SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Uh, no it sounds like he can't pay because he's NOW unemployed and this extra financial obligation is further straining his resources. So it would stand to reason that he was able to take care of his ACTUAL responsibilities until he lost his job. Regardless, this is not his kid so the financial obligation should end there IMO. And his priority should definitely be the family that he actually CHOSE to form not the kid he was bamboozled, swindled, and defrauded into thinking was his.

SCNDLS said:

Well if he was there for 10 years, then that negates virtually all of that argument! Men leaving their children and dragging more kids onto planet earth is a problem for everyone involved. You can't blame the new kids but you can blame the man and psycho new wife

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Yeah, you're making all kinds of assumptions there aren't you? I'd rather blame the ONLY liar and irresponsible party in THIS equation. The triflin' heffa that KNEW she was fucking more than one man and therefore KNEW either with certainty or with some doubt that there was a chance he wasn't the father. She KNEW that 11 years ago, but HE paid the price. That's some bullshit.

JustErin said:

AGREED...

SCNDLS said:

'hell yes I'm assuming but I know how competitive women get when it comes to other kids being involved in their relationship. Don't even act like women don't know this game

I would like him to tell that kid to his face " I'm not giving any money to help in your upbringing cuz I just found out you're not my seed"


If he can do that, then fuck him and let him walk away. If the kid has a bright and prosperous and financially yielding future then this mofo forfeits any right to come back and ask for anything or try and play dad.

DesireeNevermind said:

Why does that have to be what he says?

You mother fucked your world because she lied to me instead of telling me I am not your father. Blame her for your misery

So it seems that most of u think that this is fair.

Graycap23 said:

You'd think I was a straight guy carrying on like this

Graycap23 said:

No, not to be forced by law. That's not fair.

I haven't watched the clip of the guy so I could be wrong, but we are all making a lot of assumption here.

How do we know that if he had the funds available he wouldn't want to continue supporting this kid that he loved and cared for? The main point of his argument is that he is unemployed and can't afford to shell out 500 for maintenance for a kid that is not his (nor should he have to imo) but those are his circumstances. People are calling him a loser and deadbeat etc (maybe not those exact words used) but we don't know what he would choose to do if he was working.

Maybe he shouldn't just walk away from the kid as a father, but damn yall put yourself in his shoes - I know we all want to think we would do thinks differently but reality ain't always pretty. A lot of people are saying he is deserting this child emotionally as a father but we don't know he has done this; all we really know is he don't want to pay money he can't afford for a child that has been proven not to be his!!! This doesn't seem like a bad guy to me. There are plenty of dads out there, still living with their children who don't take care of them - this guy did! He did what he was supposed to do as a father and took care of his kid, but I don't think he can be blamed for not wanting to now that he knows the truth and financially isn't able to!

Edited to apologise for going exclamation point crazy in my post.
[Edited 5/15/09 11:47am]

SCNDLS said:

Right. What i'm not getting here is it seems everyone has
absolved the woman of blame here. She owes it to this guy
she tricked and the child who's been mislead to find
his biological father and let the child eventually decide
if he wants to have a relationship with him or he wants
to continue to have a relationship with the guy whom he
thought was his dad but the courts have no right to force
him to pay child support because he was there for 10 years.
Get the fuck outta here. The biological father and this
deceitful ass woman should be responsible for child support.
I've never heard of no shit like this before.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Because its honest!

The mother lied about who she got pregnant by but she's not keeping this dude from being a father -he is making that choice and doing so out of anger and being a cheap wad. Fathering is more about the action and less about some dude dropping his load. That's like saying a guy who adopts a child should not have to be financially responsible for the kid cuz its not really his. I just dont see how this guy can turn his back on the child after 10 years of knowing the kid. I think the real issue is he never wanted to be a father from jump street. This was just the out card he needed.
[Edited 5/15/09 15:03pm]

DesireeNevermind said:

That or he is so consumed with anger that he is legally a victim of racqueteering. I don't blame him either way.

^ I couldn't turn my back on a kid that I thought was mine for 10 years or even 1 year cuz it would be my kid. I would make the bond in my mind and my heart. If I can't do that then I got no biz being a parent period. It was wrong that dude got lied too but to turn his back on the kid and leave him with that lying heffer is beyond belief. How about suing for full custody and charging her with being unfit? But again...i think its about the money for this dude.

phunkdaddy said:

The ONLY thing this man is guilty of is being too gullible and trusting in HER word that he was the father. Any man that pays child support without first getting a paternity test is CRAZY.

SCNDLS said:

in this day and age and with those kinds of statistics, absolutely.

