Should they still be forced to pay.......
By trisha27
@trisha27 (3494)
United States
October 2, 2012 1:13am CST
My husband was telling me that he saw on the news that there are a lot of guys out there who are on back pay for their child support. But they had recently found out that they are not the father of the children. But they are also on back child support. They were told even though they are not the father of the children that they still have to pay their back child support. They have the proof and everything that proves that they are not the father. I think that once finding out that they are not the father, they should not have to pay the back child support. Why do they have to give money to a child that they are not a father to, and that someone else is the father to. I just don't think that is right. What are your thoughts on this issue.
2 people like this
7 responses
@purplealabaster (22094)
• United States
2 Oct 12
I think that it all depends upon the situation. In many cases, if there is a question of paternity, then the court will not order the man to pay child support until paternity has been established. If the man did not dispute that the child was his, and then due to whatever reason turns around six months or a year or ten years later and says that he is not the father, especially after he has failed to pay support, then I think that whatever money he owes up to the point that it is established that he is not the biological father should be paid as it is for the support and welfare of the child who, by the way, is completely innocent from any blame or wrongdoing by the parents and deserves the best life that he or she can possibly have.
1 person likes this
@purplealabaster (22094)
• United States
3 Oct 12
He should be held responsible, in my opinion, because he took responsibility when he did not dispute paternity at the time that the child support was ordered. I do not know if it is the same in every state or municipality, so that might be a factor, but I do know people that have had to go to court for child support in different areas (not only different municipalities but different states), and two things have always happened during the initial hearing before any child support was ordered ... a) the guy admits paternity legally in front of the judge or b) he disputes paternity and a paternity test is ordered to establish paternity. Once he legally admits paternity, it is like any other legal obligation unless he can prove otherwise, and the fact that he owed back support means that he was not fulfilling his legal obligation.
In addition, once the guy disputes paternity, the judge will normally order a suspension of the accruement of support until the results of the paternity test are obtained. If the paternity tests prove that the guy is the biological father, then he will owe all the back support plus any that was held in accruement. If the paternity tests prove the guy is not the biological father, on the other hand, then he will only owe the back support up until the time that he questioned paternity.
I am failing to see how it is unjust, since it is not like the girl can walk into the court and say a random guy off the street is the father, and then the guy is immediately ordered to pay support until he proves that he is not the father.
@Sukeena1961 (343)
• United States
2 Oct 12
I think if a man takes the responsibility of raising a child whether that child is his or not he should have to pay child support for that child. A man supposedly loved a child and provided for that child when he thought it was his and then when he finds out it's not his, he just turns that love off and no longer wants anything to do with it. That's a cop out. There are to many kids out there that don't have a male influence in their life. How can a man profess to love a child for several years and when he suddenly finds out its not his, he no longer loves it or wants to provide for it. How is that justified. That's no different than a man marrying a woman that has a child for someone else and raising it as his own. My thoughts are that if a man can walk away from that child, he could walk away from his own.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
2 Oct 12
You make a very valid point, but it really depends on why the child support existed in the first place. If a man was raising a child as his own then the lack of biological relationship becomes irrelevant.
However, many people are paying child support purely because the woman became pregnant and claimed that it was his child. The man then pays towards the upbringing of the child throughout childhood, which is only right. However, if it is then discovered that he was not the father he should not be expected to continue supporting a child that he has never lived with. The circumstances should decide the outcome.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
2 Oct 12
They should not have to pay unless they are raising the child as their own and say it does not matter and of course, if they adopted the child. Of course the social services or whatever it is called down there have to go after the real father. The trouble is that there is a period between those two incidents. And what happens if the real father does not have money and shall they make it retre-active to the birth of the child or when the mother finds out that he was the father not the man she was getting support from?
@Autumnrose2008 (1478)
• United States
2 Oct 12
I feel that before a child support order goes in there should be a paternity test done to make sure that guy is the father of that child. It is not fair to those guys that have to pay child support for a child that is not even theirs. Some times guys adopt the children and then the mother and the guy break up get divorced. In that case it does not matter who the blood father is those men adopted those children becoming their father. When that happens those men should be responsible for the children. Kind of reminds me of all the innocent men and women that are locked up for crimes they did not do. Guess that the blood will set you free in both cases.
@natliegleb (5175)
• India
2 Oct 12
of course they should be ,its not a small case or mistake,its a big crime and they must be made to pay ideally for doing such kind of activities even if he is not the father
@Heathert514 (43)
• United States
2 Oct 12
No, I don't believe they should have to pay anything at all for a child that isn't theirs. Unless of course, they at some point legally adopted the child, in which case they have taken legal responsibility of the child. But that doesn't seem like its the case here. Going through the legal system to determine and enforce child support does take up the time of the courts and judges, so I could see the courts in those states issuing some type of fine. But to insist that they pay for a child that isn't theirs is ridiculous!
@cattibre (160)
• United States
2 Oct 12
I don't think they should have to pay anything. I believe that they should not have had to pay anything without proof either. Any woman can say a child belongs to a man, but she could be lying. In my opinion the whole system is messed up and needs to seriously be reworked.
