|
|
|
|
|
| | Paternity fraud might come to an endPage 5 of 32 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32) |
The burden of establishing de facto parentage and visitation is extremely high, and for good reason.
I don't know if "mom wants to maintain the lifestyle she and junior were accustomed to" is a good reason, but it seems to be prevalent.
Paying child support is always a factor in custody and visitation cases, so a non-biological father should expect to pay child support as part of any court order giving him parental rights.
So, by that line of thinking, no rights should also mean no financial obligations, which doesn't seem to be the case.
The bottom line being that, unless the non-parent person agrees with it (like actually signing adoption forms), there should be no obligation to continue to dispense money to the parent after the relationship is dissolved. The man will be hard-pressed to be awarded any parental rights afterward, so they shouldn't have to deal with the obligations either, especially seeing how nothing is owed to the non-parent by either the parent or the child.
No good deed goes unpunished. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/16/2012 7:09:33 AM | From what I understand, though I may be wrong, the whole "de-facto" parent thing is mainly a Canadian thing.
I dont think it largely exists in the USA.
I also have spent most of my adult life in Florida, and I know for a fact that no such thing exists here, my state does not recognize any form of common law marriage or de-facto parentage. You could live with a woman for 50 years and raise a non bio child from birth to adulthood, and still walk away one day and never look back. You are either married, or not. A child is only considered yours if you have biologically created the child, legally adopted the child, or were legally married to the Mother at the time of birth of the child. (If you marry a woman after the birth of her child, unless you are bio-dad, you still are not legally a parent unless you formally adopt) There is no grey area. It either is, or is not.
I knpow my neighboring southern states (Georgia, Alabama) are also like this.
I have heard of de-facto being enforced in Mass.........so I am going to guess that this is more of a Northern thing?
Down here for us GRITS (girls raised in the south).......... this just doesnt exist. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/16/2012 8:35:45 AM | Hey, Cubanguy! The GLOBE AND MAIL is NOT Canada's "national newspaper!"
It's a TORONTO paper - a very well-done paper, mind you - with a Toronto is the Centre of the Universe viewpoint!
ED BEAR | |
|
Eri713
| | Joined: 3/26/2012
Msg: 104 | |
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/16/2012 9:12:35 AM | mrcs-
I don't know if "mom wants to maintain the lifestyle she and junior were accustomed to" is a good reason, but it seems to be prevalent.
This has nothing to do with mom wanting to maintain the lifestyle she was accustomed to. If non-bio has played an integral role in raising the child, the bio and non-bio split up, and non-bio is recognized by the court to be a de facto parent, it is akin to two bio parents going through a divorce and dealing with child support.
So, by that line of thinking, no rights should also mean no financial obligations, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Yes, that is the case. If it is determined that the non-bio is not a de facto parent, he has no further financial obligations.
The bottom line being that, unless the non-parent person agrees with it (like actually signing adoption forms), there should be no obligation to continue to dispense money to the parent after the relationship is dissolved.
There are no required papers to sign between the parents, unless they personally decide to do that.
Again, the criteria is very straightforward: In order to establish de facto parentage, it must be proven that the adult lived with the child and participated in the child’s family with the consent and encouragement of the legal parent, performed caretaking functions at least as great as the legal parent, shaped the child’s daily routine and addressed his or her developmental needs, disciplined the child, provided for education and care, and served as a moral guide.
In other words, the non-bio knowingly entered into this specific type of relationship with the consent of the bio mom, AND with the intent of raising the child as his own.
As I stated in my last post, it is usually the non-bio who petitions for a de facto parent ruling for himself because it means that if he is recognized by the court as a parent to the child, then he can be granted visitation rights. The flip side of that is that by being recognized as a parent, he can also be held responsible to pay child support to mom.
If you don't want to risk the possibility of any kind of court ordered financial responsibility to your girlfriend's kids, then don't help her raise the kids as if they were also yours, and don't petition the court to grant you to be a de facto parent. Simple as that. Of course, bio-mom could try and establish you as de facto parent if the above criteria has been met, so that she can get child support. The burden of proof would then be on her, and it's not an open and shut case.
