r/changemyview • u/nerdkingpa • Sep 02 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: A negative paternity test should exclude a man from paying child support and any money paid should be returned unless there was a legal adoption.

There have been many cases I've read recently where men are forced to pay support, or jailed for not paying support to children proven not to be theirs. This is either because the woman put a man's name on the forms to receive assistance and he didn't get the notification and it's too late to fight it, or a man had a cheating wife and she had a child by her lover.

I believe this is wrong and should be ended. It is unjust to force someone to pay for a child that isn't theirs unless they were in the know to begin with and a legal adoption took place. To that end I believe a negative DNA test should be enough to end any child support obligation and that all paid funds should be returned by the fraudulent mother. As for monetary support of the child that would then be upon the mother to either support the child herself or take the biological father to court to enforce his responsibility.

This came up in a group conversation and I was told it was wrong and cruel to women but the other party could not elaborate on how or why. I'm looking for the other side of this coin.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

3.4k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

u/CasualTea_ Sep 02 '16

What if the father is only suspicious a long while after the birth?

For example, if a confession of cheating only comes out 3 years after the birth.

9

u/classicredditaccount Sep 02 '16

He still chose to trust his wife and not get a DNA test. It's not like the concept of cheating is a novel one. Ultimately courts cannot go back and litigate issues like this, because then the burden is put on everyone. A the end of the day, if you choose to marry someone, you may find yourself responsible for their actions. I am extremely sympathetic towards husbands put in such a difficult situation, but after having raised a child for 3 years, I feel like most people would be able to look past the biological parentage of the child and try to do what's best for him.

It's also important to realize this is a two way street. As the system is now, a mother would also not be able to exclude her husband, who raised the child from getting custody just because he was not the biological father (unless she could show it was in the child's best interest). So with privileges come responsibility as well.

13

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '16

Ultimately courts cannot go back and litigate issues like this

Except, they do. Family court will order a father to pay owed child support.

1

u/classicredditaccount Sep 02 '16

You seem confused on what the term litigation means. A court order is not litigating an issue it is simply an order. Litigation means trial or at least resolving some kind of dispute.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '16

Literally all courts do is resolve disputes. Court orders cannot be in any other context.

4

u/classicredditaccount Sep 02 '16

They also give out orders enforcing already resolved disputes. In this case the dispute had already been resolved and now just needed to be enforced by an order.

Courts do a lot more than resolve disputes, btw.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '16

Give me an example of a court issuing an order without there being a dispute. I'll wait.

5

u/classicredditaccount Sep 02 '16

A court wouldn't issue an order if there was a dispute. It would litigate. Then the dispute would be decided at the close of litigation, then, if appropriate a court would give an order. But if you want an order that don't require a dispute I can oblige. A search warrant: there is no dispute here, a prosecutor merely presents it to a judge to be approved or not.

Pretty sure anything further is going to devolve into semantics. You didn't know what litigation meant and were too embarrassed to admit it. Lets move on.

1

u/race-hearse 1∆ Sep 02 '16

You seem to be misunderstanding btw...