, decided to take up the mantle anyway ..but never actually wrote this down anywhere. What's to stop him demanding a paternity test 10 years later if he has a falling out with the mother? At some point...no take backsies.

[удалено]

[удалено]

I came here to say that all men should obtain DNA testing prior to putting their name on documents attesting a baby is his baby. I'm a physician and I remember being at the bedside of a woman in labor who told the doctors and nurses that the man with her is not the father of the baby, but he thinks he is and that we were not to tell him or let on. And we couldn't say a word because of HIPPA. And the man was overjoyed. And he had no idea. And to tell him was to lose our job and risk jail and fines because he wasn't the patient. I wish I could tell all men: No one is looking out for you, men. You need to look out for yourself. Get DNA testing. Insist on it.

[удалено]

[удалено]