QueenBee -
I don’t think it largely exists in the USA. I also have spent most of my adult life in Florida, and I know for a fact that no such thing exists here, my state does not recognize any form of common law marriage or de-facto parentage.
Yep, absolutely right, it’s not recognized in Florida. However, it is recognized in California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware, Washington and Wisconsin, and I think New York, but I’m not sure. There are others, but I don’t know which ones. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/16/2012 9:20:00 AM | DISCLAIMER: I am not and have never been a father, gotten anyone pregnant or assumed co-care of a child. The only mother I've ever dated was already a grandmother when I met her.
ERI713: Exactly what I was just about to say - the De Facto Parent doctrine was created to defend the rights of men who WANTED to be in a child's life, and who WERE in the child's life until a partner who wanted rid of him revealed the DNA results. It includes men who already know they are not biological parents but were in a relationship that deeply bonded them to the child and don't want to lose their child hen they lose the marriage. This in older days was the motivation to formally adopt a stepchild.
But the most common problem the courts face is the father who was a happy, willing parent and supporter of his child UNTIL he doubted the genetic link. And that's in part a consequence of fathers who feel they have to "suck it up" and enter a miserable life because of "genetic duty." It's NEVER the kid's fault whatever the parents did.
This sort of affirmation is important in any case. True, a universal DNA testing rule would eliminate the offense against trust, but what really needs to be part of our society is a formal deliberate acceptance of parentage.
(Sidebar: I have known more than a few women who refused to record the name of their child's father and entered "unknown" - because the loser father was never going to be any use for support and they didn't want to lose welfare benefits. They'd have had to go through the legal hassles and delays of getting blood from a stone before getting any assistance!)
Now, a bit of history: I was there in the sixties, when my mom came home crying from a bank that wouldn't let her make a withdrawal of any of HER OWN MONEY. I had to wait an extra year for my driver's license because only a FATHER could give parental consent, and my father was long gone.
I sent money, letters to newspapers and politicians, and attended demonstrations for women's reproductive rights. I have always been an egalitarian, most often in concord with feminists but guided by fairness and quality. I have supported women's right to choose to have a child or not; opposed men trying to prevent women from choosing not to have their children and removing the concept of blame from child welfare cases. And I always accepted that this equality, and that of financially and legal equality for women, would benefit men and children as much as it did women.
Women can choose not to have a child, to have it and adopt it out, or to raise it - themselves or with a father or stepfather along for the ride. But there's one point of equality that is still lingering unaddressed: a man who fathers a child has NO say in whether to be responsible for that child. I have wondered in recent years - without full success - if there's some scheme of formal acceptance of parental duties that both parents must make before legal obligation descends on them. A woman would be able to make - HAVE to make - the choice of what to do about a pregnancy in full knowledge of whether there was anyone committed to raising a child with her.
Sure, it's a bit harsh to be told, "if you have it, you're on your own," but how does that compare to making your plans and then having the deadbeat vanish or come up worthless, or owing support to a bunch of other children, too?
"Every child a wanted child" still works for me. (Yes, I am a godless heathen. YMMV.)
I was very hopeful when I heard that Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving, on marriage, had signed a pre-nuptial agreement in which both formally pledged that each of them would be fully responsible for supporting their children regardless of what the other did, as both were prosperous and didn't think the state of their relationship in the future should be cause for uncertainty of fighting in the child's life. Alas, when things went bad it all went to court, the agreement was voided and it all went back to being the Standard Dysfunctional Family of tort. Their divorce was the third biggest celebrity settlement in history, at $100 million.
But at least they continue to share custody and support of their only child, Max.
ED BEAR | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/16/2012 9:22:36 AM |
In other words, the non-bio knowingly entered into this specific type of relationship with the consent of the bio mom, AND with the intent of raising the child as his own.
Well, this is a bit that is the problem in that VERY few men are aware of the fact that they can be nailed for CS if the woman she lives with has a kid by some other guy. More women know about it, but very few men know and I REALLY can't imagine any woman informing the guy so he enters the equation KNOWINGLY.
