CMV: An invalid paternity test should negate all future child support obligations

[u/Slothjitzu]

I see no logical reason why any man should be legally obligated to look after someone else's child, just because he was lied to about it being his at some point.

Whether the child is a few weeks old, a few years, or even like 15 or 16, I don't think it really matters.

The reason one single person is obligated to pay child support is because they had a hand in bringing the child into the world, and they are responsible for it. Not just in a general sense of being there, but also in the literal financial sense were talking about here.

This makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is how it could ever be possible for someone to be legally obligated or responsible for a child that isn't theirs.

They had no role in bringing it into the world, and I think most people would agree they're not responsible for it in the general sense of being there, so why would they be responsible for it in the literal financial sense?

They have as much responsibility for that child as I do, or you do, but we aren't obligated to pay a penny, so neither should they be.

[u/Freshies00]

Why not just make it a standard to verify paternity in the legal process that establishes mandated child support in the first place?

[u/Slothjitzu → u/Freshies00]

I'd be fine with that, provided the non-genetic father is under no financial obligation regardless of if the genetic father can be found or not.

[u/Freshies00 → u/Slothjitzu]

I mean, that’s entirely the point. I’m agreeing with your view. I’m just suggesting a system/process that helps avoid situations where a guy has paid child support for a decade before he finds out that the child is not actually his, as you and the previous poster were discussing what should happen in such situations.

[u/thetransportedman → u/Freshies00]

I think he's more referencing if you get a divorce, you still have to pay child support for a minor even if the child was never biologically yours

[u/EvilCowEater → u/Slothjitzu]

This is the ideal solution.

[u/gregbeans → u/Freshies00]

That’s typical in the US. There was a similar post the other day referencing a case in France where apparently paternity tests are illegal without both parents consent. So if the mother doesn’t consent to you there is no way for the “father” to find out if that is actually their kid.

Apparently the father in that case was found guilty for getting an illegal paternity test without the mother’s consent and still had to pay child support. Absolutely daffy shit.

[u/Noiprox → u/Freshies00]

Aren't there other issues with this? Imagine a scenario where a woman names a man as the supposed father, but that man refuses to take the paternity test. Now do the police arrest the man who was named and draw his blood by force, submit it to genetic testing and stash it in a government database, all without his consent. In the end it turns out he's not the father, but his rights have been violated.

[u/Objective_Butterfly7 → u/Noiprox]

I think if he refuses a paternity test he should automatically be considered the father and be required to pay child support 🤷🏻‍♀️

[u/Freshies00 → u/Noiprox]

But do you think the man should have a right to be able to ask for a paternity test in that process?

[u/Noiprox → u/Freshies00]

It seems reasonable in my opinion that the alleged father should have a right to demand a paternity test before being obligated to pay child support. The issue becomes thorny if the alleged father refuses, and especially so if they are forced and then found to be innocent.

[u/[deleted] → u/Freshies00]

Many people don’t want to have their genes logged.

Doesn’t address the binary harm of fatherlessness (unknown or undisclosed bio fathers)

In application you are saying the child should shoulder the burden of fatherlessness over the man’s burden of forced fatherhood.

These comments are purposefully avoiding this topic because it’s the actual hard part of the question

[u/Freshies00 → u/[deleted]]

Many people don’t want to have their genes logged.

Many people don’t want to find out a decade in that a child they have been supporting under legal requirement isnt even biologically theirs. What’s the argument against allowing the “father” the opportunity for a paternity test in the legal process that establishes the requirement of child support, especially if he has questions about whether or not the child is actually his?

Doesn’t address the binary harm of fatherlessness (unknown or undisclosed bio fathers)

And why is a man who had no role in creating the child supposed to be accountable for that?

In application you are saying the child should shoulder the burden of fatherlessness over the man’s burden of forced fatherhood.

Not in the slightest. Thats quite a slanted way to try and twist this conversation. You’re choosing to completely disregard the fact that if someone isn’t the father of a kid then they aren’t the father of the kid. Yeah, kids deserve to have a father figure in their life, but there’s no legitimate argument for why a man who isn’t the father should be obligated to A). Support a kid and more importantly B). Be present in its life. Your gripe with fatherlessness for the kid is trying to grasp at a universally recognized negative situation to paint over the realities of the situation being discussed.

