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  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 137
Paying child support for kids that are not yoursPage 4 of 30    (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)

I don't believe, though, that if the biological father is paying full child support, that the woman can just keep going after future partners to gain more monetarily, it doesn't work like that. I could stand corrected, though, especially if a future partner has a higher income than the biological parent does? Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I can answer that?


Double dipping is allowed when the step parent makes more than the bio parent. That's was happened in my case. Even though there was a court order in place for CS from the bio dad, I had to pay because I made a lot more money. I paid the difference between what he was ordered to pay and what I would pay if I was paying full support.

I've never heard of triple/quadruple dipping, but it's conceivable if the woman ... erm, parent.... keeps trading up for richer and richer partners.....

In loco parentis status can be put in place after as little as 1 year in B.C. while common law marriage is usually considered 2 years....

 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/15/2010 7:24:26 PM
While well aware that this post may well inflame some of you, it is difficult to ignore statements made with the intent to widen the gender gap. As far as California Health and Safety Code 124250, it relates to the funding of services for victims, specifically a shelter-based service grant program, not the legal definition of domestic violence victims, as you suggest. Look, I don't condone violence against any one, and I have no doubt that men are abused, but you can't on the one hand spout off stats about how better equipped men are as cp's without cs & on the other, ask to be treated as if those men are suddenly in the same situation, as far as need based services as are women (not you personally, mrcs, but a looming undertone of far too many threads here). Personally, I don't support that code, as I believe that need based is need based, evidenced by an individual's situation and gender should play no role whatever, but that is not the point. Regardless, it is erroneous to use that particular code to argue that the law denies the fact that men are victimized by their opposite sex partner.

I can not fathom someone being forced to pay for a child not their own. On the other hand, I admit that I am at the least disappointed by the individual who would willingly become entrenched in the life of a child, support them, in more ways than one, then suddenly one day feel no obligation to them, and I believe that that general feeling is the intent and the basis of laws governing it. As the law is applied by individuals, so it is subject to the individual's manipulation. It is manipulation of the law, to the benefit of the legal profession, that is at the crux of the problem, and at it's root, a lack of personal responsibility. Call me crazy, cuz every time I mention those two words, I become "the freak in the back of the bus", but that's how I see it.
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 139
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/19/2010 3:08:19 AM

On the other hand, I admit that I am at the least disappointed by the individual who would willingly become entrenched in the life of a child, support them, in more ways than one, then suddenly one day feel no obligation to them, and I believe that that general feeling is the intent and the basis of laws governing it.


But this is similar to how paramour relationships work. Once you break up (assuming there was no marriage), you -should- have the right and the liberty to absolve any sort of obligations. Just because the child is "young" and "innocent" and maybe even "doesn't understand" doesn't have relevance, at least in my book. Moreover, the final say in the maintaining of the bond between step-parent/current partner and child is held by the bio-parent. So it's -only- "ok" to absolve any obligations if the bio-parent says so.

And honestly, how is paying child support for a child that isn't even yours supposed to aid in mending any sort of emotional impact felt by the child?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/20/2010 6:45:07 AM

But this is similar to how paramour relationships work. Once you break up (assuming there was no marriage), you -should- have the right and the liberty to absolve any sort of obligations. Just because the child is "young" and "innocent" and maybe even "doesn't understand" doesn't have relevance, at least in my book. Moreover, the final say in the maintaining of the bond between step-parent/current partner and child is held by the bio-parent. So it's -only- "ok" to absolve any obligations if the bio-parent says so.


Agreed as far as the legality, but I was not speaking to the legal issue. Having a legal right to do something, whether to emotionally wound a child or to act vindictively against someone you allowed in to the life of your child, doesn't make it right. Still, moral correctness does in fact play a role in enactment of legislation. Again, it is the misuse of the law that is the problem; and that is on the individual, not the legal system.


And honestly, how is paying child support for a child that isn't even yours supposed to aid in mending any sort of emotional impact felt by the child?