The other problem I really have with this is that were I live, a guy can be obligated for CS until the kid is 25, or finished college, if he only lives with mom and kid for 1 year. He isn't even considered common law married until he's lived with her for 2 years.
You make it sound so nicely cut and dried, but where I live you are very likely going to have to pay and it's very unlikely that mother is going to allow you much access once she's kicked you to the curb.
 | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/16/2012 11:40:12 AM | I personally feel that if a guy is willing to turn his head the other way and not request the paternity test on a child he has doubts about, then that is on him.
I may be able to agree with the notion that paternity should be established at birth, but then you are infringing on peoples right to privacy. Maybe there should be the option on the fathers part to test for it, but not mandatory.
Some men may not want to know - There may be guys who meet a girl, know shes not preg by him, and still wants to raise the child as his own and doesnt want the world to know. And willllllingly signs the birth certificate - therefore taking responsibilty for that child.
Lets go a step further and say Later if things go sour, he is going to say "thats not my kid, im not paying for it!" Although he willingly took responsibilty for that child knowing it wasnt his.
There are a lot of variables to each situation that make us pause and think, i dont think you can make a blanket statement when you are dealing with peoples lives like that. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/16/2012 1:06:30 PM | I may be able to agree with the notion that paternity should be established at birth, but then you are infringing on peoples right to privacy. Maybe there should be the option on the fathers part to test for it, but not mandatory.
Some men may not want to know - There may be guys who meet a girl, know shes not preg by him, and still wants to raise the child as his own and doesnt want the world to know. And willllllingly signs the birth certificate - therefore taking responsibilty for that child.
Lets go a step further and say Later if things go sour, he is going to say "thats not my kid, im not paying for it!" Although he willingly took responsibilty for that child knowing it wasnt his.
Once a man signs that piece of paper, his child or not, he's legally bound/responsible for the child. Much the same as if he makes the choice (we could say "informed choice") to adopt a child (or children) legally - his partners pre-existing children, or them adopting together, that he is then legally bound/responsible for that child.
Remember the old "do you want to know the sex of the child?" - lots of people might say no to that - but the *doctor* at that point already knows. Is that an invasion of privacy?
When it comes to paternity testing - please note the name, its never referred to as "maternity testing", the baby came out of her body, there is no question, 100% certainty, that the child is hers in every case (barring perhaps artificial egg implantation, but that's hardly an 'unknown') - if it DNA "paternity" testing was mandatory the doctor would have the information, they could simply ask the 'father to be' if they want the DNA information (and in either case the results could be destroyed after - I'm not a fan of starting DNA databases of innocent newborns for "later use").
So who's privacy are we protecting then? Hers - if she's lying about the child being his... or his, if he quite simply doesn't want to know. Making it mandatory doesn't mean he gets the results if he makes the conscious decision he doesn't want them - it only means if asked and he wants them, they are available to him (just like "do you want to know the sex" before the child is born). It gives him the option, before he signs that piece of paper (birth certificate), to make an "informed choice" on the matter. If he chooses not to be informed, then that's his own decision. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/16/2012 1:52:57 PM | I think it is long overdue that men can get this information. It makes me ill to think women are naming men as fathers, when they were sleeping with someone else.
I have always felt that the only women who would mind this are the ones behaving less than ladylike to begin with. If you are being honest with your man, there is no reason to NOT give him the gift of 100% assurance.
Me being female, I automatically have that assurance and I cannot think of a better gift to give the man you love. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/16/2012 2:53:20 PM |
. Mom has to agree to and support the relationship between non-bio and child as if non-bio was child's actual parent. If they are not living together, mom can encourage it all she wants, but it's a moot point.
2. Just because non-bio may live in the same household, it doesn't always translate to non-bio taking on a parental role in child's life.
3. It's about the agreement between bio and non-bio as to the role of the non-bio within the family. It has to be mutually agreed on that the non-bio takes on the role of parent and all that being a parent entails, including financial responsibility. If he expected money to compensate him for participating in the raising of the child, hopefully mom would show him the door.
4. I think this one is self-explanatory: "That the non-biological parent has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established a bonded, dependent, paternal relationship with the child"
Nope. There are 2 variables that will come into play when the judge determines whether the non-bio parent has met these criteria:
1). How capable is the non-bio parent able to support/pay for the children (i.e. income)
2). What finanicial position will the bio parent be in if the critieria is not met (i.e. will the mother have to go on social services).
Guaranteed, the government will (through the court) ensure that the mother and kids will not be borne by the state if there is a way to get the non-bio to pay.......GUARANTEED. Even if this means shoe-horning in the non-bio parent into the criteria above.......it will be done.
In addition, if there are any family lawyers involved, decisions will often be swayed in a manner where the family lawyer will most benefit.........and as always, C.S. is a contentious issue.
Government and family law will ensure it is the one MOST CAPABLE of paying that gets hit. Parental rights are a secondary issue. It is about MONEY and who pays. Greedy world, but this is how things work. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/17/2012 7:14:00 AM | Exactly! When I became sexually active with my husband he still wanted us to get tested. Didn't mean he didn't trust that I was a virgin, he just wanted to make sure everything was on the up and up.
My father always told me: Trust but verify.
I would have no problem if my husband wanted a DNA test. My daughter looks just like him though, so I just might laugh at first lol. | |
|
Eri713
| | Joined: 3/26/2012
Msg: 112 | |
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/17/2012 10:42:51 PM | Well, this is a bit that is the problem in that VERY few men are aware of the fact that they can be nailed for CS if the woman she lives with has a kid by some other guy. More women know about it, but very few men know and I REALLY can't imagine any woman informing the guy so he enters the equation KNOWINGLY.
Then maybe those men aren't smart enough to do their research and find out whether or not they will be responsible for child support if they live together. What makes you think that more women know about it?
Just living together, even if she has kids, does not mean that the non-bio is responsible for support unless it's proven that: the non-bio performed caretaking functions at least as great as the legal parent, shaped the child’s daily routine and addressed his or her developmental needs, disciplined the child, provided for education and care, and served as a moral guide. and the other criteria are also met.
When you're in a relationship and it progresses to the level of living together, and raising the children together, I doubt very much that either one of them is thinking that they are going to break up and that child support will become an issue. The KNOWINGLY part, is about their agreement that he will help raise the children as if they were his own.
it's very unlikely that mother is going to allow you much access once she's kicked you to the curb.
"it is usually the non-bio who petitions for a de facto parent ruling for himself because it means that if he is recognized by the court as a parent to the child, then he can be granted visitation rights."
If non-bio is recognized by the court as a parent, and visitation is ordered, mom must comply.
Government and family law will ensure it is the one MOST CAPABLE of paying that gets hit.
These criteria are not about determining who pays child support. The criteria is about determining whether or not the non-bio has met the criteria in order to be determined a de facto parent.
If determined that he is, that is when visitation and child support issues come up - as if it were two bio parents going through a divorce. Once those two issues are on the table, how the visitation schedule is set up, any custody arrangements, and who pays what to whom, is determined just like any other cases.
Unless he gets full custody of the kids, he would be the one to pay. But, if it's determined that he is not a de facto parent, he doesn't get visitation or have to pay anything.
You make it sound so nicely cut and dried
All I keep doing is repeating myself. These are specific criteria set by the courts used to determine if non-bio is a de facto parent or not. The criteria themselves are not open for interpretation. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. However, proving whether or not those criteria are met, is not so cut and dried. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/18/2012 8:42:01 AM |
Then maybe those men aren't smart enough to do their research and find out whether or not they will be responsible for child support if they live together. What makes you think that more women know about it?
Well, I agree, men are pretty stupid about moving in with women in general and really don't have a clue about what tthey are in for whent they move in with a single mother. I think more women know about it since women tend to talk about relationships.
Just living together, even if she has kids, does not mean that the non-bio is responsible for support unless it's proven that: the non-bio performed caretaking functions at least as great as the legal parent, shaped the child’s daily routine and addressed his or her developmental needs, disciplined the child, provided for education and care, and served as a moral guide. and the other criteria are also met
Well, again, that's all nicely packaged, but you don't really believe a judge is going to explore the nature of the living arrangements beyond something like:
Judge: " Did Mr. Smuck live with you?"
Her: " Yes."
Judge: "Did your kids live there too?"
Her: "Yes."
Judge: " Did you live with Ms. Integrity?"
Him: "Yes."
Judge: "Folks! We have a winner! {Bang!}" 
..... seriously...
The KNOWINGLY part, is about their agreement that he will help raise the children as if they were his own.
Do you know of a single case were a woman had this discussion with her new live-in? Really? Come on....
... AND, if she knows that she could and will nail the guy for CS, do you REALLY think that she's going to tell him?
These criteria are not about determining who pays child support.
I gotta call bullshit on that.
These are specific criteria set by the courts used to determine if non-bio is a de facto parent or not.
Well, again, you obviously live in a Wonderland filled with honest, objective, fair, civil, non-biased courts and citizens, 'cause that is nothing like it is in Canada. Judge sees living together with kids, married or not, and the guy is going to be paying CS if mother wants it.
The criteria themselves are not open for interpretation.
| |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/18/2012 12:35:50 PM | I am really sick and tiered of supporting single women, and the unwanted children they bring into this world
our society, has just gone nuts
why on earth do we reward very very bad behavior from women who have a child, then get everything and more from welfare
here, if a woman has an unwanted or fatherless child,she gets very good housing,transportation, free education, day care,(!!!!)and all the benefits a union worker would get,the money workes out to be 15 dollars an hour,and a lot more after 4 kids!!
this is crazy!
stats show that 66% of all kids that grow up without fathers end up on welfare
so, end this, its not like any more harm will come to the kids if they are much poorer,they have no chance in life without a father....
people need to accept responsability for their lives again, and society should label these parasites
and even punish them | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/18/2012 1:43:32 PM |
I am really sick and tiered of supporting single women, and the unwanted children they bring into this world
our society, has just gone nuts
why on earth do we reward very very bad behavior from women who have a child, then get everything and more from welfare
here, if a woman has an unwanted or fatherless child,she gets very good housing,transportation, free education, day care,(!!!!)and all the benefits a union worker would get,the money workes out to be 15 dollars an hour,and a lot more after 4 kids!!
this is crazy! Gee I wish someone had told me where to find all that stuff when I was living in a 1 BR musty basement suite, struggling to work and put myself through school full time, all the while having to take the bus for 3 hours a day as a commute (I couldn't afford anything remotely close to the university I attended). Daycare costs are subsidized for any Canadian parent whose income qualifies them, but even then, it doesn't come close to the actual costs of daycare. I had no benefits (except which I paid for out of my student fees) at all, I certainly didn't receive any cheques from the govt simply for having a child. Wow, either you have no clue what you're talking about or....well let's just say, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Anyone who can claim that single mothers are living the high life off welfare is just showing their ignorance. There are many more of us who put ourselves through school (without ever receiving any child support in my case, btw), and are now working full-time to support our children than there are who do sit at home and do nothing.
If the women had children, I doubt they were "unwanted". You have no clue about any individual single mother's situation or or children. To spout off your ignorance really says more about you than it does about them.
If you don't want to date a single mother, DON'T. Now how hard was that? | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/18/2012 3:58:04 PM |
There are many more of us who put ourselves through school (without ever receiving any child support in my case, btw), and are now working full-time to support our children than there are who do sit at home and do nothing.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this. Might apply to you, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that there are more women trying to better themselves after becoming a single mother, than resigning to living the status quo. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/18/2012 4:19:35 PM |
I am really sick and tiered of supporting single women, and the unwanted children they bring into this world
our society, has just gone nuts
My son has never been unwanted from me!
why on earth do we reward very very bad behavior from women who have a child, then get everything and more from welfare
You don't mention the father, the one that walked away from the child?
