Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
this is a stupid question,sorry to say this...did you think,who should take the cost over?the state?california,who is broken for example??i think,this is the last thing they should have on their agenda....the parenst should pay for the test?the most are struggling with houses,they can not afford,cars ,they can not afford,kids,they can not afford,(neither emotionally ,nor financially)..
with fear they could lose job and so on,the list is long...do you think,this is an expense ,they would really need????..be realist...
there is a saying in europe..before you open your mouth,think first!!!
did you think before you put such a question or you have nothing else to do???first you have to think at the cost...and regarding cost,this question is stupid to put..sorry,it is my opinion..your question does not make sense financially,it is a stupid question,periode...
how can anyone advocate a man paying to support a child that isn't his?? because of, "presumed" paternity?? a man shouldn't be held responsible for a child he didn't father.
Can you spell s-e-l-f c-e-n-t-e-r-e-d? That's what I hear out of you. There is a child that needs to be supported. If a man is married to a woman while she is pregnant and gives birth its not unreasonable to treat him as the father. He has an option to divorce or not get married in the first place.
Is your idea something like this? Your wife gives birth. Three years later something causes you to question paternity. You obtain a test. The test results indicate you are not the father. So, therefore, even though you have provided both economic and emotional support to this three year old child who now loves you to death that its ok to simply "up and abandon" this child?
What you and a few others just don't seem to get is that parenting is about more than simple biology. The law doesn't protect biology. What the law protects is a relationship and the economic and emotional sustenance of a needy child. There are both mothers and fathers all around this country who did not contribute DNA to their child. Its called adoption. Their legal relationship to their children as parent is no less a relationship than biological parents have.
how can anyone advocate a man paying to support a child that isn't his?? because of, "presumed" paternity?? a man shouldn't be held responsible for a child he didn't father.
Can you spell s-e-l-f c-e-n-t-e-r-e-d? That's what I hear out of you. There is a child that needs to be supported. If a man is married to a woman while she is pregnant and gives birth its not unreasonable to treat him as the father. He has an option to divorce or not get married in the first place.
Is your idea something like this? Your wife gives birth. Three years later something causes you to question paternity. You obtain a test. The test results indicate you are not the father. So, therefore, even though you have provided both economic and emotional support to this three year old child who now loves you to death that its ok to simply "up and abandon" this child?
What you and a few others just don't seem to get is that parenting is about more than simple biology. The law doesn't protect biology. What the law protects is a relationship and the economic and emotional sustenance of a needy child. There are both mothers and fathers all around this country who did not contribute DNA to their child. Its called adoption. Their legal relationship to their children as parent is no less a relationship than biological parents have.
But keep going.....Its really about ME isn't it?
Sorry but this is absurd. The law does in fact protect biology, this is exactly why the biological parents are given priority of being the primary caretakers or the child when he or she is born. Not grand mom, aunti, next door neighbor or anyone else unless the bio parents voluntarily give up said child OR a family court judge finds that a biological parent has neglected to maintain contact with a child for a specified number of years (usually 18 months) after a family court finding. The biological portion of entitlement for a parent to a child preceeds any and every adoption process.
Ask anyone who has adopted a child. They either established guardianship by the biological parents giving up those rights to a child or when a family court judge has stripped the biological parents of his or her rights for guardianship, either way you swing it, the biological aspect of "entitlement" is protected by law and given first priority.
Like I said before, for those of you who are fine with finacially and emotionally caring for a child conceived between your wife and her lover--then by all means do so. But those of us who prefer otherwise should be given a choice.
this is a stupid question,sorry to say this...did you think,who should take the cost over?the state?california,who is broken for example??i think,this is the last thing they should have on their agenda....the parenst should pay for the test?the most are struggling with houses,they can not afford,cars ,they can not afford,kids,they can not afford,(neither emotionally ,nor financially)..
with fear they could lose job and so on,the list is long...do you think,this is an expense ,they would really need????..be realist...
there is a saying in europe..before you open your mouth,think first!!!
did you think before you put such a question or you have nothing else to do???first you have to think at the cost...and regarding cost,this question is stupid to put..sorry,it is my opinion..your question does not make sense financially,it is a stupid question,periode...
Easy answer. The presumed father who has requested a DNA test should cover the costs.