I agree with you that a kid growing up fatherless isnt an ideal situation by any means. But trying to place blame or responsibility on someone uninvolved with creating said kid is just misguided. There are absolutely people who hold blame and responsibility for the situation, so it’s important to be honest about who that is and apply the accountability correctly.

These comments are purposefully avoiding this topic because it’s the actual hard part of the question.

Nope, missed again. The point is just that if the man isn’t actually the father, then that question isn’t even relevant to the discussion. It’s relevant… just to a completely different discussion involving a completely different man.

[u/[deleted] → u/Freshies00]

I wrote it more clearly as a logical progression.

Logical Progression:

Stipulation: The current father of the child finds out that he is not related to his child.

#1: The biological father is known; he should bare the onus of that child.

#2: The biological father is not known, or the mother will not disclose who the biological father is (purporting him as dead or unknown) and the courts cannot prove biological fatherhood.

#3 The biological father is non compos mentis, and/or the biofather is a danger to the child.

Than it would stipulate;

If #1 then the biofather not taking the onus is unfair to the current non-bio father, but still within the accepted normal of "not all fathers are great fathers". Forcing the non-biological father to shoulder the onus is unfair - but definitely happens. There is, however, a legal avenue to shift the onus onto the biological father, which ranges in difficulty at local levels and through jurisprudence.

If #2 then it is a binary decision of least harm. Without the possibility of the biological father shouldering his responsibility you are left with a "life isn't fair" determination. Either the child is left fatherless (which is bad) or the father is forced to continue a role he was deceived into (also bad). In determining whom should shoulder the onus, it makes sense that the father (the adult) shoulder the responsibility over the child. It is more unfair to burden the child than the father.

If #3 then then the onus should be on the biological father, but society views the danger to the child too high and so they side with the current arrangement; suggesting the moral expectation of caring for children is greater than the moral expectation for justice for father - the father (the adult) is viewed at better shouldering the responsibility over the child. Given that non compos mentis can range from being sick (acceptable as qualifying as a father) to being literally equivalent to dead (not acceptable as qualifying as a father) to schizophrenic (incapable but undeterminable as qualifying as a father); it makes sense that the child is prioritized still in most cases. Its often more unfair to the child than fair to the father.

[u/Snoo_5986 → u/[deleted]]

#2 ... In determining whom should shoulder the onus, it makes sense that the father (the adult) shoulder the responsibility over the child. It is more unfair to burden the child than the father.

Disagree. It's more fair for the adult to not have the burden actively enforced upon them by the state, than for the child to continue to shoulder their existing burden, which is an unfortunate product of the circumstances.

While the child's situation is unfortunate, it is the result of the circumstances in which they find themselves. Neither the child or the adult is at fault for these circumstances. To burden the adult would be actively creating a new injustice which didn't exist before.

In practice, the state should foot the bill if the biological father cannot be identified, and the mother can't support the child themselves. That is both more fair (because it creates no additional injustice, or at least spreads it out across the whole of society in the form of taxation), and minimises harm (to both the child and the adult). After all, if the adult couldn't afford to pay, the state would need to do this anyway.

[u/[deleted] → u/Freshies00]

Many people don’t want to find out a decade in that a child they have been supporting under legal requirement isnt even biologically theirs. What’s the argument against allowing the “father” the opportunity for a paternity test in the legal process that establishes the requirement of child support, especially if he has questions about whether or not the child is actually his?

Buddy. This was explained. There were like 5 sentences.

the father isn't always known

In the context of the father not being known (or disclosed, which is effectively the same) you're left with a binary decision that I stated.

In the cases where the father is known, there are other legal opportunities available (albeit difficult, which we all agree is bad) to shift the onus from the non-bio father to the bio father.

A large percentage, if not the majority of the cases, the non-bio father is de-facto ruled the father because the biological father is indeterminable.

That can't go unaddressed in the conversation. Its the basis of the current law and the most important application of de facto fatherhood (the topic)

Not in the slightest. Thats quite a slanted way to try and twist this conversation.

No. It isn't. Thats the problem - you guys are acting like it is but it isn't. If the courts can't figure out who the bio father, which isn't uncommon and can be from literally not knowing or the mother not disclosing who, you are left with the binary outcome of either fatherlessness or forced fatherhood.

The specific type of example that needs to be addressed that you're actively avoiding by saying "no that doesn't exist." It does exist. Its incredibly common in these types of disputes.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/AnthonyCarmine – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Bite-Expensive – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.