DesireeNevermind said:

probably

JOYJOY said:

Funny...I had a step parent who loved me, and a biological father who in addition to other things, coughed up the cash for me. So whats the fucking problem? And mine is not a peter pan story. My step father is no less of a person. And there is a difference with the logic of adoptive parents...they chose to accept a child they knew was not their own as their own and retain all legal rights and responsiblities concerning the child. Also, a biological father who was not supportive still has legal rights to his own flesh and blood should he choose to step forward.
[Edited 5/15/09 17:42pm]

SCNDLS said:

That's how I see it.

He sounds like he loves the boy but that he knows how finite his finances are and is bound to care for his actual family. So often men get run down as being irresponsible. I think it's actually funny he's making a decision to put the needs of his family first and he's being ripped for feeling that way.

It's a shame he was duped into taking care of a son that wasn't his. I hope, especially once he's back on his feet, he'll be able to choose to resume lending a hand to the boy. And, I hope, he'll choose to remain a part of his life, whatever his financial picture.

ThreadBare said:

If this is the case all money should be documented down to the penny as going to that kid. No joyrides.

ThreadBare said:

Would he want to stay in the boys life if it causes such a financial strain to his own children that it causes resentment? That mom should back off.
Its wrong. Sue the biological dad for NOT being there, take his money, he needs to be held responsible.

Neophyte said:

I don't think for a second that the mother is in any way in the right here, but it is wrong to effectively abandon a kid when you've already been involved with the kid for his or her whole life. What's BS is this "me and mine first" attitude some people in here are promoting. That child is as good as his if he's been helping to raise and support the kid their entire life. Doesn't matter if it's "his" or not.

StillGotIt said:

Paying the price? You act as if caring for another human being is a punishment. Oh, the poor bastard. How dare anyone ask him to think of someone else.

A stranger? Hardly. If he was raising this kid for 10 years already, he's no stranger. And IMHO only a selfish fuck would think there something wrong with continuing that. Obviously, walking out on the kid is a much better idea to some of you people.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

But again, this is just adults forcing the ill effects of their drama and bullshit and pettiness onto the kid. However that child got here, whoever the father is -it doesn't matter. A REAL adult would sort out what's best for the child and put their best interests first, not bitch and moan and gripe about who cheated who and push the kid back and forth like a bargaining chip or a weapon.


God, I hate grownups. I really, really do.

Only addressing paternity of children born outside of marriage.

Men are going to have to stepup, know their rights, and be proactive when it comes to paternity of a child. You don't never ever never sign a Paternity Affidavit without requesting a DNA test. Without a mans signature a women can't put his name down on the birth certificate as the biological father. If a man has doubts he's the father of the child, he can then ask the court(s) to establish paternity. It's all spelled out in laymen terms on the back of the Paternity Affidavit. Depending on your State, you only have to pay court cost and for DNA testing if it's been established you are the father.

In some States (Ohio) unwed persons cant automatically have a legal Father without a Paternity action establishing the identity of the Father, whether agreed or contested. I guess it's nice that Georgia finally got around to reforming there paternity laws but most States have had similar laws since Welfare Reform. (1996)



.

meow85 said:

As a friend once said told me, Children being conceived on a fuck. If you can't take responsibility for your own birth control, you should purchase a sex toy.

TD3 said:

I know that that's designed to help prevent paternity fraud, but it looks to me like that's leaving way too much room for men to skip out on responsibility.

meow85 said:

Well no, paternity laws weren't designed to prevent paternity fraud per say. They were establish so that persons would have legal recourse and protection under the law. Paternity laws were designed to provide and protect what's in the best interest of the child and/or children. It doesn't give men room to skip out on responsibility, it does by law make men own up to their financial responsibilities when it's been established they are the biological father of a child. Also, it gives father's legal rights to ask for visitation and/or custody. Establishing paternity provides a child with legal rights to benefit from a father's Social Security, insurance benefits, inheritance rights, veteran's and other benefits. Just as establishing paternity of a child gives women legal recourse to go through the courts to establish educational/medical child support payments. Needless to say it's important psychologically for a child to have a name and to have an identity.

The law can't make a dad have an emotional/nurturing relationship with their child but the law can try to make sure society not footing the bills for a mans childcare either. If Mr. Larry Durden had taken a DNA test the subsequent drama could've been avoided.
[Edited 5/16/09 5:04am]

NAH..

He loved the child believing it was his. Discovering that the child was not actually his brought a seismic shift in his attitude -- his actions are understandable and justifiable. Why should he support another man's child in this situation?

JustErin said: