Florida man ordered to pay child support even though DNA test proves he is not the father

[Toni]

One group does not have to have absolute power and control to still have the majority of power and control.

In cases of domestic law at least, the overwhelming majority of the power and control is with women. In this case, the woman has committed fraud and instead of getting punished for it, she gets financially rewarded.

No, the overwhelming power and control does not belong to women. They may be getting full custody more often than do men but the trend these days is for joint custody.


You have no idea whether the woman committed fraud or not. He may have agreed to be on the birth certificate knowing that he might not be the father of the baby. She may have truly believed at the time that he was he father. It may have been magical thinking on her part. She wanted the better person to be the father. In any case, she also thinks he shouldn't be on the hook here.

Men do that you know: agree to be on the birth certificate even when they know they aren't the father. Even when they know they will be on the hook for whatever the court says they are on the hook for. A friend of mine did just that. The bio dad abandoned the mother immediately upon learning that she was pregnant with his child. My friend was married to the woman but they were in the middle of divorce proceedings when she became pregnant. Upon being abandoned by the loser who impregnated her, she asked my friend if he would put his name on the birth certificate and he agreed. They had 3 children together and this way, his children's sibling would have some economic protections. He says his ex is mentally unstable which may be true but every single ex wife or ex-girlfriend I've ever heard about was mentally unstable so, while he's my friend, I don't take this as an unbiased assessment. Was this a really nice thing for my friend to do? Yes. Did he do it for his ex? No. He did it for the baby who had no say in the matter. My friend's only condition was that there be no lies: that the kid would grow up knowing that the name on his birth certificate wasn't really his bio dad, that their shared kids would know. My friend not only provided support but also had visitation with this kid and when the kid graduated from high school, he packed up all of his stuff and moved in with my friend who has continued to serve as his father.

My friend is not a perfect person by any means. His wife cheated on him during their marriage and I strongly suspect he did as well. He did in an earlier marriage (nope, not with me but we've known each other for a very long time). I'm just throwing this out there to say that there are imperfect men who do their best to do what is right and there are imperfect women who do their best to do what is right--like another woman who fought continually with her ex to convince him to at least sometimes take visitation with his child whose existence he preferred to ignore. And his next wife and her daughter who truly did act as step mother and sister to the child and ensured that the child at least had something to open at Christmas and birthdays with the words From Dad on it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Apparently your friend conspired to commit fraud and then comitted fraud. Lying to the state and putting his name on the birth certificate is fraud. Will the child at least be told the truth, or will he/she be forever blind to half his/her family history, including medical history?

Was there something stopping him from supporting and/or adopting the child? Is there a good excuse for the paternity fraud he engaged in?

 

[Toni]

The mother may be the recipient of the check due to the fact that an infant is unable to read, write, open a bank account or to make purchases. Nevertheless, the child is the intended beneficiary and the custodial parent acts and on behalf of the child and itilizes the funds for the benefit of the child.

Intended beneficiary perhaps, but not the de facto beneficiary, or at least not the sole de facto beneficiary. Don't tell me that women don't use child support payment for their own lifestyle, especially when the (supposed) father makes much more than she does.

And note that this woman knew who she had sex with when she was ovulating and thus knew that the guy she claimed was the father was not or might not be the father. She obtained money from the man under false pretenses. That is fraud, plain and simple, and feminists should not be excusing or defending such sleazy behavior. She should have to pay back restitution to her victim with interest.

You are misinformed if you think that women 'know' when they are ovulating. Some do. Some can make a pretty good guess but be wrong sometimes. Some women never know when they are ovulating because they have irregular cycles. The only way to know for certain is to track it by testing every single month. Women only do that when they are trying to get pregnant and haven't been successful up to that point.

Maybe she obtained money from the man under false pretenses. The state does put a lot of pressure on women to name a father. The actual bio father might be abusive and naming him would re-establish contact. She might not know who the bio dad is. She and the purported dad may have briefly reconciled just before or after she found out she was pregnant. We don't know exactly what happened or why.

