|
Title: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: birdymaker on February 10, 2007, 06:24:12 AM man and woman get divorced. man does the right thing as far as supporting his kids. man finds out kids are not his, files suit to end child support for kids that are not his. judges say, "oh well, they were yours when you got divorced". meanwhile real father is living like a king somewhere.
we had one case here where the mother ended up marrying the real father and they lived happily ever after on her ex's child support.:sad3: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.htm Title: Re: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: Teed on February 10, 2007, 06:28:13 AM this is wrong on so many levels. I be willing to bet, if he filed for some level of custody he would be denied that as well.
Title: Re: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: Eagleone on February 10, 2007, 09:22:51 AM Were's our local lawyer for his interpretation.... ???
Title: Re: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: Torpedo on February 10, 2007, 09:26:30 AM Were's our local lawyer for his interpretation.... ??? [sm_hide] ;) Title: Re: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: larryd3 on February 10, 2007, 10:07:27 AM Were's our local lawyer for his interpretation.... ??? Other forum? [sm_devil] Title: Re: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: stroh on February 10, 2007, 10:10:14 AM Were's our local lawyer for his interpretation.... ??? Other forum? [sm_devil] I think his SSAD group meets early Saturday mornings. Actually, this may be the weekend of their retreat. Manilow is in town. Title: Re: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: Fuzzy on February 10, 2007, 10:15:25 AM Were's our local lawyer for his interpretation.... ??? Other forum? [sm_devil] He's here. But he's tricky. Title: Re: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: Clive on February 10, 2007, 10:55:02 AM Generally speaking, once a man acknowledges parenthood of a child, that child is his. Period. Subsequent DNA testing proving otherwise won't trump it. Matter of public policy, I suppose.
And as for remarrying and continuing to receive support: (a) there's alimony and then there's support; (b) any decent decree terminates the payments upon remarriage of the receiving ex-spouse; and (c) exception to (b) is if the receiving ex-spouse marries significantly beneath the previous level of support (in which case the payor's sum usually is down-adjusted). Again, public policy considerations -- the chance of the ex-wife livin' large off the husband's payments is less than the risk or distastefulness of a decrease in the child's living conditions. Title: Re: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: Aske on February 10, 2007, 10:57:03 AM don't do the porcine if you can't pay the unforseen
Title: Re: this is just wrong any way you look at it. Post by: geo1 on February 10, 2007, 11:42:08 AM Generally speaking, once a man acknowledges parenthood of a child, that child is his. Period. Subsequent DNA testing proving otherwise won't trump it. Matter of public policy, I suppose. And as for remarrying and continuing to receive support: (a) there's alimony and then there's support; (b) any decent decree terminates the payments upon remarriage of the receiving ex-spouse; and (c) exception to (b) is if the receiving ex-spouse marries significantly beneath the previous level of support (in which case the payor's sum usually is down-adjusted). Again, public policy considerations -- the chance of the ex-wife livin' large off the husband's payments is less than the risk or distastefulness of a decrease in the child's living conditions. If I am not mistaken all states if not most have the rule that a child born during the marriage is assumed to be child of the father and the exceptions to that rule are pretty severe to meet. Has something to do with the "Lord Mansfield rule." Alimony is different than child support. Child support is not automatically reduced or increased due to the marriage of the custodial parent. |