I'm gonna call bullshit on this. Might apply to you, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that there are more women trying to better themselves after becoming a single mother, than resigning to living the status quo.
I have always worked full time and recently have gone back to college. I pay my own healthcare but my son who was born with cataracts other health problems I do not wish to name gets free healthcare for these conditions. I pay 120 euro a week for pre school for my son for 20 hours a week then my mam takes him til I am finished. Although this September he will start primary school I still have to pay for books, uniform arts and crafts school issued tracksuits for sports etc
Here a single parent gets 200 euro a week NO free creche and 600 euro towards accommodation that starts around 1000 pm
It's not accepted here and even though there is help its not enough for a single parent to think they are better off claiming social welfare.
Smexi | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/18/2012 4:21:36 PM | | Most single parents work. Look it up. Many go to school or are attempting to move up in their position. Just like anyone would. | |
|
Eri713
| | Joined: 3/26/2012
Msg: 122 | |
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/19/2012 6:35:15 PM |
don't have a clue about what they are in for when they move in with a single mother.
Do you know of a single case were a woman had this discussion with her new live-in? Really? Come on....
Let’s see. They knew going into it that she is a single mom, yet they still wanted to date her. While dating her, he is introduced (if he didn’t already know) to the world of a single mom and everything that it entails. Yet, he still wanted to continue dating her. Their relationship develops into something more serious, and he has met the children. He hasn’t run away yet. He and the children develop a strong bond and they start doing things together as a family. Yep, he’s still there. He and mom start talking about living together. He hasn’t been scared off by this new development. While they are talking about living together, they discuss what his role in the children’s lives will be. They BOTH agree that his role will be to help raise them as if they were his own children. At this point, it’s pretty likely that there is no thought, by either one that the relationship is going to break apart.
As a single mom, if I were to live with my bf, there is no way on earth I would go into it without discussing what his role would be regarding my children. I can safely say that I’m not the only single mom, in the entire world, that would have this discussion.
Well, again, that's all nicely packaged, but you don't really believe a judge is going to explore the nature of the living arrangements beyond something like:
Judge: " Did Mr. Smuck live with you?"
Her: " Yes."
Judge: "Did your kids live there too?"
Her: "Yes."
Judge: " Did you live with Ms. Integrity?"
Him: "Yes."
Judge: "Folks! We have a winner! {Bang!}"
Seriously? There is a process. There are documents to fill out, statements from other people who know the family. The non-bio will ordinarily have more knowledge than any other person (aside from mom) about the child’s physical and emotional needs, whether that child has any special needs that must be met in order to maintain the child’s physical and/or emotional health, and the child’s personality and characteristics that may affect how that child’s needs can or should be met.
They have to be specific about what the child’s day-to-day needs look like. Do they have any medical conditions? Eating peculiarities? What are their sleep habits? What, if any, fears and phobias do they have? They have to be specific about the time, skills, and dedication they provide to meet those needs. They have to include information about their relationships with professionals, i.e. doctors, therapists, teachers, tutors, etc. What activities are the children involved with, and how the non-bio participates, and other activities they do with the children. How much time they spend with the children on a regular day-to-day, weekly, monthly, etc., basis. How long they have provided such care to the children. Most importantly, they have to prove that it will be in the best interest of the children. Etc., Etc., Etc.,
Every case is different, and not all cases are approved.
These criteria are not about determining who pays child support. I gotta call bullshit on that.
Have you even bothered to read what I’ve written before?
The criteria is about determining whether or not the non-bio has met the criteria in order to be determined a de facto parent.
If determined that he is, that is when visitation and child support issues come up - as if it were two bio parents going through a divorce. Once those two issues are on the table, how the visitation schedule is set up, any custody arrangements, and who pays what to whom, is determined just like any other cases.
Unless he gets full custody of the kids, he would be the one to pay. But, if it's determined that he is not a de facto parent, he doesn't get visitation or have to pay anything
Well, again, you obviously live in a Wonderland filled with honest, objective, fair, civil, non-biased courts and citizens, 'cause that is nothing like it is in Canada.