Your defaults are always: it's the lying cheating woman's fault and feminism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

At the very least, she knows she wasn't monogamous at the time of conception, and she probably knows who the other possible fathers are. If she keeps this information hidden from the man she names the father, then she has could be something pretty heinous. The man named the father should know there's a chance he isn't and should have an opportunity to get a paternity test it he wishes to (many men won't). Anything less than that should be considered fraud on her part and be actionable.

It should never come as a complete surprise that he is not the father, barring a mix-up at the hospital.

 

[Toni]

At the very least, she knows she wasn't monogamous at the time of conception, and she probably knows who the other possible fathers are. If she keeps this information hidden from the man she names the father, then she has could be something pretty heinous. The man named the father should know there's a chance he isn't and should have an opportunity to get a paternity test it he wishes to (many men won't). Anything less than that should be considered fraud on her part and be actionable.

It should never come as a complete surprise that he is not the father, barring a mix-up at the hospital.

We don’t know what went on that his name was on the birth certificate. It seems unusual that a judge would order DNA tests during a custody or visitation hearing unless there was a reason. The mother no longer wants support from the man.

We have no idea if the mother lied or was mistaken and whether the man knew there might be other candidates as bio dad.

IMO, the state is wrong to force a woman to give a father’s name on the birth certificate. This is not done for the benefit of the child but so that the state can avoid paying support for the child.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

At the very least, she knows she wasn't monogamous at the time of conception, and she probably knows who the other possible fathers are. If she keeps this information hidden from the man she names the father, then she has could be something pretty heinous. The man named the father should know there's a chance he isn't and should have an opportunity to get a paternity test it he wishes to (many men won't). Anything less than that should be considered fraud on her part and be actionable.

It should never come as a complete surprise that he is not the father, barring a mix-up at the hospital.

We don’t know what went on that his name was on the birth certificate. It seems unusual that a judge would order DNA tests during a custody or visitation hearing unless there was a reason. The mother no longer wants support from the man.

We have no idea if the mother lied or was mistaken and whether the man knew there might be other candidates as bio dad.

IMO, the state is wrong to force a woman to give a father’s name on the birth certificate. This is not done for the benefit of the child but so that the state can avoid paying support for the child.

I was speaking generally, and not of this particular case. You're right that it could have been an honest mistake on her part, and he could have known all along that she wasn't exclusive to him during conception so the child may not have his DNA. But if she was at all uncertain becuase she wasn't monogamous with him at the time, I think she has a moral and should have a legal obligation to make him aware.

IMO, the state is wrong to force a woman to give a father’s name on the birth certificate. This is not done for the benefit of the child but so that the state can avoid paying support for the child

Agreed. She should not be compelled to name anyone as the father, especially given that she may not know who it is. In forcing her to name someone the state is complicit in a fraudulent action, against the named "father", the child, and the state itself. There are further repercussions to naming someone as a parent on a birth certificate beyond financial support obligations.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's an additional complication that no one seems to be considering.

There is a distinction not just between legal father and biological father, but also father and biological father.

If there was a swap at birth and child was raised by non-biological parents, i.e. a father and mother,
1. The father is the legal father until birth certificate changed.
2. The mother is the legal mother until birth certificate changed.
3. The father has rights.
4. The mother has rights.
5. The child may be very emotionally attached to mother and father who raised them.
6. The biological parents also have rights.

It isn't always clear that unswapping is the best thing, especially if the child is well taken care of and 17 years old or sufficiently attached and independent of parents.

The point being that birth certificates are filled out in order to name people with obligations, sure, but also rights. They can be mistaken about the biological mother, too, but whoever is on there has rights.

So, in the specific case of MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISM as in the op, it isn't as simple as mere DNA. If the MAN who raised the child has visitation or wants custody, you can't make a universal statement applicable in all situations that he SHOULD be removed from the bc simply because of DNA. Once you do that he has ZERO rights to the child. That is anti-men's rights.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Indeed. How about the man who raised the kid but was never put on the birth certificate? Shouldn't he have some rights too? I don't see why one would want to base any of this on the certificate, especially if the mother is pressured into putting a name on it even if she isn't clear on who the father is.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The op says the guy himself signed the bc. Was he actually compelled to do it?