Supporting a child, whether financially or otherwise, nearly always results in good for the child, don't you think? This is about doing what is right where those for whom you care are concerned, aside from the legal issue of paying support. Of course, you left out the part of my post where I clearly stated that I do not feel it right to force anyone to pay for a child not their own.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 141
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/20/2010 10:26:36 AM

Supporting a child, whether financially or otherwise, nearly always results in good for the child, don't you think?

Let's start with the mother, since we are talking about stepfathers, for the most part.
In all of this, mom seems to be the common denominator in these children's lives. Oddly enough, it's also moms who seem to be dragging these kids through multiple relationships.
I think all moms who have gone through multiple marriages/relationships lack any credibility about men needing to be a part of the emotional and psychological needs of their children..... especially when such topics involve discussion about money.

How many step[dads do the children go through before mom gets it right?

Having a legal right to do something, whether to emotionally wound a child or to act vindictively against someone you allowed in to the life of your child, doesn't make it right.

So... from what I gather, a woman who has been married/common law many timnes, shouild not only expect financial support but the children should have each stepfather actively involved in their life?
I know of a t least 6 women weho have been married a minimum three times - at what point to do you stanbd back and say "WTF.... she's screwing up the kids - not the men."
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 142
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/21/2010 5:41:56 AM

If you guys really think Single Mom's are the demon bloodsuckin whore's of today's society.( right My I and Tealwood?)..than start a facebook page....picket your local politicians office...but puhlease stop whining about it on this site...it is soooo old...let's move on to important topics like cell phones and guns....

You can always start your own threads about cell phones and guns if you want. Just head over to the politics forums. If you're tired of what these guys have to say, then stop fanning the flames. These aren't hard tasks.


BTW What up about those non custodial bio parents who are not paying for their own children?..tsk tsk...for shame

Most non-costodial bio -males- do pay their support. Only about 11% of men actually fit the bill of deadbeat dads.
http://deltabravo.net/custody/supportfacts.php


I know of at least 8 men who are still married and screwing up their kids by cheating...and another 6 man boys who don't GAF about the women and kids they are living (squatting) with...as long as their laundry is done and their meals are cooked.

The difference being that these women are more at liberty to kick these men out for the harm being done. The children being harmed in My I's example are less at liberty to do anything for the harm that's being done to them (especially if they aren't even aware of what's going on yet). Mom can get rid of no-good dad. Child can't get rid of no-good mom.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 143
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/21/2010 6:26:41 AM

If you're tired of what these guys have to say, then stop fanning the flames

^^^^There are some women who let some loser knock them up and then are totally p!ssed that the loser wasn't responsible to the mom. It rarely becomes an issue about the child moreso than it becomes an issue about "answering to the mother"..... giving the loser more excuses to stay away.

Ya see... losers breed with losers.... losers use the kids as a reason to default on sanity and responsibility..... that's not a gender specific trait. One loser says "Pay for the kid!!!" and the other loser says "You shouldn't have got pregnant!!!"

The child is stuck in the middle while they both party.

Fanning the flame is all some know how to do because they don't hold jobs, they have no real purpose for getting out of bed each day except to tend to the children (that p!sses them off).... so what else can do they do other than moan and complain about the behaviour of others?

And then.... a poor sucker gets labelled "Step dad" and must financially support the two a$$holes' child.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/21/2010 6:27:03 AM

Let's start with the mother, since we are talking about stepfathers, for the most part.
In all of this, mom seems to be the common denominator in these children's lives. Oddly enough, it's also moms who seem to be dragging these kids through multiple relationships.
I think all moms who have gone through multiple marriages/relationships lack any credibility about men needing to be a part of the emotional and psychological needs of their children..... especially when such topics involve discussion about money.


Why the need to start with mom as a response to the issue of the child? Mom is the common denominator only because the father isn't present. Despite what is often espoused on these forums, that is often by the father's choice, as is the willful refusal to support their own children. In any case, while just as morally wrong as the woman who uses their children for supposed financial gain, that is a separate issue. We weren't specifically discussing mothers who go from relationship to relationship, we were discussing step parents/so's of those with children, plain & simple. Are you suggesting that there are no fathers who subject their children to multiple relationships, whether they involve the financial or not?


