Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ISHTAR38
Joined: 6/23/2007
Msg: 101
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kidsPage 5 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
All I can say about guys in this situation is SUCKER!!!!! You men got yourself in this situation now pay up. Next time think with the head on your shoulders and not the one in your pants!!!

 Johne102
Joined: 3/1/2006
Msg: 102
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 12/9/2007 4:33:33 PM
Of coures it is not right but we are trying to re-egineer society so the tax payers have to pay less. Until the laws are changed an easier answer is to aviod marrying or living common law with single parents.
 bigben1731
Joined: 1/7/2009
Msg: 103
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/11/2009 6:40:53 AM
no one should not have to pay child support for children arent theres biological and should not be a reason for it to be honest unless the single mum is going to screw the guy over for child support for kids arent his bilogical. the real father need to steep up the plate he was the one who got the single mum pregenet when they were in a realtionship he the one who is responsiable not the other guy in the picture
 futureshock
Joined: 5/8/2009
Msg: 104
view profile
History
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/11/2009 10:35:12 AM
Not only should men not have to pay child support for children that aren't biologically his, (unless by adoption), unwed mothers should not be allowed to force unwilling men* to pay child support either.

*By "unwilling men" I mean men who made it clear long before a child was born that they did not want to be fathers, not men who encouraged an illegitimate birth and then changed their minds after the fact,
 Stafford_Jim
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 105
view profile
History
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/11/2009 11:00:52 AM

in Illinois, we have a law that states if you're living with a chick that has kids that are not yours and that when you break off the relationship, you have to pay child support.
They're not your kids! According to family court, that's true but you were there and you were like their father and you still have to pay support and alimony to your ex-girlfriend.


This sounds like bad information. How can you be expected to take the financial responsibility of the biological dad? He's the one really on the hook unless you did something silly like allowed your name to be put on their birth certificate if the dad wasn't around, or adopted another woman's children.

The only case I ever heard of this happening was a man who adopted a woman's children by having the biological father sign away all legal rights to his children. He had to pay for kids that weren't his because he adopted them.
 serenityCW
Joined: 1/21/2006
Msg: 106
view profile
History
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/11/2009 12:57:50 PM
are you saying this is taken into consideration as part of some palimony and /or divorce law (with or without kids, but considering household expenses) or that you are made to pay seperate child support as well? i heard of this in canada as being a barrier for single parents to re couple. never heard of it here, except as common law generalities, where it is all bundled together. same would apply, for example, if she were putting you through med school and then would be expected to continue with alimony.

is there a time frame on this, eg how long must you live with someone or be married to them, before this is applied and have you kept your prior assets seperate, as i know that with marriage, this is another issue in general. if you combined all assets and expenses, as well as income, then again--is this part of an agreed upon life style to date, which they take in consideration over time. also, what about the birth father's responsiblity here? is there a timeframe, eg. at some point she is expected to work and take over all of it? i have married friends here in CA who cannot get birth parents to cough up money, let alone a live in boyfriend!
 futureshock
Joined: 5/8/2009
Msg: 107
view profile
History
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:34:49 PM

This sounds like bad information. How can you be expected to take the financial responsibility of the biological dad? He's the one really on the hook unless you did something silly like allowed your name to be put on their birth certificate if the dad wasn't around, or adopted another woman's children.

The only case I ever heard of this happening was a man who adopted a woman's children by having the biological father sign away all legal rights to his children. He had to pay for kids that weren't his because he adopted them.


I know it sounds crazy, but it is true. Here is a thread explaining it further:


http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts12431869.aspx

Equitable Paternity: Child Support Paid By Non-Biologically Related Person
Posted: 5/27/2009 9:06:54 PMI first heard of cases where a man was court ordered to pay child support for the non-biological children of a woman to whom he was not married here, on POF threads. Since the examples given were from Canada, I assumed this odd circumstance was just some quirk of the Canadian legal system.

Not so. It occurs here in the U.S., also, and it is called "Equitable Paternity:"



Equitable paternity stands firm, N.Y. high court says.
Publication: Trial
Publication Date: 01-OCT-06 Format: Online

The New York Court of Appeals recently reinforced the doctrine of equitable paternity, ruling 5-2 that a man who acted as a father to a girl he assumed was his daughter was estopped from denying paternity even after DNA tests proved that he was not her biological parent. (Shondel J. v. Mark D., 2006WL 1835214 (N.Y. July 6, 2006).)

Mark D. met and had a relationship with Shondel J. in 1995 while visiting family in Guyana. After he returned to New York, Shondel told him that she was pregnant with his child, and he assumed certain responsibilities--providing some financial support during and after the pregnancy, visiting the child, making her a beneficiary of his life insurance policy, and signing a letter declaring himself her father to procure her immigration credentials.

Mark and Shondel's relationship went awry in 1998, and he married another woman a year later. After Shondel moved to New York in 2000, she filed a paternity petition for child support, and Mark filed separately for visitation rights. When court-ordered DNA tests found that he was not the girl's biological father, Mark abandoned his petition and attempted to sever all ties with the child.

A family court judge held that Mark was equitably estopped from denying paternity under [subsection] 418 (a) and 532 (a) of New York's Family Court Act. In proceedings leading up to the estoppel trial, a court-appointed law guardian had concluded that Mark had acted as the father of the child and that she considered him her father.

The New York high court affirmed the lower courts' findings, saying that although paternity by estoppel had common law origins, it is now secured by statute in New York.

"In allowing a court to declare paternity irrespective of biological fatherhood, the legislature made a deliberate policy choice that speaks directly to the case before us," Judge Albert Rosenblatt wrote for the majority. "Cutting off [established parental] support, whether emotional or financial, may leave the child in a worse position than if that support had never been given."

The court also said that fraud and misrepresentation, often used as defenses to the doctrine of equitable estoppel, did not apply. "The legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation," Rosenblatt wrote. "Under the enactment, the mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."

Yet, as dissenting Judge George Bundy Smith noted, the "best interests of the child" standard is not clear-cut. Smith wrote that the child's best interests "require more than financial support." He also argued that Mark could not be estopped from denying paternity because he had not engaged in false conduct--an element of estoppel.

"This is not a case where a child lived for years with, and was brought up by, a man she had always thought was her father," Smith wrote, describing Mark as "a man who, in addition to having no biological tie, has no interest in continuing a relationship with [the child] or her mother."

Attorney Ann Detiere of New York, who represented Mark, said the ruling was "contrary to the best interests of the child" and would encourage paternal alienation.

Alan Burstein, a New York attorney who handles equitable paternity cases, disagreed, saying the decision "confirms the legislation's intent" and "affirms the courts' concern for the best interests of the child in situations where estoppel is found." The New York high court threw out Mark's argument that [sub section] 418(a) and 532 (a) of the Family Court Act deprive him of due process, because he failed to raise it in the lower courts. Detiere noted that Shondel had never invoked the statute and the lower courts had raised it sua sponte.

"Equitable paternity is an antiquated and standardless concept that will make men afraid of doing things for children that may be interpreted as [fatherlike]," Detiere said. She plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The New York court acknowledged the difficulty of Mark's situation, noting that a man with doubts about his biological paternity has two options: put the doubts aside and initiate a relationship with the child as the father, or demand a DNA test of paternity before starting the relationship.

"A possible result of the first option is paternity by estoppel; the other course creates the risk of damage to the relationship with the woman," the court said. "It is not an easy choice, but at times, the law intersects with the province of personal relationships and some strain is inevitable."
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6017100/Equitable-paternity-stands-firm-N.html
 1kindMan4U
Joined: 5/23/2007
Msg: 108
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:06:31 PM
Wow.. this thread was worth reading ALL five pages of comments

I mean it was started TWO years ago and still going?? wow

1. I dont BELIEVE that California law follows Illinois and this Canadian province. Not absolutely sure, but dont think it does.

2. It's fascinating to read the outright anger from the women posters at the men who are being fraudulently made financially responsible. These same women get angry about men wanting prenups saying that LOVE shouldnt need it. Of course posts like this one show how skewed the legal system is against men. We men are just supposed to ignore that skewing and blindly TRUST that fairness will prevail?

3. Give FULL equality of self-responsibility and watch the problems go away. Remove the "automatic financial windfall" that comes from marriage and/or pregnancy and just watch how things change. Women, WITHOUT a signed written CONTRACT wont get married, and wont have kids if they KNOW.. IN ADVANCE that there is no financial benefit to them.

Women are the final arbiter of IF or WHEN sex and the acceptance of a spermdonation is going to happen. REMOVE any financial benefit that wasnt agreed upon IN WRITING and IN ADVANCE, and the rate of single mothers will drop to almost nil. Oh, remove all welfare past 12 months too.

Now, MAKING all couples who still wish to get married, have PREMARITAL and PRENUPTIAL counseling from separate attorneys will EDUCATE and INFORM both parties what they can expect both from the marriage (and potential demise) as well as from any created offspring. Both parties will then have INFORMED CONSENT and there wont be a need to litigate anything IF divorce occurs. The D.A. will be able to automatically attach any monies due from the obligated party.

Wow.. INFORMED CONSENT. Eliminate entrapment-by-orgasm. virtually eliminate welfare.. oh.. and reduce attorney compensation for love gone wrong. I think the legal system will fight THIS idea more than the women who have been unjustly been GAINING from the upside down laws for years.

now.. about Tom Leykis.. Oh wait, that's off topic and people who dont remember when he was the Anti-Limbaugh before he re-invented an ENTERTAINMENT show in order to SELL ADVERTISING dont get him anyway.

Leykis is like tabasco sauce & chili peppers to an infants palate. His message is based upon certain facts, but the hotsauce messenger-method SURE burns those that like their pablum plain.
 Stafford_Jim
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 109
view profile
History
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/12/2009 8:12:13 PM

I know it sounds crazy, but it is true. Here is a thread explaining it further:


That still goes back to what I said in my original post. He may not be the father but since he believed the child to be his, he most likely has his name on the birth certificate listed as the father. It's pretty much in set in stone at the point.

Now it's highly unlikely, but if he can produce somehow the real biological father he could probably absolve himself of child support.

But just living with a woman who has children who clearly aren't yours is not going to earn you child support obligations unless you do something like adopt her children.

As much as I might care for someone else's child, or as much as I may love the mother. I would ABSOLUTELY NEVER adopt someone else's children. Do that and you're guaranteed to be obligated for child support if you should divorce.
 Silverhawk1999
Joined: 10/9/2007
Msg: 110
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/13/2009 12:21:41 PM

But just living with a woman who has children who clearly aren't yours is not going to earn you child support obligations unless you do something like adopt her children


Here in Canada (all Canadian provinces) you are definitely obligated to support non-biological children after 6 months of co-habitation. And it is truly unfortunate this law exists because it does indeed become a huge barrier for single parents to ever co-habitate again in second marriages or relationships.

I'll be the first to admit that single moms are some of the most wonderful ladies to date - they are very mature, have life experience, and are very sexy!!...and I'm dating a wonderful one right now!!...but the fact that I make so much more money than her and she has two kids will simply prevent me from ever living with her - at least until her kids are emancipated as adults. No matter how much I love her, I simply cannot put myself in a position where I may risk further financial detriment by having to pay child support for those children in the event we break up. I just finished paying for an expensive divorce that set me back years financially....why would I want to risk this again?

Single moms (in Canada especially), I truly feel sorry for this state of affairs - like I said, you are some of the most wonderful ladies to date, and I've had nothing but positive experiences, but unfortunately for now due to these laws I'll have to love you while having my own place, and you having your own place!!.....All this while we pollute the air by travelling between two places to see each other, and using up more of our natural resources by having to maintain two dwellings, etc, etc....

Ironic that the government, by virtue of legislating these child support laws to prevent excessive welfare payments to custodial parents and lessen the burden of taxpayers to support such, actually creates more of a tax burden through having to build infrastructure like roadways, waterworks, etc. as we move to a society where everyone lives single in separate dwellings and is paranoid to ever live as a couple for fear of certain financial burden in the event of relationship breakdown.....

Sad for sure.....Oh well. Until the laws change, this is just the way it'll have to be!!
 TAKEN fab-mom
Joined: 6/19/2007
Msg: 111
view profile
History
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/13/2009 12:39:56 PM
ugh nevermind. i hate old ass posts.
 thatusernameistaken
Joined: 5/4/2009
Msg: 112
view profile
History
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/13/2009 2:05:45 PM
Wow, I have heard about this but never thought there would be any law to back it up.

I would suggest that all people, getting to that stage in a relationship with a single parent where co-habitation is discussed, seriously consider a written legal document to address this. I know I will if the situation presented itself. I would also use a pre-nup if I were ever to consider getting married again. The downside to both of those is that I'm sure some lawyer and some court somewhere would overturn it anyways.

It is a said state of the world when the legal system starts having a significant impact on potential relationships.
 Crane38
Joined: 8/8/2009
Msg: 113
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 2:17:33 PM
This unfortunately is becoming more common and needs to be addressed. But I think the rule applies only if the Biological father is not paying suuport. I don't think that the mother can collect from 2 men. Men do need to have the equal rights in the court system as women do and the crutch of it is not in the best interest of the kid needs to be retired.
 Silverhawk1999
Joined: 10/9/2007
Msg: 114
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 2:39:24 PM

But I think the rule applies only if the Biological father is not paying suuport. I don't think that the mother can collect from 2 men


She can collect from as many father(s) as the courts see fit. Read this nice little summary from a Canadian family lawyer here:

http://www.karenselick.com/CL0507.html

The only way to be absolutely SURE you will not have to pay child support for step-kids is to avoid co-habitation in its entirety. If you read the article, there is even a case where the step father has to pay child support even when the kids went to live with the Bio father!!

Sad indeed but everyone should be aware of these laws and adjust their social habits to protect themselves accordingly. Unfortunately this may mean living single until kids are emancipated as adults.
 Tomau
Joined: 5/9/2009
Msg: 115
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 2:47:57 PM

Here in Canada (all Canadian provinces) you are definitely obligated to support non-biological children after 6 months of co-habitation. And it is truly unfortunate this law exists because it does indeed become a huge barrier for single parents to ever co-habitate again in second marriages or relationships.


It is actually once you have provided for the non=biological child for the period of at least one year and cohabited together for 2 yrs, at least here in BC.

I do think it is wrong for the non-biological father to have to pay support, after all the whole situation has nothing to do with you guys.

However, this only happens if the woman decides to go after child support from the step father, and she has to do so within a year. I don't think that should be allowed and women who do that are truly after the money.
 itsallinthesoul
Joined: 6/26/2009
Msg: 116
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 3:40:06 PM
I personally don't feel anyone other than the biological parent should have to pay child support. Unfortunately when a single parent is collecting welfare, the government will go after anyone so it stands to reason that living with/marrying any parent who is not self-supporting would be stupid unless you want to be on the hook for palimony, alimony or child support for non-biological children. I would have no problem signing a contract that would stipulate that my SO would not be on the hook for child support for non-bio children if our marriage failed.

If the government(s) who enact such legislation are concerned about taxpayers footing the bill for a single parent's lifestyle choice (Stay at home parent), then they should make changes to those programs that enable those parents.

One poster suggests that women should not be entitled to child support regardless of the circumstances since we alone decide if a child is to be born. That is ridiculous!!! Men should NOT be let off the hook of parental responsibility if a relationship fails, neither should women. I hear alot of self-centred single people posting on this topic....kinda makes ya wonder why they might still be single...../sarcasm.

The more people think/worry about protecting their $$$$$ instead of reinvesting that energy into relationship/family values.....the worse our society will become.
 Silverhawk1999
Joined: 10/9/2007
Msg: 117
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 4:13:30 PM

The more people think/worry about protecting their $$$$$ instead of reinvesting that energy into relationship/family values.....the worse our society will become
.

lol.....that kind of comment clearly comes from someone who hasn't had to pay large sums of money for child support or Alimony........

I'm once bitten, twice shy.....I simply cannot afford another "reinvestment of energy into the relationship" without taking the proper precautions....

These are the laws - we'll have to live by them. The consequences are becoming obvious in society. Just look at how many "why don't men date single mothers?" posts on here.......and let me reiterate....there is NOTHING wrong with single mothers (or fathers for that matter).....its these damn laws that discourage that kind of practice.......

Eh...I think I've made my point...I'm off to see my single mother ladyfriend......at HER place.....lol........
 itsallinthesoul
Joined: 6/26/2009
Msg: 118
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:25:27 PM

lol.....that kind of comment clearly comes from someone who hasn't had to pay large sums of money for child support or Alimony........


Nope, I haven't, nor have I been on the receiving end of large sums of money for either. I would never accept alimony because I am self-supporting. I do receive child support for one of two of my children but the amount based on his $100K plus annual income he pays me is 244/month because that is what I felt was fair.

Laws are there...just because there are family laws does not mean we need to utilize them....it is a choice each man/woman makes and it is largely a result of one's values IMO.


I'm once bitten, twice shy


Aren't we all...........some measure their losses in $$$, others don't.

I would still rather "risk" than settle for being alone.....but I would damn sure choose wisely who I will marry (don't want to live with a man I'm not married to).
 cubanguy
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 119
view profile
History
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 7:01:17 PM
Regardless my personal opinion of what is known in Canada as "in loco parentis" or in the US as the "estoppel doctrine", what it hits me like a train, is that in both countries is invoked "in the best interest of the child".

Yet, as result of this policy, the ironic situation arise when a father is set to pay less for his own children because money is already diverted for obligation to non-biological others.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 120
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 7:47:25 PM

But I think the rule applies only if the Biological father is not paying suuport. I don't think that the mother can collect from 2 men.


Nope and nope.

I had to pay support for my stepson despite the ex collecting money from the bio-dad.....

.... I just made a lot more than her other ex, so I was a good source of CS for her.

 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 121
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 7:52:31 PM

It is actually once you have provided for the non=biological child for the period of at least one year and cohabited together for 2 yrs, at least here in BC.


I think what you mean is that the guy is held in loco parentis if he's cohabitated with mom and kid for one year while he isn't even considered common law married to the mother for two years...

.... that's my understanding. I think judges can do whatever they want, really.

 Tomau
Joined: 5/9/2009
Msg: 122
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/16/2009 9:16:07 PM
I think any woman who goes after a step father and collects from the bio father is just plain greedy.
 itsallinthesoul
Joined: 6/26/2009
Msg: 123
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/17/2009 6:25:18 AM

I think any woman who goes after a step father and collects from the bio father is just plain greedy.


I agree 100% with that comment.

Unfortunately, a person's true character is sometimes not exposed until the end of a relationship......hence I suppose the need to protect oneself legally.
 JT 1
Joined: 9/19/2009
Msg: 124
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/17/2009 8:45:37 AM
You no what I tell all of the 13-14-15-16-17yr olds? They should go ahead an impregnate someone RIGHT NOW! so that by the time they get out age they will have all 0f there child support payed off!
 Rossjackson1985
Joined: 4/7/2009
Msg: 125
view profile
History
this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids
Posted: 10/17/2009 10:02:21 AM
wow..paying child support to a child that is not yours and you are not a gaurdian of? if that was in england, she would of been arrested for fraud lol.. only the biological father or gaurdian etc pays for child support here.. not non-parental parents.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > this is not right paying child support to g/f not my kids