Oklahoma Man Ordered To Pay Child Support Despite Not Being Father

[mjr]

http://5newsonline.com/2017/01/12/ok...-being-father/

TL;DR version:

Man marries woman he thinks he knocked up. Marriage falls apart, and when the child is 3, he does a DNA test and the test reveals the baby isn't his (i.e. she cheated on him before the marriage).

Court orders man to pay woman child support even though the child isn't his.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Wow, that's a weird one. The woman should be able to collect child support from someone.

On the one hand, he was basically defrauded into a marriage. So it seems weird to go after him. And the "must question within 2 years" seems awfully arbitrary since I think you may not realize something is amiss at first.

At the same time, he has a relationship with the child. However he got there, he got there. So it's sort of, "it sucks but that's the law" in the same way finding the person who committed a crime after the statute of limitations expires is what it is.

[jackfaire]

And it is absolutely 100% right that he do so.

And it is also absolutely 100% right to lobby Oklahoma state congress to change the laws.

Fully accepting responsibility of fatherhood over a child without a test is akin to adoption. If a couple adopts a child and then divorces the non-custodial parent is still financially responsible for child support.

They don't get to play the "well but the child's not biologically mine" Something that absolutely has been attempted by couples who tried to save the marriage through adoption and then tried to abandon the child.

The father in this case is as much the child's father as if he was the biological father and absolutely should continue supporting the child that he agreed to raise whether he actually helped make the child or not.

[s_stabeler]

This ties into the disconnect between a kid's legal father and their biological one. Because legally, if a women is married when she gives birth, her husband is the legal father. (I believe there are a couple of situations where it's different, but those fundamentally boil down to "everyone involved acknowledges that X is the father, not Y's husband")- and as such, yes, this women's ex should be required to pay child support.

Oh, and the laws are unlikely to be changed, because there's good reason for them- the state has an interest in SOMEONE being required to pay child support, since otherwise, the state may well be required to pay. That, and in a sense, had the marriage remained intact, the guy would be paying anyway, and child support is more about maintaining the non-custodial parent's contribution to the kid's upkeep.

[Greenday]

Hm, at first I could sympathize but as jackfaire pointed out, he had no problem taking care of the kid before. As such, he obligated himself to take care of him for the future. I could see the law being reworded to " You have X amount of time to challenge paternity. Also, you have X amount of time to make a claim for child support, otherwise it's deem you do not need it."

[jackfaire]

Because legally, if a women is married when she gives birth, her husband is the legal father. (I believe there are a couple of situations where it's different, but those fundamentally boil down to "everyone involved acknowledges that X is the father, not Y's husband")- and as such, yes, this women's ex should be required to pay child support.

It's a gray area actually. For example I was legally married to my ex wife when she had her second two children. My ex-sister in law tried to go after me for child support. In my state since I had not signed the birth Certificate and in fact we had been separated well before the child was even conceived it came down to a paternity test.

She had apparently believed I was well endowed enough to impregnate my estranged wife from 3 states away. The paternity test proved the birth certificate to be accurate.

For her third child I had to show up at the hospital the day she gave birth to sign an affidavit proclaiming I wasn't the father in order to prove I didn't owe child support for a child I had nothing to do with. A child that prevented my finalizing my divorce as my ex-wife left town with the affidavit and I had no way to get a copy. Finally when she came back to town I was able to finally get the divorce I had been seeking for over a decade.

[s_stabeler]

Jackfaire, those are the kind of situations I meant- it's basically what is known in law as a rebuttable presumption- a women's husband is presumed to be the father, unless it is proved within a reasonable timeframe they aren't.

and as I said before, considering this ONLY became an issue when they were divorcing, I have little sympathy for the guy.

[mjr]

Jackfaire, those are the kind of situations I meant- it's basically what is known in law as a rebuttable presumption- a women's husband is presumed to be the father, unless it is proved within a reasonable timeframe they aren't.

and as I said before, considering this ONLY became an issue when they were divorcing, I have little sympathy for the guy.

I have a little sympathy for the guy, and here's why:

First, he thought the kid was his, meaning the woman cheated on him before they got married, and he didn't know about it. Next, since he thought the kid was his, he tried to do the right thing (marry the woman). Third, since the kid wasn't his, I can understand saying that the marriage was done under false pretenses.

I assume the marriage just didn't "fall apart". They got married I believe (I'd have to go back and re-read the article) when she was 4 or 5 months pregnant. It probably started falling apart shortly after the birth of the child, I'd guess.

I'm assuming what happened is that at some point while the marriage was failing she told him the kid might not be his (it does happen). And so he got a paternity test.

Why not compel the woman to reveal who the father is, and go after him for child support?

[s_stabeler]

Nope. It was mentioned in the article- he decided to get a paternity test done when the child was 3. the law in oklahoma says if the child is older than 2, then you're still on the hook.

as for making the biological father pay, I can think of an obvious problem with that. Sperm Donors. Currently, assuming you go through the proper channels, you are not the legal father of any kid conceived using your donated sperm. hence, you don't need to pay child support. If the DNA matters more, then sperm donors could be forced to pay child support.

Also, it's worth bearing in mind that along with the need too pay child support is the fact that he IS the legal father of the child. (mother's husband is almost always the legal father of the child) hence HE has the rights the father of the child would normally have.

also, to be fair, it's not entirely clear what the circumstances were. She may have cheated on him- in which case I have less sympathy for her- or the relationship may not have been exclusive (it happens) or the relationship may have been new enough for the kid to have been conceived before the beginning of the relationship. (a kid can be born anywhere up to a month early without any noticeable problem, and strictly speaking, there's a two-week per month window when you can fall pregnant. As such, she could have been wrong about the date of conception by as much as 6 weeks- which is long enough for her to have made a legitimate mistake about the father.)

Basically, what i'm saying is that it's entirely possible that she legitimately believed he was the father as well.

[mjr]

as for making the biological father pay, I can think of an obvious problem with that. Sperm Donors. Currently, assuming you go through the proper channels, you are not the legal father of any kid conceived using your donated sperm. hence, you don't need to pay child support. If the DNA matters more, then sperm donors could be forced to pay child support.

In a case like that, though, laws could probably be put in place. And she could say that the father is a "frozen pop".

also, to be fair, it's not entirely clear what the circumstances were. She may have cheated on him- in which case I have less sympathy for her- or the relationship may not have been exclusive (it happens) or the relationship may have been new enough for the kid to have been conceived before the beginning of the relationship.

In that case, though, she could have told him "This baby may not be yours..."

Basically, what i'm saying is that it's entirely possible that she legitimately believed he was the father as well.

Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!

Or is it Maury Povich where they have the woman (sometimes women) who swears that the father of her kid is one of four or five guys (all of which she would have had to have sex with in a short period of time), and when it isn't, she's shocked, and then thinks it might be some other guy (or guys)...

[s_stabeler]

while that IS possible, there is, as I have pointed, out, a 6-week window when conception could have occurred- or rather, two two-week windows, either of which could be when the kid was conceived, with a two-week gap. Realistically, she could have slept with someone, broken up with them- assuming a reasonably committed relationship- gotten together with the husband in question, slept with him, and later found out she was pregnant.

in short the options aren't "she lied about it being his kid" and "she is a slut who sleeps with so many men she can't keep track" (which was heavily implied by what you said)

[mjr]

while that IS possible, there is, as I have pointed, out, a 6-week window when conception could have occurred- or rather, two two-week windows, either of which could be when the kid was conceived, with a two-week gap. Realistically, she could have slept with someone, broken up with them- assuming a reasonably committed relationship- gotten together with the husband in question, slept with him, and later found out she was pregnant.

Well, those two, two week windows really only come down to six or seven days, if I'm not mistaken, at least for "optimal" chances.

That still doesn't mean she couldn't tell him "this baby might not be yours because..."

in short the options aren't "she lied about it being his kid" and "she is a slut who sleeps with so many men she can't keep track" (which was heavily implied by what you said)

I'm really not trying to imply either of those. I'm simply saying if she didn't know, before they got married, she should probably tell him "this kid might not be yours."

[s_stabeler]

a) I'm talking about the window when it would be possible, not likely.
b) I was just trying to point out that it isn't necessarily

Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!

Or is it Maury Povich where they have the woman (sometimes women) who swears that the father of her kid is one of four or five guys (all of which she would have had to have sex with in a short period of time), and when it isn't, she's shocked, and then thinks it might be some other guy (or guys)...

but a legitimate mistake due to unfortunate timing.

Also, it rubs me the wrong way that he only questioned the kid's paternity when said kid was 3, and it makes me suspicious that his motive was avoiding child support and he happened to be correct, rather than him seriously not believing the kid was his. ( just like calling someone a pedophile without evidence isn't any more acceptable if it turns out they really are a pedophile.)

[HYHYBT]

Also, you have X amount of time to make a claim for child support, otherwise it's deem you do not need it.

Why? Circumstances change. If one spouse is much better off financially than the other, and that one gets the children, it makes sense not to ask for support... but then, if that one loses their job, their investments go sour, whatever, and the other one does well, why is it better for the kids to suffer for it rather than to request a change in who pays for their needs?

[mjr]

I guess some of these laws are designed to keep the actual fathers from denying the kid is theirs and leaving everything to the mother.

However in this circumstance, the kid wasn't the guy's.

But my question is this: If she already had a kid, and they both knew it wasn't his going into the relationship, would he still be on the hook for child support?