There are 5 choices, 7 votes for Alrightythen's debate

Should a man be forced to pay child support after DNA results conclude that he is not the biological father?

Should a man have to pay child support for a child who is not his own just because his name is on the birth certificate? Even if he raised the child for a number of years?

Should DNA testing be mandatory upon the birth of a child?

Should it be a crime for women to lie about which man is the father, and be prosecuted for perjury and fraud?

Should a woman have to pay back all the money if DNA proves the child not to be his?

"Michael H. v. Gerald D.,491 U.S.110(1989),the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's presumed father statute as a rational method of protecting the integrity of the family against challenges based on the due process rights of the father and the child."
...By law a presumed father must pay child support.

What do you think? Bullshit, or ex-father's responsibility to pay because he raised the child, or because his name is on the birth certificate?


  • Is it bullshit, or ex-father responsibility?
    thoughts from an angry man:

    "Would the laws be changed if women were getting the shaft? Would we have marches in Washington, senate hearings, national boycotts, etc.... When it is a man getting screwed over, nobody cares."

    my thoughts on this? If you want to fuck other men and have a child by a man other than your husband, deal with the consequences. Find the biological father and make him pay.

    What's sad about this, is that the child is the real victim in a case like this. It's also wicked to lie to a man about his role as a father, and on top of that, lying about an affair, and to add insult, making him pay child support for another man's child. ludicrous
    28%  Voted for by Alrightythen, MindsAbyss.
    View 1 comment
  • :

  • proof
    No, a man should not have to pay child support for a child who is not his unless that man has been raising the child for a number of years. In that situation child support should be handled similar to alimony (and this appiles to men AND WOMEN)as you have established a financial standing with the child. In all other situations where the child support payments have recently been enforced, a DNA test can be the deciding factor.

    I don't think DNA testing should be mandatory, as it could start to infringe upon people's privacy, but it should be readily available to whomever deems it necessary.

    If it can be proved that a women purposely and willfully lied about which man is the father, than yes she should be prosecuted for perjury and fraud. However she shouldn't have to pay back the child support money because the money was to the benefit of the child (and I'll assume the child is ignorant of who his biological father is as well), unless she used the money for something other than the child's needs. (Personally, I think that this would all be hard to prove in court if the "proof" is all verbal/hearsay.)
    Should a woman have to pay back all the money if DNA proves the child not to be his?
    28%  Voted for by sekmhet eye of ra, cadmelicser.
    View 5 comments
  • :

  • Well
    Legally, no, the man should have to pay no child support. Perhaps if the wife was awarded alimony, that would be the only money going towards that family legally. The biological father would have to pay for it.

    But he raised the child for a number of years? Heartbreaking to find out you're not really the father, yes. But so what. This is a child he supposedly felt was his own child. Bounced on his knee, tickled, lulled to sleep. Taught how to walk, talk, right from wrong. And now that he find out his sperm didn't create it, he will simply decide to stop seeing it and pay no money to make his or her life easier? That's a little harsh.

    "Should DNA testing be mandatory upon the birth of a child?"

    I don't think so, though I do see the benefits.

    "Should it be a crime for women to lie about which man is the father, and be prosecuted for perjury and fraud?"

    It may be difficult to prove she KNEW he wasn't the father. But it does cause a degree of emotional and psychological damage (as well as monetary damage for those that wish to abandon those they once called son or daughter after hearing the news). Perhaps some legal action should be placed over her, but what exactly? Put her in jail? Money? This will all affect the child poorly if the wronged man doesn't take custody over it.

    "Should a woman have to pay back all the money if DNA proves the child not to be his?"

    No.
    Voted for by Weydon.
    View 9 comments
  • :

  • This
    Would all be fixed by the very procedure you just suggested, I agree wholeheartedly. DNA testing would solve a lot of problems, and then we can get rid of the whole clause that states the legal father is deemed as the husband of the mother.

    By law a presumed father must pay child support. What a crock of crap. I got $15 from my dad. $!5! Why be so strict on such a policy when caught when really it can't be enforced all that easily anyway. My father had an independent business so his wages weren't garnished. Maybe things have changed since then, I don't know. But the value of DNA testing runs deeper than a flimsy child support system (which might I add is hardly ever extended to run away mothers). Its benefits fade into the league of who is the RIGHTFUL FATHER.
    Voted for by TeChNoWC.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • .
    No a man should not have to pay child support for a child who is not biologically his, the real father should do that, but if he raised the child he should want to help the mother out fanancially if he is any type of gentleman.

    Yes I believe DNA testing should be done upon birth, but I do not know about hospital procedures, it may complicate things too much in the hospital.

    No it should not be a crime to lie about the real father because the women might not know themselves. And they shouldn't be prosecuted for it because then the child would be left without it's mother.

    No the woman should not have to pay back child support after a DNA test because it is not the woman who recieved the money, it was her child.
    Voted for by Second.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →