Nextwife, krispenstpeter, IAAL...

[n_and]

I know I ask alot of questions and I am greatful that you all answer so willingly....so here's another!

Is it true that a parent who is not the biological parent be forced to pay child support? i.e., If a girl is with a guy (not the father) for 5 years, they break up, and the girl tries to hit him up for CS, would a judge order him to pay?(paternity test has proven he is not the biological father)

I have looked around all day and can find nothing. A forum member told me this, and I just don't understand.

Thanks.

 

[dequeendistress]

How is this his obligation to pay for a child just because he shacked up for a while?

I would think NO judge will award that parent Child support against a non-biological father; In lieu of legal adoption by the non-biological party.

 

[tcpmp]

Every case is different. Look at "my chance for sole custody?" posted earlier in this forum. It has happened to a number of individuals but as I said before every case is different and will be decided by the courts. I don't know of any law or statues that prove this. You might try contacting I AM ALWAYS LIABLE.

 

[n_and]

See, that's exactly my thinking! It makes no sense AT ALL. But a forum member on here (i'm not saying names) definitely stated that. So when I asked in which states, they just said basically, a judge would want support to come from someone who had been supporting the child before the break-up. I've been looking for a statute, code, case, ANYTHING. I don't think it's true, but it's eating me alive.

Thanks for the reply, though.

 

[n_and]

You might try contacting I AM ALWAYS LIABLE.

Gee, you think so? That's who my thread is addressed to.

edit: and no offense, but looking at that thread doesn't help me at all. That thread is the reason I'm asking the question.

 

[tigger22472]

I know I ask alot of questions and I am greatful that you all answer so willingly....so here's another!

Is it true that a parent who is not the biological parent be forced to pay child support? i.e., If a girl is with a guy (not the father) for 5 years, they break up, and the girl tries to hit him up for CS, would a judge order him to pay?(paternity test has proven he is not the biological father)

I have looked around all day and can find nothing. A forum member told me this, and I just don't understand.

Thanks.

Actually yes I have seen where they can do that in different situations.

1... even if he's not the bio-parent and signs a birth certificate and has taken the responsibility he COULD be ordered by a judge.

2... even if he isnt' the bio... has taken on the role as father .... and he himself wants visitation... he could be ordered.

I even heard of a case where the guy believed he was the father, after the split was told he wasn;t... DNA proved he wasn't yet that was the only father the child knew (this is the big issue) and the guy was even awarded custody.

 

[tcpmp]

Sorry missed that section. Here is a webpage that was found on the topic. It doesn't site a exact law hope it helps a little.
http://financialplan.about.com/cs/familyfinances/a/ChildSupport.htm

 

[n_and]

Now I understand why this COULD happen. So it's if his name is on the BC or if he wants visitation. Thanks tigger!

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I know I ask alot of questions and I am greatful that you all answer so willingly....so here's another!

Is it true that a parent who is not the biological parent be forced to pay child support? i.e., If a girl is with a guy (not the father) for 5 years, they break up, and the girl tries to hit him up for CS, would a judge order him to pay?(paternity test has proven he is not the biological father)

I have looked around all day and can find nothing. A forum member told me this, and I just don't understand.

Thanks.

My response:

I have already discussed this very rare circumstance on at least two prior occassions on these forums - - and the following is based upon California law, which may or may not be similar to any other State.

Ordinarily, only the child's parents are liable to satisfy the support obligation; third parties cannot be reached. However, remarriage can augment the sources available for satisfaction of a parent's support liability, making certain property of the new spouse liable.

If the obligor and stepparent marriage is dissolved, the stepparent's property cannot be reached under §§ 910 and 915 to discharge the obligor parent's child support liability. However, where a "putative parent" relationship exists, the stepparent may be required to contribute to a stepchild's support even after dissolution.

Upon finding a putative parent relationship, the court, in proceedings to dissolve the marriage, can order the stepparent to pay child support, just as if he or she was the child's natural parent; Ca Fam § 4000 et seq. fully applies.

Like I said, this circumstance is very rare, and only occurs when the difference would be that the lack of funds would place a child's health and welfare in extreme danger; e.g., loss of housing, unable to obtain sustenance, clothing, etc.

Most cases of this type hinge upon whether the child has also become "psychologically" dependent upon the stepparent; e.g., that the stepparent is the only person the child knows as his/her "parent", and the loss of support would cause untoward emergency hardship.

This type of "support" is very rarely granted because there's usually other family members, or State Aid, available to assist to maintain the child. These stepparent financial situations when ordered, however, are usually of a very short duration; e.g., a couple of months.

IAAL

 

[n_and]

...and there he is, the man himself. (lol) Thank you, my friend.

 

[dequeendistress]

IAAL hope that I did not step on a toe or two...anything can be awarded I guess...may have never happened before but there has to be a case to set precedence doesn't there...

I also did not notice which state this was in...

 

[krispenstpeter]

Aside from whiteOUT said, which, again, has no bearing on the point of the GENERAL question, another such scenario not yet mentioned is the Statute of Limitations in many states to disprove Paternity.

In many states, the father has a limited time to contest the finding of paternity, whether married or not, and whether puntative or legal father or not.

There are many cases thoughout the U.S. in all states where fathers who are not the biological fathers have passed the SOL to disprove paternity and are therefore 'stuck' with the prevailing order.

That's why it is imperative that BOTH parents submit to paternity testing before any court order is issued.

 

[mommacat_11]

I am in the Great State of Illinois and I have actually seen cases where a Man supported a child that He thought was his, and when the paternity established that He was NOT, the court ordered the Mother to repay all of the support paid out during this childs life The child was 5 yrs old. (They were not married)
It's all on a case by case basis. But I would have to say that the majority of the time, You DO not have to continue to support a child that is not your child because it comes right down to responsibility, not respectablity.
A man who supports a non bio child is respectable.....but not responsible.

Can a judge order continued support for a non bio child?.....Answer..Judges can order anything they like.... But will it hold up.... Not really...Most likely it would be contested and overturned by another Judge.

~Mommacat

 

[krispenstpeter]

Not really...Most likely it would be contested and overturned by another Judge.

And that is NOT the case. A judge cannot rule against the law. And simply put, if state statutes have a statute of limitations on the disestablishment of paternity, whether the mother or father brings the action (and SOL is different, when existing, for each side) then ANY judge is bound by oath and duty to rule based on the law.

The simple answer is, if there is no SOL on disestablishment of paternity, then it can be contested. If there is an SOL, then any action to disestablish paternity MUST be brought within that timeframe.

 

[CMSC]

The simple answer is, if there is no SOL on disestablishment of paternity, then it can be contested. If there is an SOL, then any action to disestablish paternity MUST be brought within that timeframe.

I am obvious by no way as knowledgeable as the great hexpfaffoberkirs but isn't it possible to get a higher court to go against the SOL? I don't know about in this case, but I have read about a child support collection case where the SOL was 10 yrs after the first overdue payment and the judge allowed a judgement at 12 yrs. or something similar to that.