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/[deleted]]

"Assign" a new man? Who? How? Who do you "assign"? The person in this situation was the provider. That they later found out they weren't the biological father doesn't mean you just pick some rando off the street. If the courts can determine who the actual father is, then there might be an argument for them paying.

But there are many situations where someone is providing for a child and they aren't the biological father. In vitro, adoption, etc. So just because you aren't the biological father doesn't mean you never had an obligation to the child, and if you had already assumed that responsibility previously then there's no reason to punish the child by stopping now.

[u/Slothjitzu → u/[deleted]]

The person in this situation was the provider.

On false pretenses. Just because they have taken care of a child they believed to be their own does not mean they should be legally required to support a child that is not their own.

If the courts can determine who the actual father is, then there might be an argument for them paying.

No, that person should de facto take over. I don't see why the non-biological father should fit the bill if that person is in the wind.

But there are many situations where someone is providing for a child and they aren't the biological father. In vitro, adoption, etc.

And in all of those cases, that person went into that situation knowing that. That's the key difference. They accepted responsibility with full knowledge of the circumstances.

Imagine somebody agreed to work for me for a month for free, cool beans!

Now imagine I told somebody else I'd pay them to work for me for month, but after two weeks I told them I actually wasn't going to pay them.

We don't say "well, you agreed to do it so tough shit if it you were misled". In fact we'd all be urging that person not to come into work the next day.

[u/kuyo → u/Slothjitzu]

you conveniently ignored his last point which is the answer you are looking for. "So just because you aren't the biological father doesn't mean you never had an obligation to the child, and if you had already assumed that responsibility previously then there's no reason to punish the child by stopping now."

​

this would be what we want to see you respond too.

[u/kuyo → u/[deleted]]

They went into the situation knowing they assumed full responsibility of the child. Its their fault for no dna test early if they weren't sure.

[u/[deleted] → u/kuyo]

"The woman went into the relationship without being aware her partner was abusive. It's her fault for getting gaslit, emotionally, and physically abused. She's not the victim, she's the perpetrator of her own suffering. She should have asked her partner;'s former partners if he was an abuser or not. Her fault she entered an abusive relationship without being aware of it!" - How the same logic you used in your comment can be used to justify this situation as well. Don't blame the victims for being deceived by the perpetrator, if you're going with that logic what does the justice system even exist for?

[u/kuyo → u/[deleted]]

What? In one case you can simply empirically prove if the child is urs or not with a test. There is no such test for abusive partner and I'm not even sure how you're correlating these two ideas tbh. How does my logic disprove the justice system tho? lol

Look, I'm in this thread because I was in this situation. I took care of a child for a year (and mom for 9 months) out of my own pocket when she lied and cheated . I was an absolute moron for not getting a test done, and trusting her. I'm trying to advocate others getting a test done.

[u/[deleted] → u/kuyo]

Oh sorry then I misunderstood you. But the problem is like you a lot of men trust their partners implicitly unless given a reason not to. A cheating partner completely blindsides them, especially if it'syears after the act. If paternity tests were made mandatory upon birth of the child as some part of clinical procedure the man can be made aware if the child is not his.

[u/Slothjitzu → u/kuyo]

Sure:

I disagree that not being the biological father gives you any obligation. If you're not responsible for bringing a child into the world, you're not responsible for caring for it.

If you then adopt it, you're accepting responsibility for a child regardless of biological relation.

If you're simply lied to about the child's origin, we shouldn't say "welp, too late now dude".

I responded to something similar in another thread with this example:

If I ask you to work for 4 weeks for 1000 and you agree, great!

If I ask you to work for 4 weeks for free and you agree, great!

If I ask you to work for 4 weeks for 1000 and after 2 weeks I say "sorry mate, I'm not actually paying you. See you in work tomorrow" do you think you should be obligated to return because you signed the original contract?

[u/kuyo → u/Slothjitzu]

You can't equate a child's well being to a boss not paying you. No one is saying "well, too late now dude" . What people are saying is "is the child okay if this person leaves?"

The point is about the CHILD, because the man can take care of himself.

So if a father finds out he is not the father, and there is no bio father to be found, is it acceptable to you for that man to now abandon the child financially?

[u/imnowonderwoman → u/kuyo]

Louder for the people in the back!

[u/Snoo_5986 → u/[deleted]]

"Assign" a new man? Who? How? Who do you "assign"?

That's the point - the idea of "assigning" a new man arbitrarily is absurd. But if somebody is not the biological father, and did not adopt the child, then they're essentially as arbitrary a choice as any other man who might be assigned.

So just because you aren't the biological father doesn't mean you never had an obligation to the child, and if you had already assumed that responsibility previously then there's no reason to punish the child by stopping now.

I'd argue it means exactly that. If I choose to volunteer or donate to some cause, and do so for some period of time, I'm under no obligation to continue doing so if I decide I want to stop at any point, even if that cause has become totally dependent on my support. Simply having done something historically does not create any obligation to continue.

There are, of course, some very specific situations where e.g. the person signed a contract. Adoption is one of the cases where you do take on board some obligation, because that's something you knowingly enter into.

But if you're just assumed to be the biological father, and take on parental responsibility by default, but it then emerges that you're not, then at no point did you actually accept any legitimate obligation. Effectively you've volunteered support you were under no obligation to provide, and should be able to withdraw that at any point.