Should lawmakers make this a crime?

[EW]

Man in some states even if you treat them as your own and end up not being yours you still pay child support.

Yep and that is full on bullshit!

[stevo]

I have a daughter, and how much I pay is none of your damn business. I can tell you it is more than a child costs per month!

Or, you have Sancho's daughter and pay more than a child costs per month and hate the idea of knowing that there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop it, so you rather not know...

Stevo

[A_A_G]

If you have a child and you can't see the qualities of yourself in that child, then maybe you're too stupid to be breeding. If the man wants a paternity test then by all means I am for that. Making it a law is just fucking stupid though. Do you have kids?

You didnt answer my question. And a law would prevent the drama/stress/violence that may occur after finding out such a thing.

And no I dont have kids, but if I did I'd make damn sure he/she is mine immediately after birth.

[Treasure Chest]

Man in some states even if you treat them as your own and end up not being yours you still pay child support.

Texas is one of these states. It's intended to keep a man, who knowingly accepts paternity of a child that's not his, from welching when things go downhill.

It's a shitty situation. It's sad that these poor kids won't have ANY parents because of lies and money.

[one slow 5.0]

Bitches been doing this ever since Mary got away with it!

Right

[Forever_frost]

Oh I'm for charging the woman who defrauds the man into paying child support on a kid who's not his with a crime and forcing her to pay it back with interest. And if you raised a kid as your own and find out it's not yours, she should be required to pay you pain and suffering as well as every dime spent

[Gear_Jammer]

It's probably covered in the fraud statutes, but no one has ever filed a case of this type.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. It sure would be cool if someone tested it. It appears that there's new legislation on the civil side that betters the situation:

September 16, 2011

Texas legislates against paternity fraud

AUSTIN, Texas (AVfM) Legislators have changed a law that prevented victims of paternity fraud from challenging child support obligations. The landmark legislation took six years and three congressional sessions to complete.

According to the old Texas law, a man is legally a father if any child is born during his marriage, regardless of whether he is or isn’t the biological father. This resulted in many men paying child support after a divorce for children that were a product of their wife’s infidelity.

No genetic test was required to establish paternity. If fact, paternity tests proving no biological connection between the legal father and the child were considered irrelevant to the issue of child support.

Under the old Texas law, he was forced to support that child financially, and had no course of action to terminate the parent-child relationship even though he was a proven victim of paternity fraud.

The new law changes all this. It allows men to use the results of a genetic test to prove they are not fathers, and to petition Texas courts to terminate the parent-child relationship and child support. Courts will now be mandated to terminate child support orders and end legal sanctions against the victims of paternity fraud.

The law includes a grace period until September of 2012 for men who were victims of paternity fraud to make their cases before the court. Men who discover they are victims of paternity fraud after September 1, 2012 will have one year from the time of discovery to petition the courts.

The new law effectively terminates child support payments and requires the state to pay back any support already paid at the time of the petition. It is possible, then, that those women who have been fraudulently extorting monies from those targeted by their scams, will become liable to the state for restitution of the money they have illicitly collected.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rig...ternity-fraud/

[Saleen781]

I remember watching a documentary a couple of years ago that did a study and found that a high percentage of men are raising children that aren't theirs and don't know it. I want to say it was somewhere over 20%.

[stevo]

That's pretty much what I was thinking. It sure would be cool if someone tested it. It appears that there's new legislation on the civil side that betters the situation:

Good find. I wonder how it is going to work out the first time it gets ignored by the state attorney general and goes to court.

Stevo

[Forever_frost]

Good for Texas!

[svauto-erotic855]

In TX it is already settled case law. The father has to pay support even if the kids are not his.

[onemeangixxer7502]

In TX it is already settled case law. The father has to pay support even if the kids are not his.

thats fucked up, i believe in oklahoma its the same way. What if a guy has kids and the woman acts like they're hers and leaves. I wonder if she has to pay..... who am i kidding. LOL

[STANGGT40]

Texas is one of these states. It's intended to keep a man, who knowingly accepts paternity of a child that's not his, from welching when things go downhill.

It's a shitty situation. It's sad that these poor kids won't have ANY parents because of lies and money.

i can see that you would have financial responsibility for a kid that's not yours, if you adopted the kid...but if you didn't, then you shouldn't.

ie; if a guy marries a woman with a child; if they get a divorce (and he hasn't adopted the kid), then he shouldn't owe child support.

[onemeangixxer7502]

i can see that you would have financial responsibility for a kid that's not yours, if you adopted the kid...but if you didn't, then you shouldn't.

ie; if a guy marries a woman with a child; if they get a divorce (and he hasn't adopted the kid), then he shouldn't owe child support.

its just a way for a woman to welch some $$. They want equality then they should get it. they're from your snatch you pay for them.

[mikec]

^^^this^^^

^^^that^^^



Absolutely it should be. Never will be though.