So... from what I gather, a woman who has been married/common law many timnes, shouild not only expect financial support but the children should have each stepfather actively involved in their life?
I know of a t least 6 women weho have been married a minimum three times - at what point to do you stanbd back and say "WTF.... she's screwing up the kids - not the men."


Why on earth would you gather that?! I know people (men & women alike) that have been married several times, some are decent parents, some aren't. It has nothing to do with the expectation of financial support and I never said it did. Simply put, do the right thing, legality aside.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 145
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/21/2010 6:43:33 AM

...I would suggest that any conspiricy theory about single mother's having an unlimited source of child supoport and tax benefits is kinda ridiculous!...but hey..whatever helps ya sleep at night!
If you guys really think Single Mom's are the demon bloodsuckin whore's of today's society.( right My I and Tealwood?)..


Rich.....very rich....coming from the woman who is working part time...not allowing her two sons to live with their father..per their wishes...as she will be unable to afford her 2,000 sq foot home without the money that the child support brings in.....

as opposed to
( right My I and Tealwood?)
Two custodial fathers who are raising their children without the same child support that izabeth or Lizie seems to see as an entitlement...


16 yr old Moving in with Dad
Posted: 9/26/2009 452 AM
Here is the update...My other son (who is 12) has decided he also wants to live with his Dad. I can't say I am really surprised at this, but I am a little pissed at my ex for making me the bad guy by telling my 12 yr old to ask me if that is okay!

I really don't think he understands the price these kids will have to pay when they are forced to re-locate from a social stucture they have had since they started school!
The kids Dad is also looking to move even further away than he is from where I live now to save money on renting.

I also suspect he has said something to the kids (from what they have said to me) about not having to pay child support if they live with him....I feel like I have been cornered into being the bad guy no matter how I react to what is going on!

I understand the boys want to be with their Dad and are at an age where they will respond to his guidance and advice more than they will mine.
I don't think that my ex or my boys fully understand the consequences or reprucussions of the choice they want to make.
I can do without all the child support and minimal tax benefits I get for having primary custody of the boys....ONLY IF I sold the house that has been the constant secure place, or I guess the home base for these kids for the majority of their life.
I am only working part-time....and will continue to have that scheduale until my 4yr old daughter is in school full-time. I did it for my boys and she deserves nothing less.

I cannot think of a really good reason for scraping by to make ends meet to keep a 2000 sq ft home for one toddler and one adult to live in.



What Responsibility Do I have To My Child?.....Page 1 of 2 (1, 2)
This question comes from a different thread regarding mandatory DNA testing in the SP forum.
What responsibilities do I as a parent to my 4 year old regarding her bio Father who wants to play the hookey pokey regarding getting a paternity test and ultimately visitation? He hasn't seen her since she was 2 days old....and she will turn 5 this year.
This guy is in....and he's out....until the guilt kicks in (I guess)..then he's in again and wants to be a Father..Ironically it seems like every time a holiday comes around, he show's interest again???WTF? ...I mean really, she's not for rent over the holidays or an excuse not to make a salad to bring to a party!
Is this guy is feeling left out at his social functions because he is the only one without a kid?!
Having a mandatory DNA legislation would definatley benefit her fututre finacially...



Seems there is a recurring theme for some....and a recurring theme in how you see the men as a financial resource?



^^^^That is the only comment I will copy from the last few posts on this thread.
Am I a control freak?.....probably! But only because my Ex is a absent Father even when he has visitation. I will NOT pretend to be their "friend"...and negotiate the cost of their affections...nope...been there done that.
I am a parent...PERIOD. My job is to provide food clothing and shelter....and if my kids want to participate in the day to day responsibilities that go with living under my roof...than they need to participate in the day to day chores that is rquired to keep our house running.
Funny thing...since I have taken this stance,my kids are not manipulating me into paying for the extras they used too. I am in the midst of a very ugly and nasty custody battle right now....yet my boys still come to me when the registration fees are due for sports....and the other things their father promised to buy them..
I wonder why that is? My boys do not like me at all right now...but they will get over it..