 

[laughing dog]

This thread was started with the words, "Florida man".

In this case Florida Man is the victim. It's Florida Woman who is the antisocial perpetrator here.

Really? You have evidence the woman knew who the father was and lied about?

 

[laughing dog]

A person named on a birth certificate falsely cannot "abandon" a child that is not theirs.

Under the legal system, if you are the named the father on the birth certificate, until a judge rules otherwise, you most certainly can in the eyes if the law depending in the state law in the USA.

And, if you have helped raise the child and have established a loving relationship with that child, yiu most certainly csn abandon that child in a very traumatic fashion.

In the eyes of the law, certainly.

But if a man has been supporting a child because he has been deceived by the mother about his paternity, and the revelation of the paternity makes a difference to him, then any trauma from his severing of ties is the moral fault and failure of the mother.

First, that is not relevant to any trauma suffered by the child. Second, your conclusion is erroneous. In such a case, the man has a choice to make. If the man chooses to sever ties to a child with whom he has a developed an emotional ties, that choice is on him and him alone.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The op says the guy himself signed the bc. Was he actually compelled to do it?

More on this...

In Florida law...

There's no need to sign unless parents are not married.

If unmarried, there are two legal ways to be declared as father legally.

Option1: pros - very fast. Cons - you waive your right to a dna test.
Option2: pros - you can back out pending dna test. Cons - slower.

If they found that the dna test did not legally negate his parental status, then it means he had chosen option1 for expediency.

I am sure I am oversimplifying this, but the news article is oversimplifying it more. I think also even though he waived his right to a dna test there is a legal way around it. It just takes extra time.

Florida is a very confusing place.

Option#1 is signing what is called the Acknowledgement of Paternity form:

RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES: When both parents sign this ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY they swear they are the natural parents of this child. After signing, either parent has the right to cancel the effect of the acknowledgment within 60 days unless there has been a court hearing regarding that parent and the child. If there is no court hearing within 60 days of when the acknowledgment is signed, paternity is legally established under the laws of Florida. Once the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY is signed by both parents, the name of the father is placed on the child's birth certificate. Even if the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY is cancelled within 60 days, the birth certificate can only be changed and the father's name removed by a court order. Contact this office if you wish to file a rescission.
After paternity is legally established, paternity can only be challenged by proving in court that your signature on the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY was obtained through fraud, under duress, or that there was a material mistake in fact. The court will decide whether your name can be removed. Do not sign the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY if you are not certain you are the child's father.

...

CONSEQUENCES: By signing this ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY you declare that the mother was unwed at the time of her child's birth and that you are the child's parents, and that you are undertaking responsibility for this child as provided by law. Designated health or Child Support staff are required to explain and clarify the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY and paternity establishment to both mother and father, to inform you of your rights and give you the opportunity to voluntarily acknowledge paternity. Original signatures are required. If you have any questions, now is the time to ask. If you do not understand it, do not sign it. After you both sign and submit the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY a birth certificate listing both parents will be placed on file.

...

ALTERNATIVE TO SIGNING: Under Florida law, if both parents do not sign this ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY, paternity may be established by the court. A paternity action may be filed by the mother, the natural father, the child and/or the state on behalf of the mother, the father, or the child. If a court action is filed, either parent may be ordered to pay costs, including the cost of genetic testing. All costs, including genetic tests, will be billed to the man found to be the legal father. If you want to file a court action to establish paternity and you need help, contact the local Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Office or a private attorney.

http://www.floridahealth.gov/certificates/certificates/birth/_documents/DH_432_Ack_Paternity.pdf

 

[Toni]

Indeed. How about the man who raised the kid but was never put on the birth certificate? Shouldn't he have some rights too? I don't see why one would want to base any of this on the certificate, especially if the mother is pressured into putting a name on it even if she isn't clear on who the father is.

Lots of men raise children who are not their biological children with or without being placed on the birth certificate.

It can be an extremely fraught decision about what is in the best interests of the child.

One friend of mine was divorced by her husband because she refused to obtain a second abortion. Never mind why he did not get a vasectomy if he were so determined not to father a child. The father refused to provide any child support for his child and threatened to have a dozen of his friends swear in court that they had sex with the mother if she challenged him in court re: child support.

She finished putting herself through her undergrad degree and then went on to earn her JD, while supporting her child on her own. As she finished her law degree, she met and soon married another law student who acted in every way (almost) as that child's father for years. The biological father begged her to have her new husband formally adopt the child. My friend refused after giving it a great deal of thought. She knew her ex was serious about never having any contact with his child but he was a ranking officer in the military and as long as he was the legal father and the child was a minor, the child had some rights s/he would not have otherwise, including being a beneficiary of a life insurance policy if he should die while she was a minor. It was a difficult decision as was the decision to let her child know about the absentee father who indeed decided once the child had reached majority that he wanted a relationship with that child--and then that newly found relationship ended as soon as it became 'complicated' for the bio father. The child's choice, mostly. Was the new husband a good man to agree to act in every way as father to this child? Yes. Was he a good father to this child? That's complicated because people are complicated. It was surely with good intentions that he undertook to serve as this child's father in absence of the bio father. I know he did his best to protect his adoptive child and to look after the child's best interests at least for a time. Adolescence is a difficult time in any family and this family was no exception. Plus, he wasn't perfect as no one was perfect and in some ways was abusive to the mother ( I have first hand knowledge).

One of my daughter's friends' bio father beat and abused her mother who only had the courage to leave him after she became pregnant. Later, she met and married a man who acted as her child's father for her whole life. As a teen, the child confided in me somewhat and told me how curious they were about the bio dad. They knew the story of his abuse of the mother and indeed, had found police records about the abuse. The child knew people who were related to the bio dad (small town, what ya gonna do? Few secrets in a small town) and who urged a meeting so the child could get to know the bio dad who was abusive to the mother and other women (documented in police records). Long enough ago that I don't know if the mother had been compelled to list the bio dad or if the mother could leave that blank. Ultimately, the child decided to never met the dad. The step dad was in some ways a good father and in some ways he was not. People are complicated.

In both cases, the second marriages produced other children. In both cases, the fathers behaved differently towards their own biological children than they did towards their adoptive children. In both cases, the marriages went through some very rough patches not directly related to the fact that there was an existing child when the current marriage began. In each case, I knew the mothers well enough that I knew they were seriously planning to escape the marriage but worried mightily about the welfare of all of their children. Both women were well educated, with good jobs and able to support their children financially without a husband. The money was not the main concern although we are all adults and we all know that a lot of things are easier when there is a second income in the family. Because it happened that my kid(s) were better friends with the children who had an absentee father, I heard the most about how concerned they were about a second disruption in the child's life, although neither child knew their biological father.

In each case by the time these children reached adolescence, there was intense curiosity to meet the bio dad. In each case, the bio dad was a pretty despicable human being who was abusive to the mother and who took advantage of every means possible to avoid any responsibility for the child--right up until the child became a legal adult or near legal adult.

People are really complicated. The courts must try to address not the rights of the parents or purported parent or the bio parent or the adoptive parent but the rights of the child. The rights of the child and the child's best interests are sometimes in direct conflict with the rights of any of the parents or parental figures.

It seems to me that the rights of the child and the child's best interests should absolutely trump everyone else's rights. Because the child has zero say in how any of this came to be and because the child is a child.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Saying the child's interests come first is an easy and obvious thing to say and a principle worth getting behind, but the "interests of the child" should not be used by any other party (be it the mother, father or the state) to further it's own interests.

A named "father" for example (for example a housemate of the mother) who never signed up to act as father should not be saddled with the responsibility simply because no other support is in place for the child. The state should have to step in with proper assistance.

