Colorado man forced to pay child support despite DNA test results

[Tom Sawyer]

If he did, would that really be anybody's business but his own? He may be a dick for doing it, but if it's not his child, why should the courts mandate a lack of dickishness on his part?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Or maybe people should just learn to accept that humans should not put any stock at any time in those parts of our psyche driven by darwinistic concerns, and instead use whatever means we have available to subvert those mechanisms. This means raising children that don't share your particular differences to the basic human genome, instead focusing on raising them on your ideas and philosophy because exposing lots of genetic variations to lots of different philosophies is more likely to produce more interesting and dare I say more FUNCTIONAL world views.

In other words, I would not just say it is OK to have people be parents of children that 'arent theirs' but that it is preferable.

I disagree that biological parents aren't the best parents a child should have. But regardless, it is off topic to my OP which was originally meant to be about full filling the contract of marriage.

Aren't you conflating marriage and having children?

I'll have to agree with Bronzeage. You may not like it but that's how it works.

As far as I understand, DNA tests don't matter in PA when it comes to supporting minor children. Maybe the courts are saying that if you're married to a woman and you're stupid enough to not know who you're married to, then you deserve the consequences, especially considering the child is not self supporting.

 

[RVonse]

I disagree that biological parents aren't the best parents a child should have. But regardless, it is off topic to my OP which was originally meant to be about full filling the contract of marriage.

Aren't you conflating marriage and having children?

I'll have to agree with Bronzeage. You may not like it but that's how it works.

As far as I understand, DNA tests don't matter in PA when it comes to supporting minor children. Maybe the courts are saying that if you're married to a woman and you're stupid enough to not know who you're married to, then you deserve the consequences, especially considering the child is not self supporting.

????How can you possibly be expected to know what your spouse is doing behind your back? There are a lot smarter people than myself, both male and female who have been unknowingly victims to a cheating spouse. A marriage is supposed to be based on trust and fidelity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This made sense when a woman alone couldn't care for a child. I do not think it belongs in today's legal code, though.

I guess it sucks to be the child, huh?

I don't know if you have children, but if not, let's pretend you do. Would you cast out a child if you discovered said child was not your biological offspring?

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I guess it sucks to be the child, huh?

I don't know if you have children, but if not, let's pretend you do. Would you cast out a child if you discovered said child was not your biological offspring?

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Aren't you conflating marriage and having children?

I'll have to agree with Bronzeage. You may not like it but that's how it works.

As far as I understand, DNA tests don't matter in PA when it comes to supporting minor children. Maybe the courts are saying that if you're married to a woman and you're stupid enough to not know who you're married to, then you deserve the consequences, especially considering the child is not self supporting.

????How can you possibly be expected to know what your spouse is doing behind your back? There are a lot smarter people than myself, both male and female who have been unknowingly victims to a cheating spouse. A marriage is supposed to be based on trust and fidelity.

Laws are not always so ideologically based. Perhaps laws are ideologically intended, but then reality interferes

 

[RVonse]

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

 

[bilby]

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

 

[RVonse]

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

She can keep her legs closed until a divorce is practical. At the very least use birth control. That would not be too much for the law to demand considering the consequences to other innocent victims.

 

[Bronzeage]

I guess it sucks to be the child, huh?

I don't know if you have children, but if not, let's pretend you do. Would you cast out a child if you discovered said child was not your biological offspring?

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Just a straightforward question. Answer it, or not. Your call.

Maybe later we can have a discussion about the meaning of fatherhood and what actually constitutes a father-child bond. Up to this point I had never considered the governments role is forcing me to love my children.

 

[RVonse]

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Just a straightforward question. Answer it, or not. Your call.

Maybe later we can have a discussion about the meaning of fatherhood and what actually constitutes a father-child bond. Up to this point I had never considered the governments role is forcing me to love my children.

It is very possible to love someone and still prefer someone else pay to support that someone. It happens all the time to the taxpayers who are paying ADD.

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[fast]

Nm

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So there's the reality that this legal arrangement about the children possibly being supported by their non-biological parent exists pre marriage. As far as the law is concerned it is a prenuptial agreement. Those who enter into marriage therefore do so at their own risk as far as this situation is concerned. Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Likely it is on no newlyweds' radar but is still there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

"Enslaved" is the right word--they're being forced to work.

If society deems that help is needed (and if she can't do it on her own I agree, help should be provided) then it should be the job of society, not of one random innocent.

 

[TSwizzle]

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

If the biological father can be found, he needs to be paying for child support.

 

[bilby]

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

She can keep her legs closed until a divorce is practical. At the very least use birth control. That would not be too much for the law to demand considering the consequences to other innocent victims.

Yes, it would.

I most assuredly do NOT want the law to demand celibacy or the use of birth control of anybody under any circumstances.

 

[RVonse]

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Just a straightforward question. Answer it, or not. Your call.

Maybe later we can have a discussion about the meaning of fatherhood and what actually constitutes a father-child bond. Up to this point I had never considered the governments role is forcing me to love my children.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

She can keep her legs closed until a divorce is practical. At the very least use birth control. That would not be too much for the law to demand considering the consequences to other innocent victims.

Yes, it would.

I most assuredly do NOT want the law to demand celibacy or the use of birth control of anybody under any circumstances.

If you don't do something, sooner or later the men are going to wake up. They will drop their seed and move on the next woman without marriage. I think there will be serious blow back. The only people who will want marriage will be for a tax deduction because there wont be any other advantage. This type of society is already the norm in the inner cities and it will be the norm everywhere else too. Not a very pleasant future for civilization.

.

 

[laughing dog]

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Just a straightforward question. Answer it, or not. Your call.

Maybe later we can have a discussion about the meaning of fatherhood and what actually constitutes a father-child bond. Up to this point I had never considered the governments role is forcing me to love my children.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

She can keep her legs closed until a divorce is practical. At the very least use birth control. That would not be too much for the law to demand considering the consequences to other innocent victims.

Yes, it would.

I most assuredly do NOT want the law to demand celibacy or the use of birth control of anybody under any circumstances.

If you don't do something, sooner or later the men are going to wake up. They will drop their seed and move on the next woman without marriage. I think there will be serious blow back. The only people who will want marriage will be for a tax deduction because there wont be any other advantage. This type of society is already the norm in the inner cities and it will be the norm everywhere else too. Not a very pleasant future for civilization.

.

Nah, the oligarchs will make sure that type of social upheaval does not occur. Maybe we could institute sharia law and have those wives stoned to death for infidelity.

 

[bilby]

Enslaved? Hyperbole don't ya think?

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Just a straightforward question. Answer it, or not. Your call.

Maybe later we can have a discussion about the meaning of fatherhood and what actually constitutes a father-child bond. Up to this point I had never considered the governments role is forcing me to love my children.

That's just it. There is no reason that the childs welfare need be affected. The real dad should be paying the support though.

And more to the point, the woman needs sanctioned as well. There really is no reason a married woman should be looking for sex outside the marriage.

I can think of several reasons.

From a moral standpoint it would be better if she could divorce first, but that's not always practical or safe, and in some places is very difficult legally.

Marriage isn't slavery, and while being unfaithful in marriage is reprehensible, there are certainly enough grey areas that it's possible for it to be a very minor offence, or even no offence at all, in some cases.

Being unfaithful to one's spouse is generally a symptom of a problem in the relationship; whether the problem is with the unfaithful partner, or the other, or both, is not something that can be determined from the outside.

If society recognises that killing is sometimes (albeit rarely) justified homicide, then surely it can also recognise that cheating on one's spouse could (at least occasionally) be justified.

Every case is different.

She can keep her legs closed until a divorce is practical. At the very least use birth control. That would not be too much for the law to demand considering the consequences to other innocent victims.

Yes, it would.

I most assuredly do NOT want the law to demand celibacy or the use of birth control of anybody under any circumstances.

If you don't do something, sooner or later the men are going to wake up. They will drop their seed and move on the next woman without marriage. I think there will be serious blow back. The only people who will want marriage will be for a tax deduction because there wont be any other advantage. This type of society is already the norm in the inner cities and it will be the norm everywhere else too. Not a very pleasant future for civilization.

.

If the alternative is to give up on liberty, I think that the minimal chance that your bizarre and implausible dystopian fantasy might come true is a risk I am more than happy to accept.

For what I hope are obvious biological reasons, when a child is born it is very easy to be certain who the mother is, and it is far more difficult to be certain who the father is.

This leads to all kinds of costs that are automatically borne by the mother, but which society cannot assume are automatically borne by the father. So there are a lot of laws, some of them with the potential for unfair outcomes, that try to redress this unavoidable imbalance.

Some people like to imagine that this difference in the way the law treats men and women is somehow indicative of bias against men; but in fact it merely indicates the difficulty of legislating, for men, consequences that apply automatically to women.

Marriage isn't relevant to this at all; an unmarried couple with kids is in the exact same bind - only the mother can know if it is even possible that the father is not who he appears to be, and it is quite possible that even she may not know whose genes her children carry.

It's not possible to change these basic facts by punishing women who are unfaithful to their partners, without simultaneously eliminating women's liberty. Strict laws that entail vicious punishments for women and/or severe limitations on their freedom have been tried, and have not only failed to eliminate the problem of men supporting other men's children, but have also engendered shitty societies which make the 'norm in the inner cities' look like paradise on Earth.

If you want Sharia, or a return to the Middle Ages, then punishing women for being unfaithful seems like a good idea. But if not, not.

 

[RVonse]

If the alternative is to give up on liberty,

How do you get this? If a person does not want to accept what the contract of marraige means then simply don't get married in the first place. But if you do desire being faithful to your partner, then enter into the contract and have the law make it mean something.

I think that the minimal chance that your bizarre and implausible dystopian fantasy might come true is a risk I am more than happy to accept.

What I suggest is neither implausible or bizarre, it is already happening as we speak. Look at the inner cities today. Look at what has happened to the institution of marriage just within the last 30 years. We can have a good discussion whether or not the changes that have occurred are good are not. But there is no argument there have been profound changes in the institution of marriage and it is not hyperbole on my part to suggest the institution will fail completely in the future.

For what I hope are obvious biological reasons, when a child is born it is very easy to be certain who the mother is, and it is far more difficult to be certain who the father is.

Given today's technology is is easy to be certain who the father is too.

Marriage isn't relevant to this at all;

I agree with this. If you don't want to abide by what a marriage is supposed to mean than don't get married and just live together. But at least both parties are honest about what they are doing.

It's not possible to change these basic facts by punishing women who are unfaithful to their partners

I'm not suggesting punishing anyone at all unless they want to have someone else's kids while supposedly engaged in a faithful marriage. Society must draw the line somewhere or I believe the institution of marriage is a failure for the relic pile of debris. You simply can not have a contract that is only always a preferred payoff for one party if it gets broken by either side. And then expect both people to be willing to commit to it.

But maybe that's not such a bad thing anyway though. I've always thought all the fluff and money that gets blown away on a wedding to be pretty wasteful spending anyway.