As a practical matter, within the confines of sociology, I would propose the following:
1) If a man acknowledges the responsibilities and presumption of fatherhood at the time of birth, and
2) If the mother concurs and acknowledges that that man is the father,
Then, that man is permanently and forever regarded as the lawful father, unless he voluntarily surrenders his claim to fatherhood.
This is the way it has to be, for personal and domestic stability. You can't dick around with people's lives like that.
As a practical matter, within the confines of sociology, I would propose the following:
1) If a man acknowledges the responsibilities and presumption of fatherhood at the time of birth, and
2) If the mother concurs and acknowledges that that man is the father,
Then, that man is permanently and forever regarded as the lawful father, unless he voluntarily surrenders his claim to fatherhood.
This is the way it has to be, for personal and domestic stability. You can't dick around with people's lives like that.
Ok, but like the OP mentioned before, what about a case where the man did not know until years after the fact?
Ok, but like the OP mentioned before, what about a case where the man did not know until years after the fact?
He's just out of luck, if the mother didn't want him to be the father in the first place, and the child already has a perfectly committed and supportive father. If he wants to be a daddy so badly, he can go impregnate somebody else who will let him be the father, and be more careful to make sure it's not somebody's wife.
These are not the kinds of people that should be uppermost in the favor of the law, to be protected above all else.
He's just out of luck, if the mother didn't want him to be the father in the first place, and the child already has a perfectly committed and supportive father. If he wants to be a daddy so badly, he can go impregnate somebody else who will let him be the father, and be more careful to make sure it's not somebody's wife.
These are not the kinds of people that should be uppermost in the favor of the law, to be protected above all else.
That doesn't exaclty sound like the ideal definition of "domestic stability." What is so domestically stable about a married woman conceiving a child unbeknownst to her husband's knowledge?
Are you suggesting that men who want to "badly" be biological fathers just go impregnating women (married or not) with impunity just because they can? I guess the duped father can go just knock up another married woman--and have her husband pay for it, while he pays for the child his wife had with someone else? Afterall, it all balances out in the end right? Sorry, but this not exaclty the methods of sociology that I want applied to the society that I live in...lol.
Just for bonus points, please answer me this...
let's say a married man has a child by another woman...
and let's say that the married man has been using their money to support that child without his wife knowing...
and let's say the wife finds out about the whole scheme and divorces the husband (legally any money earned during the marriage belongs to the two of them)...
after the divorce, should the (now) ex wife be obligated to make child support payments with the ex husband to the child conceived through adultery because financially it would be beneficial to the child's stability? I'm just curious because this all plays on the same logic.
That doesn't exaclty sound like the ideal definition of "domestic stability." What is so domestically stable about a married woman conceiving a child unbeknownst to her husband's knowledge?
.
We'd have a lot more "domestic stability" in this country if people would learn to look the other way when a partner has an indiscretion.
Domestic stability is when one partner pats the wandering one on the shoulder and says "That's alright, Dear, we still love each other and we have wonderful children, and that's what counts". I don't understand why people who love each other can't find a way to do that.
how can anyone advocate a man paying to support a child that isn't his?? because of, "presumed" paternity?? a man shouldn't be held responsible for a child he didn't father.
Can you spell s-e-l-f c-e-n-t-e-r-e-d? That's what I hear out of you. There is a child that needs to be supported. If a man is married to a woman while she is pregnant and gives birth its not unreasonable to treat him as the father. He has an option to divorce or not get married in the first place.
Is your idea something like this? Your wife gives birth. Three years later something causes you to question paternity. You obtain a test. The test results indicate you are not the father. So, therefore, even though you have provided both economic and emotional support to this three year old child who now loves you to death that its ok to simply "up and abandon" this child?
What you and a few others just don't seem to get is that parenting is about more than simple biology. The law doesn't protect biology. What the law protects is a relationship and the economic and emotional sustenance of a needy child. There are both mothers and fathers all around this country who did not contribute DNA to their child. Its called adoption. Their legal relationship to their children as parent is no less a relationship than biological parents have.
But keep going.....Its really about ME isn't it?
you sound stupid. if a man wants to care for a child he did not father even after the knowledge is obtained that he is not biologically the child's father or willing adopts the children of his partner, then more power to him, but say that a man who was named a father to a child under false pretenses (extra-marital affair, paternity fraud, etc.) should be held responsible against his will is absurd. if you can't understand that some men have a hard time dealing with the emotional anguish of knowing that your child is not only NOT your child, but was created by a relationship outside of yours and your partner, then that's your own fault.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