 

[Derec]

Lots of men raise children who are not their biological children with or without being placed on the birth certificate.

It is one thing to do so consensually, it's quite another to do it because you are the victim of paternity fraud perpetrated by the mother.
You keep excusing this woman for committing paternity fraud against the guy.

It can be an extremely fraught decision about what is in the best interests of the child.

So let's just make Jeff Bezos pay child support to the kid if "best interests of the child" is a principle that trumps everything else.

One friend of mine was divorced by her husband because she refused to obtain a second abortion. Never mind why he did not get a vasectomy if he were so determined not to father a child.

Needs more detail. For example, did she tell him she was on the pill but lied because she wanted to get pregnant again?

People are really complicated. The courts must try to address not the rights of the parents or purported parent or the bio parent or the adoptive parent but the rights of the child.

It is wrong of the courts to disregard the rights of the man (who, in this case is THE VICTIM) merely because a child might benefit from his mother receiving money from the not-father. And remember, the person receiving these child support checks is PERPETRATOR OF FRAUD!!!

The rights of the child and the child's best interests are sometimes in direct conflict with the rights of any of the parents or parental figures.

That does not mean the rights of the men should be disregarded. And in reality, it is the woman who receives these ill-gotten child support payments, not the child directly.

It seems to me that the rights of the child and the child's best interests should absolutely trump everyone else's rights.

And you would be wrong. Again, if you are viewing it so absolutely, why not disregard Jeff Bezos' or Bill Gates' rights and declare them "fathers" for purposes of child support?

Because the child has zero say in how any of this came to be and because the child is a child.

And the non-father also had zero say in how the child came into the world as SHE FUCKED SOME OTHER MAN WITHOUT PROTECTION AND LIED ABOUT IT!!!

 

[Derec]

Really? You have evidence the woman knew who the father was and lied about?

She knew she had sex with men other than him. It is not necessary to show that she knew who the father was, only that she knew that he might not be the father. And the evidence is in the DNA of the kid. Some other man's DNA. ergo she had sex with at least one other dude. Or maybe she was the town bicycle and it was a lot more dudes. Either way, she perpetrated fraud by saying that this guy was the father.

 

[laughing dog]

And the non-father also had zero say in how the child came into the world as SHE FUCKED SOME OTHER MAN WITHOUT PROTECTION AND LIED ABOUT IT!!!

Please produce actual evidence this woman LIED about who the father was.

 

[laughing dog]

Really? You have evidence the woman knew who the father was and lied about?

She knew she had sex with men other than him. It is not necessary to show that she knew who the father was, only that she knew that he might not be the father, perhaps because she was the town bicycle.

In other words, all you have is the usual bile. The “town bicycle” crack is real classy. Can’t imagine why so many readers get s misogynistic vibe from your posts.

 

[Derec]

I was speaking generally, and not of this particular case. You're right that it could have been an honest mistake on her part,

How could it have been an "honest mistake"? Did she forget whom she had sex with that month?

But if she was at all uncertain becuase she wasn't monogamous with him at the time, I think she has a moral and should have a legal obligation to make him aware.

Exactly. That makes it not an honest mistake.

Agreed. She should not be compelled to name anyone as the father, especially given that she may not know who it is. In forcing her to name someone the state is complicit in a fraudulent action, against the named "father", the child, and the state itself. There are further repercussions to naming someone as a parent on a birth certificate beyond financial support obligations.

On the other hand, if she knows who the father is but "unknown father" gives her access to more aid, it would be motive to withhold that name and pocket the extra cash from the government. It's a difficult issue.
I think paternity fraud should be a criminal offense and also the victim should be able to sue for damages. That should deter women naming random guys as the father.

 

[Derec]

In other words, all you have is the usual bile.

No. I have logic. If she doesn't know who the father is, but names a specific guy as the father, she is lying. It is not necessary for her to know that some guy is the father for sure for it to be lying and fraud. You were wrong about that, just admit it!

The “town bicycle” crack is real classy.

Lighten up Francis!