So the father of the boys are at odds with you....the boys...or your sons are at odds with you.....the father of your daughter is at odds with you...Is that not suggesting the problem is not simply the male issues?

Are you suggesting that all men are not understanding...that all men are unworthy or simply do not realize that you have the right answers?

My position is what is good for the goose has to be good for the gander......that one allows or enables the children to make choices that they want...even if it might not be in what you as a non objective parent might view it as not in their best interest....

Working and being financially responsible for ones children...is not something that only the father is required to do....

Paying and being finacially responsible for children that are not yours...but may have been finacially and emotionally involved in...but never...never does the questions ask if both custodial and non custodial homes....have the same financial requirements in working.....as indicated by a single custodial mother working part time.....and needing the child support and the government checks for each child to support her choice of not working....or not working full time like it is expected of her ex's....to maintain the child support she feels entitled to...
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/21/2010 6:36:58 PM
( right My I and Tealwood?)

Two custodial fathers who are raising their children without the same child support that izabeth or Lizie seems to see as an entitlement.


Truth is, you sound a bit bitter; cs is indeed an entitlement, for the child, and it is not limited to a mother. Parents who raise their children without cs are no better or worse than parents who receive cs; it is their kids who pay a higher price in the long run.


Seems there is a recurring theme for some....and a recurring theme in how you see the men as a financial resource?


Recurring theme for some, yourself included. Men and women alike are financial resources where their children are concerned. Why is this so hard to digest? Does the child you swore would never see the inside of a day care center suddenly become less "special" simply because the relationship between you & the other parent fails? I haven't heard anyone say that only men are to be held financially responsible for their children, although I freely admit that what once seemed to be important as far as the raising of children is concerned seems to be thrown out the window once a relationship ends, and that is often seen when a father is the breadwinner, whilst the mother (by agreement, most often) remained at home. Let's be honest here. Those who change their priorities where their children are concerned once they are "on their own" abound, and it is towards them that comments are directed. There are members of both genders in this category. No need to take it so personally!
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 147
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/21/2010 11:14:32 PM

cs is indeed an entitlement, for the child, and it is not limited to a mother.


If you want to hide behind that [often] thinly veiled copout, then fine. As long as some random guy isn't forced to pay just because he waltzed into the life of some single mom, then we're good.
 Billy_Famine
Joined: 8/3/2010
Msg: 148
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/22/2010 6:35:53 PM

The courts rule in favor of the child, who has had this "daddy" all or his or her life.

I think sometimes we forget that these aren't stories of women or the courts "sticking it to the man". They're trying to provide what's best for the child, emotionally and financially.

Remember? The child has done nothing wrong. I think this whole trend of denying children a parent because "he's not mine" genetically is ridiculous. I blame those stupid daytime tv shows with idiots screaming at each other, "He's not mine! He don't look nothing like me!" about a six month old baby. FGS.

OP, by all means, get DNA tests, if it will make you feel better.


What's best for the CHILD!?!? ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?!?

This is the biggest lie we have today. The reason this started is not for whats best for the child, it's because our state was broke, and not being able to find the daddy to pay child support was getting hard, so they made up new fathers.

Is it good for a child to NOT SEE this supposed non-maternal father, yet receive his money while his mother goes with other men? This is teaching kids "the right thing"?

What if this non-paternal father has kids of his own, HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL KIDS, and they can't afford everything THEY want because his NON-PATERNAL kids are taking a chunk out of his paycheck? Is it best for THAT KID, who legitimately needs his REAL FATHER, WHO IS STICKING AROUND?