I live in the U.S. That’s how it is here. I have no idea what it’s like anywhere else.
VTECturbo - I SERIOUSLY doubt that there are more women trying to better themselves after becoming a single mother, than resigning to living the status quo.
Really? How can you justify making such a broad generalization? | |
|
Eri713
| | Joined: 3/26/2012
Msg: 123 | |
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/19/2012 10:00:25 PM |
and while some of that is realistic,there's also a highly likely chance that a woman trying to get some additional support financially
Okay, I agree that some women might do this, but I don't agree that it's "highly likely" or that most women will do it.
for some other dudes mistake
Do you have any kids? If you do, are they your mistake? Mine sure isn't. If your ex had a bf and they were around the kids, would you want him to consider your kids to be a mistake??
that's not some innocent guy's fault that he wanted to be in a relationship with a woman,not her AND her kid.
Well, yeah, it is. If he doesn't want a kid around, then don't date a single mom.
he does'nt have to be saddled with anything more than having to realize the child is there
Seriously? Seriously? If he had that attitude toward my kid, I'd make sure the door hit him on the a$$ as I pushed him out.
How would you feel if your mom was a single mom, and her bf only acknowledged you were there? What if it was your sister and your niece or nephew? I think you'd be the first one to want the jerk out of there. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/19/2012 10:30:54 PM |
Most importantly, they have to prove that it will be in the best interest of the children. Etc., Etc., Etc.,
.....wrong!! It is under the GUISE of "the best interests of the children".........
Again, this has nothing to do with the rights of the child or visitation rights of the non-bio parent. It has EVERYTHING to do with keeping people off social assistance and ensuring the state does not bear any financial responsibility for the breakup of the relationship.
Capitano is right........if it is deemed in the slightest that the non-bio has co-habitated with the mom and the kids in the relationship (however short that may be or even how little he has contributed to the kids during that time)........that individual will be made to pay. PERIOD.
The criteria themselves are not open for interpretation
LOL!!
The criteria you suggest is all subject to interpretation by a judge. That judge will make decisions using a number of factors, one of which is liability of the state.
Well, I agree, men are pretty stupid about moving in with women in general and really don't have a clue about what tthey are in for whent they move in with a single mother.
.....totally agree! If guys thought with their big head instead of their little one, things would be much, much different. | |
|
Eri713
| | Joined: 3/26/2012
Msg: 125 | |
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/19/2012 11:16:08 PM |
It has EVERYTHING to do with keeping people off social assistance and ensuring the state does not bear any financial responsibility for the breakup of the relationship.
If that were the case, then there would be no need for even going through the process. If that were the case, why are some cases denied?
The criteria you suggest is all subject to interpretation by a judge.
Yes, I grant you that in the end, it is the judge who makes the final decision. However, the burden of proof is still on the non-bio, and if the judge is satisfied that non-bio has satisfied all of the specific criteria, it's probable that he will grant the petition. The bottom line is that it is in the best interest of the child. If the non-bio has been such an integral part of the child's life, then not allowing non-bio to be part of his life anymore could be very detrimental to the child.
Again, the reason for petitioning to be a de facto parent is so that the non-bio can be recognized as a parent, remain in the child's life, and get visitation rights. Once the non-bio is recognized as a parent, then he is subject to the same child support enforcement as if both were bio parents and they were going through a divorce.
It's the non-bio who wants to be acknowledged as a parent. It's the non-bio who has to petition the court. If he doesn't want that responsibility, including the possibility of having to pay child support, then why would he bother to make the effort to stay in the child's life?
So, instead of blaming mom or govt, how about holding the man responsible for his own choices and actions? Afterall, if he didn't want to be involved, he could walk away with no responsibilities to mom or child, including financial, and no govt agency would go after him.
This is very straightforward. None of this is my personal opinion. This is the way it is legally. Every resource that I've researched says the same thing. That's why I've been saying that the CRITERIA is very specific. I also said that proving that non-bio has met all of the criteria is not so cut and dry. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
5
of
32 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
|
|
Home
login 
