Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Pesumably though, as he knew a guys name (Tom) that she had an affair with he at least suspected the kids weren't his. He should have had the paternity test done when they were born. Personally though, he made a decision to stay with this woman and raise these children and should continue to pay until they are 18 years old. These kids are now 16, it's a little bit late to consider who their biological father is, I'm also assuming they share his last name. If I was in a situation where I raised kids until they were teens, I wouldn't think twice about supporting them, for all intents an purposes he is their Father, leagaly if not biologicaly.

   

On thing this is going to do is drive another handfull of nails into the coffin for mariage. This judgement just adds another low to the solid industry of woman making money off ex-husbands.

   

Tramp? Slut? Whore? Harlot? Low-born gutter snipe?

   

sad but probably true.

I know a woman who is still legally married (separated)
pregnant from another man..

The husbands name will appear on the birth certifcate.

IMO, something that needs to be changed, cause thats not fair
to the husband at all.

   

All of the above added to $$$ grubber.

   

I think the most revolting thing is that should she remember who else she was humping at the time she got pregnant and prove via DNA test (as seen on the Jerry Springer Show, a Drugs 'N Alcohol test...true story!) she could conceivably (ha!) sue that man for back-child-support!

How incredibly money grubbing and unjust is that!?!

But, here's my argument: If she has argued that the child support is the right of the child, then shouldn't she have to also have a binding agreement that she will pay X amount of dollars towards the child each month? As it stands, the father is required to pay X amount, payable to the mother, but never knows if his child has received that money. The mother on the other hand, can spend as little or as much as she wants, she isn't bound to support the child to the same extent the father is. She needn't spend a penny of her own money on the child and instead rely solely on the father. How is that fair to either the child, to whom apparently the right is bestowed, or the father, who is ordered to pay while the mother isn't?

Arguing that the mother pays for the electricity, rent/mortgage, amenities or other such monthly bills as a substitute for child-support is complete shit. She HAS to pay it anyway for herself. The father has to pay all of the same bills the mother does, PLUS the child support.

This isn't simply a pro-man argument; were the custodial roles reversed, I'd argue the same for the mother. It's just that typically, the man ends up paying child support.

   

I agree with you, it should. I would want to make sure, as separated husband, with a notary public or something, that I am not the father of this baby, and that either the biological father appears on the birthcertificate, or "father unknown". And I would do that NOW, before the child is born...

There must a way to prevent this man from having to pay for a child that is not even close to his, and will not be raised by him either.

   

I whole heartedly agree with you, and I would rather see joint custody, or a trust fund installed for kids.
The only thing dad could be paying for, is for food, if he doesn't see his kids on a 50/50 basis, or the sports the kids attend to or something.
(I mention dad, because most of the time, mom "keeps" the kids, but if they were to go to him, "dad" should be changed into "mom")

What I would also like to see, is the fact dad has the right to see his kids on a regular basis, and mom has the obligation to give the kids the opportunity to see their dad.
How often does it happen that mom (and thus kids)"is just away" when dad comes to pick up his kids?

   

Too bad you deleted that, Riden. I agree with you.

   

In this particular case, I believe those children have be saddled with the worst thing a child can have going against them, a ditch pig for a mother. First, she messes around on her husband and has twins as a result and lies to her husband as to the fact those kids were his. (I don't believe that BS about not remembering ever having an affair for one second) Second, after the marriage ends, she continues the charade. Third, she tries to limit the access the "father" has to her (their) children and wants even more money. Clearly this woman is beyond dishonest and I have a great deal of sympathy for those twins as a result.

Now, the "father". Up until the time he found out those kids were not his, we was their "father". He helped raise them while in the marriage and continued to after it ended. He originally went to court because his Ex was trying to limit his access to "his" children. (and wanted more money) Now as a result he found out he had been lied to for a number of years about those kids. I understand his anger completely, but did him finding that out make him loose all the love he had for those kids? Did it erase a lifetime, the children's lifetime anyway, of memories and love shared between them? He was fighting to be able to continue to spend time with them when he found out they were not his biological children. He should be ashamed of himself for his reaction towards those kids. He was there father for what 16 years? I think that very shallow of him to turn his back on the children he claimed to love so much when he thought them his. Not much of a man in my opinion. Again, my sympathy goes out to those kids for what their "father" turned out to be.

   

So what do the parents do for a living? Does the father make shitloads of money? If so, some saying that the ol switcharoo attitude of the father is not justified. If not and the guy is scrounging to make a living yet still forced to pay child support while the bitch wife is reaping the benifits while having a chunk missing from her brain of not recalling the 'affair' and demanding more money. What about the wife, does she work? married to a rich guy? poor guy? What? What about the kids? Their thoughts? So many things missing to make concrete judgments.

As to the people on here condeming the fathers actions, I'm sure a lot of guys would be mighty pissed to be broken up in a marriage of 6 years, then find out you were shelling out thousands of dollars of payments for 10 years with limited access from your kids on the conclusion that you actually didn't have kids and the ex was commiting fraud and claims to have no knowledge of the incident. Great mind breaker there and this may just be a knee jerk reaction from the father as I bet he has a lot to digest but so much information isn't alluded to here to make futher judgments.

   

Maybe I misread but where in the article indicates the mans undying love to the kids? Maybe he just wants his money back from something that isn't his. Makes him an asshole but has a legitimate reason. Sucks for the kids but I'm sure in two years they won't care or do they even?

   

The ex-wife is demanding more payments.

   

The article is full of holes.

   

I get that from the fact he was fighting to maintain his visitation rights. You don't do that if you don't give a shit about the kids.

   

Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  Next