Dude, get a DNA Test. If it was mandatory, I bet less females would be cheating around like this.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 149
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/22/2010 9:28:39 PM
^^^The thread wasnt about mandatory DNA tests (theres a huge trainwreck thread on it though somewhere),,,,it is about men who took on a father figure role to children that were not his biologically , then had the relationship with the mother end, and got slapped with a child support order. I wasnt judging right or wrong on anyone i was merely curious as to wheather this was a real, legititimate law in Canada, or just some BS that people liked to spew as a reason to put down single mothers.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 150
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/23/2010 2:50:40 PM

I wasnt judging right or wrong on anyone i was merely curious as to wheather this was a real, legititimate law in Canada, or just some BS that people liked to spew as a reason to put down single mothers

It's real, legitimate law in Canada.
As they say, "Be careful in what you ask for." Moms fought for this to be law and now that it is law they don't like the stigma attached to their request. It does not matter how deep or shallow the love is between a man and a single mother.... if the relationship fails the government has made it a business venture based on the political pressure they were placed under.

Unfortunately, if a mom decides to be angry, bitter and vengeful if the relationship fails all she has to do is go to a lawyer and make the man pay. Single moms can be as p!ssed as they want about reputations - but the truth of the matter is in the court rulings and not in the BS some of them are spewing in these forums.

Family courts have, for the most part, inherently labelled moms as victims (has nothing to do with kids). If you don't believe me, ask any non-bio father who has a court order against them.... and then ask mom why the bio-father is permitted to be less responsible for his own child.

The most common factor is fear. They fear their first ex so as a menas to circumvent their fear, they impose that unresolved anger on to the non-bio father. Again, refer to court rulings as proof.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 151
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/23/2010 7:59:41 PM
Just to get the facts straight:



An estoppel is a preclusion, in law, which prevents a man from alleging or denying a fact, in consequence of his own previous act, allegation or denial of a contrary tenor.
That is, a person may not legally argue against his own words or acts.


The doctrine is cited and applied in cases where it is applicable. The doctrine is not, in & of itself, in place to order non biological fathers to financially support children they did not father.

Look, I am not arguing in favor of men being forced to pay cs for kids they had no part in producing, but it is hard to make a valid argument when you choose arguments that used by both sides. At the very least, they show how the arguments are the legal basis for both sides. Consider this:


On June 25, 1994, the child was born. At the time, mother was unmarried, but living with Raymond S., who was listed as the child’s father on her birth certificate. Mother and Raymond had a previous child together and, after the birth of that child, had another child. When the child was seven years old, during a family dispute, she became aware that Raymond may not be her biological father. At that time, mother called Kenneth at his home in Florida and had him speak with the child. The conversation lasted less than ten minutes, during which time A. asked questions concerning his physical characteristics. Kenneth’s attempt to speak with the child a second time was rebuffed by Raymond, who warned Kenneth not to speak to her again. Kenneth has had no further contact with the child.

In 2006, when the child was approximately twelve years old, mother filed the instant petition against Kenneth, seeking an order of filiation and child support. Kenneth appeared before Family Court for the first time by way of telephone. The Support Magistrate advised Kenneth, among other things, that he had the right to admit or deny that he was the father of the child. However, the Magistrate did not advise Kenneth that he had the right to assignment of counsel, or inquire whether he wished to consult with counsel prior to proceeding. Kenneth agreed to the ordered genetic marker testing, which indicated a 99.99% probability that Kenneth is indeed the child’s biological father.

At a hearing in January 2007, Kenneth, having now been assigned counsel, appeared once again via telephone, but protested that he had yet to speak with the lawyer assigned to him. Counsel admitted that he had not spoken to his client, and that the “file fell through the cracks for me.” Despite Kenneth’s protest, the Support Magistrate proceeded with the hearing. When the issue of equitable estoppel was raised by Kenneth, the Magistrate, lacking the authority to hear that issue, transferred the case to a Judge of the Family Court. That court, determining the issue on motion papers and oral argument, held that Kenneth was the father of A. and entered an order of filiation.

