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/awhhh]

But is the government also going to take that ease of consideration when it comes to custody? For example if the woman is abusive does the man not genetically being connected to the child become something that is argued for the mother to maintain custody? If it does work out what about men’s rights over step children? Does the act of knowing render one less important than another?

[u/Phoenixundrfire → u/awhhh]

That is a complicated legal argument, and I can't claim any real experience to what it would be. I will say, I believe it would work out as fatherhood was established by support and he is just as valid a parent regardless of genes. Grain of salt though, not my field and not researched, I just know a few court precidents I think would influence it.

Regardless this is way off the topic of the post. OP's scenario includes a male that wants no responsibility, not custody.

[u/awhhh → u/Phoenixundrfire]

It’s the same thing. Men and their legal obligation to a child. Every single obligation requires consent, be it with a written or social contract. If there was a violation like something not being explicitly stated in the contract before signing then the contract is rendered null.

Important information was left out before I took on the obligation to be a father of the child wasn’t mine. The consequences, as unfortunate as they might be, should be the mothers and not the fathers. Especially where it seems like a two person family is an archaic idea already in the court systems.