The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable in paternity proceedings only where it is invoked to further the best interests of the child, and “generally is not available to a party seeking to disavow the allegation of parenthood for the purpose of avoiding child support” (Aikens v. Nell, 63 AD3d 1662 (4th Dept. 2009)). The court also rejected Kenneth’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

In Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 N.Y.3d 320 (2006), the Court of Appeals set forth the law applicable to equitable estoppel in paternity and child support proceedings. It held that

purpose of equitable estoppel is to preclude a person from asserting a right after having led another to form the reasonable belief that the right would not be asserted, and loss or prejudice to the other would result if the right were asserted. The law imposes the doctrine as a matter of fairness. Its purpose is to prevent someone from enforcing rights that would work injustice on the person against whom enforcement is sought and who, while justifiably relying on the opposing party’s actions, has been misled into a detrimental change of position.

We concluded that the “paramount” concern in such cases “has been and continues to be the best interests of the child.

Id. at 326.

Equitable estoppel has been used, as it was in Shondel J., to prevent a man from avoiding child support by claiming that he is not the child’s biological father. In such a case, the man has represented himself to be the child’s father and the child’s best interests are served by a declaration of fatherhood. The doctrine in this way protects “the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship” (In re Baby Boy C., 84 NY2d 91, 102n [1994]). Here, Kenneth sought to invoke the doctrine against mother, who led Kenneth to form the reasonable belief that he was not a father and that Raymond is A.’s father. He argued that it is not in A.’s best interest to have her current, child-father relationship with Raymond interrupted.

At the time the instant petition was brought, A. was 12 years old and had lived in an intact family with Raymond and her mother. His name appears on her birth certificate and he is the biological father of her older and younger siblings. For most of A.’s life, she referred to Raymond as father. Thus, Kenneth appropriately raised an issue as to whether it is in A.’s best interest to have someone besides Raymond declared her father this late in her childhood. As a result, the Court concluded that it was proper for him to assert a claim of estoppel to, among other things, protect the status of that parent-child relationship.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the Law Guardian’s position that a person who has already been determined to be a child’s biological father cannot raise an equitable estoppel argument. The Court stated that the doctrine has been used to prevent a biological father from asserting paternity rights when it would be detrimental to the child’s interests to disrupt the child’s close relationship with another father figure. The same best-interests considerations that justify estopping a biological father from asserting his paternity may justify preventing a mother from asserting it. Indeed, whether it is being used in the offensive posture to enforce rights or the defensive posture to prevent rights from being enforced, equitable estoppel is only to be used to protect the best interests of the child. Therefore, the Court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be used by a purported biological father to prevent a child’s mother from asserting biological paternity — when the mother has acquiesced in the development of a close relationship between the child and another father figure, and it would be detrimental to the child’s interests to disrupt that relationship."


Equitable estoppel is not a law which forces men to provide for children not their own, it is a legal tool for both defense & enforcement, period. It is a basic belief that what is requested or asserted should not differ from that which is shown to be a fact as a matter of evidence. It is intended to ensure that you mean what you say & say what you mean, or rather, continue to do as you have chosen to represent yourself as willing to do. Once again, personal responsibility rear its ugly head.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 152
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/23/2010 8:39:50 PM

Equitable estoppel is not a law which forces men to provide for children not their own, it is a legal tool for both defense & enforcement, period. It is a basic belief that what is requested or asserted should not differ from that which is shown to be a fact as a matter of evidence. It is intended to ensure that you mean what you say & say what you mean, or rather, continue to do as you have chosen to represent yourself as willing to do. Once again, personal responsibility rear its ugly head

You just proved that mandatory testing at birth should be legislated - mom is the only one laughing at this situation.

Ken and Raymond can fight over paternity while mom sits in the corner with her bag of popcorn and enjoys the show. Every time you women bring up an issue about paternity and/or support, the mom is the least affected... maybe that's why some moms love to argue such issues so much - they have nothing to lose.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 153
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/23/2010 10:09:42 PM

^^^ It´s also real, legitimate law in US known as estoppel doctrine and/or equitable paternity.
It´s also, in both countries, only applied to men.
In what states? trust me when i say that if i asked the law down south for child support from any of the men i dated they would have to try not to choke from laughing to hard.
Im pretty sure this is a Canadian law and not an American one.
 Billy_Famine
Joined: 8/3/2010
Msg: 154
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/24/2010 8:36:41 AM

In what states? trust me when i say that if i asked the law down south for child support from any of the men i dated they would have to try not to choke from laughing to hard.
Im pretty sure this is a Canadian law and not an American one.


WRONG!!!

It's big in California, every governor that gets the bill that will outlaw this vetoes it or just fails to sign it.

It's big in the United States really, you are just not up to date.

Personally, this is the reason I stopped with single mothers. I can't afford to run this risk.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 155
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/24/2010 12:42:46 PM
I lived in California, thats not true.
Have you ever seen a California child support application packet!? i might even have one that i never filed lying around my attic somewhere.
Its specifically asks you "under penalty of perjury did you have sexual intercourse with the named individual resulting in the conception of the child you are asking for support for? And it also states that when filing for support that the named father will have a right to a DNA test at the cost of the county if he requests one, upon being served support papers.

Sources: Real life experience living in the golden state.
 StevieCashmere
Joined: 4/22/2009
Msg: 156
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/24/2010 12:51:13 PM
Individual Cirumstances

~Stevie
 Billy_Famine
Joined: 8/3/2010
Msg: 157
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/24/2010 3:18:36 PM

I lived in California, thats not true.
Have you ever seen a California child support application packet!? i might even have one that i never filed lying around my attic somewhere.
Its specifically asks you "under penalty of perjury did you have sexual intercourse with the named individual resulting in the conception of the child you are asking for support for? And it also states that when filing for support that the named father will have a right to a DNA test at the cost of the county if he requests one, upon being served support papers.

Sources: Real life experience living in the golden state.


Well, this is PARTLY true.

This will result in perjury to you ONLY IF, AND ONLY IF he contests it within 2 years.

After 2 years, he is a default dad.

Oh, and heres the icing on the cake. That notification you have to sent to him? Lots of women who don't know where to send it end up putting their own adress, getting the notification in their mailboxes and the guy is left clueless. Default dads occur because they are not properly served, but very properly billed.

Oh yeah, by the way, even though MEN have only 2 years to contest this, a FEMALE can show up 17 years and 364 days later to claim child support, back payments with interest and penalties.

As for the child support packet, please... my mom works in a welfare office, and child support is so the state doesn't bear all the burden of raising some dead beat dad's child. I know what these packets are like, so nice try there, but no go.

May I also ask WHY you have a child support packet laying in your attic? I think you just revealed the kind of girl you are.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 158
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/24/2010 3:36:09 PM

May I also ask WHY you have a child support packet laying in your attic? I think you just revealed the kind of girl you are.


Because i gave birth to a child, in California, unmarried. I considered filing for support on the man that i had the child with, asked for a child support packet, and later changed my mind about filing, and never turned in the packet to be processed, so it may well be sitting in my boxes of old crap in my attic.

Now young dear, precisely what does having a over a decade old child support packet that was never turned in to the government reveal about my character?
 Billy_Famine
Joined: 8/3/2010
Msg: 159
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/24/2010 4:13:29 PM

Now young dear, precisely what does having a over a decade old child support packet that was never turned in to the government reveal about my character?

Sloppy birth control.

Not even sure why he left, or you left him... but whatever the reason, I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised. He was probably some ***hole, right?
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 160
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/24/2010 4:57:55 PM
I didnt use any birth control, and it wasnt sloppy i cleaned up before and after. Enjoying sex doesnt make someone of bad character.
No he isnt an ***hole, we just wanted different things, i wanted to be a prent and he didnt, so i went my own way to live my life and care for my child.
We are friends, no bad feelings about it. Adults can have children together, not be romantically involved, yet not hate each other.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 161
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/24/2010 5:12:17 PM

We are friends, no bad feelings about it. Adults can have children together, not be romantically involved, yet not hate each other

I'm just wondering, after reading your last two posts, why are you friends with the father yet not insisting the man at least establish some sort of financial package for the child?
I don't understand how thw child benefits from that kind of logic.... especially in the future
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >