Men outraged over paying child support for kids who are not theirs

[bigheadfred]

LANSING, Michigan - Most people think you have to either adopt or conceive a baby to become legally responsible for a child. Under Michigan law, that is simply not how it works.

“I became dad by default,” said Reginald Whitlow II.


He and three other men came to Detroit-based WXYZ for a panel discussion on how one becomes "dad by default."

There are a couple ways it happens. Pastor Edward Mack says his previous wife had three children. He loved them as his own. Then he realized two of them weren’t biologically his.

“I don’t really want to talk about it. It brings tears to my eyes,” said Mack.

Pastor Mack says the betrayal led to divorce. He was shocked when the judge told him because he was married, he became  "dad by default" to his wife’s children. He had to pay support for another man’s children.

“Let her pay for them. Let her get the man she laid down with to pay for them. He goes free,” said Mack.

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/under-michigan-laws-men-may-not-be-the-father-but-still-owe-child-support

Deadbeat moms.

[Frank Cannon]

Just more evidence that Michigan is a 3rd world country.

[endicom]

Just more evidence that Michigan is a 3rd world country.

I believe this has been common law for ages. Not until this age has it been possible to determine who is the actual father or who isn't.

But now that we can determine who is the actual father, let's update the laws.

[bigheadfred]

I believe this has been common law for ages. Not until this age has it been possible to determine who is the actual father or who isn't.

But now that we can determine who is the actual father, let's update the laws.

I was working with a kid for a while who told me he had gotten his ex-girlfriend pregnant and she told him she had an abortion but he later found out she gave the kid up for adoption. So he has a kid in the world somewhere but will probably never see them. That seems wrong to me. Maybe it is just me.

[jmyrlefuller]

I believe this has been common law for ages. Not until this age has it been possible to determine who is the actual father or who isn't.

  Not until this age has out-of-wedlock birth ever been this much of an epidemic, either... what used to be considered adultery is now sexual liberation.

[240B]

My experience with Child Services and Family Courts is that they have a 'catch-all' phrase which they use to justify anything they do, regardless of how ridiculous or insane it may be. The phrase they fall on is, "For the best interest of the child". Once they pull this out of the sheath, they can literally do anything, and rational thinking and common sense do not apply.
I'm pretty sure that is what we are seeing in this article. The judge and everyone involved knows that it is wrong, they just don't care. If the judge declares it is in the best interest of the child, then anything goes, no matter how absurd it may be.

[mountaineer]

I used to file paternity suits on behalf of the state (most of the women involved were receiving welfare), and ran into a couple of dead ends when the child involved was born to a woman who was married to some other guy at the time of the child's conception. There was nothing I could do - the husband was the presumed father even if the DNA proved he wasn't. That was Missouri, not Michigan, BTW.

[Frank Cannon]

I was working with a kid for a while who told me he had gotten his ex-girlfriend pregnant and she told him she had an abortion but he later found out she gave the kid up for adoption. So he has a kid in the world somewhere but will probably never see them. That seems wrong to me. Maybe it is just me.

Better to have a live kid that doesn't know you than a dead kid in a dumpster.

[endicom]

Common-law doctrine bars man from rejecting paternity of his non-biologic daughter in Berks court

http://www.bctv.org/special_reports/government/common-law-doctrine-bars-man-from-rejecting-paternity-of-his/article_588e41e0-5685-11e2-a55c-001a4bcf887a.html


This is Pennsylvania.

[Sanguine]

It's too bad he didn't get custody of the three kids.

[mountaineer]

My experience with Child Services and Family Courts is that they have a 'catch-all' phrase which they use to justify anything they do, regardless of how ridiculous or insane it may be. The phrase they fall on is, "For the best interest of the child". Once they pull this out of the sheath, they can literally do anything, and rational thinking and common sense do not apply.
I'm pretty sure that is what we are seeing in this article. The judge and everyone involved knows that it is wrong, they just don't care. If the judge declares it is in the best interest of the child, then anything goes, no matter how absurd it may be.

What we're talking about here would be a matter of state law, not a bureaucratic decision.

[240B]

What we're talking about here would be a matter of state law, not a bureaucratic decision.

I understand. But there are absurdities throughout family law, although I do realize that the laws vary widely by State. For example, many States will suspend the driver's license of someone behind in child support, or even put them in jail. Obviously the debtor will lose their job, apartment, and car. Now, not only can they not pay child support, they can't work or eat either. There are many cases where Child Services will put a garnishment on a debtor's income to the extent that they can no longer pay rent or gas, or buy food etc.

My point is that many of the things Family Law does is illogical and irrational. They do not work with the debtor to sort things out amicably, but rather tend to use preset draconian measures, regardless of the resulting outcome, which just make everything worse for everyone involved, especially the payer.

This is my experience anyway. Not sure how broadly it applies to others.

[bigheadfred]

I understand. But there are absurdities throughout family law, although I do realize that the laws vary widely by State. For example, many States will suspend the driver's license of someone behind in child support, or even put them in jail. Obviously the debtor will lose their job, apartment, and car. Now, not only can they not pay child support, they can't work or eat either. There are many cases where Child Services will put a garnishment on a debtor's income to the extent that they can no longer pay rent or gas, or buy food etc.

My point is that many of the things Family Law does is illogical and irrational. They do not work with the debtor to sort things out amicably, but rather tend to use preset draconian measures, regardless of the resulting outcome, which just make everything worse for everyone involved, especially the payer.

This is my experience anyway. Not sure how broadly it applies to others.

Pretty much how it is in Idaho.

[jmyrlefuller]

This is one of several reasons I have serious qualms with dating a single mother.

[Oceander]

"He loved them as his own."  But now he doesn't want to make sure they have what they need to get started in life?  Pretty short shelf life on that "love."  And rather hypocritical words for a "pastor" - did he ever consider for a second that this was part of what God intended for him?  That part of his purpose in life is to see to the spiritual development of children without regard to their biology?

[Oceander]

  Not until this age has out-of-wedlock birth ever been this much of an epidemic, either... what used to be considered adultery is now sexual liberation.

Really?  You know what went on in the middle ages?  There's a reason why there used to be what was called "common law marriage" and it had nothing to do with people who actually went to the church and got married before they had kids.

[Oceander]

This is one of several reasons I have serious qualms with dating a single mother.

Why?  Would you be planning on a divorce before you even got married, assuming she would agree to marry you in the first place?

[Smokin Joe]

I understand. But there are absurdities throughout family law, although I do realize that the laws vary widely by State. For example, many States will suspend the driver's license of someone behind in child support, or even put them in jail. Obviously the debtor will lose their job, apartment, and car. Now, not only can they not pay child support, they can't work or eat either. There are many cases where Child Services will put a garnishment on a debtor's income to the extent that they can no longer pay rent or gas, or buy food etc.

My point is that many of the things Family Law does is illogical and irrational. They do not work with the debtor to sort things out amicably, but rather tend to use preset draconian measures, regardless of the resulting outcome, which just make everything worse for everyone involved, especially the payer.

This is my experience anyway. Not sure how broadly it applies to others.

Though I have not borne the burden of many of those 'features' I have known people who have. The Driver's license thing is especially insane.

[Restored]

The justification for this scenario is "Well, someone needs to pay for this woman's child". The money needs to come from somewhere.

[240B]

The justification for this scenario is "Well, someone needs to pay for this woman's child". The money needs to come from somewhere.

That is exactly correct. The Court wants someone paying, and they don't necessarily care who it is. Anybody that they can reach is good enough. Also, they don't care if you can afford to pay or not. They will take the money even if you wind up in a homeless shelter eating from a soup kitchen. They don't care. They don't consider the welfare of the debtor at all.

Once you get a child support judgement, from that point on you are a presumed criminal on probation.
If you lose a job, you have to report it.
If you get a new job, you have to report it.
If you move, you have to report it.
If you leave the State, you have to report it.
If you remarry, you have to report it.
And on and on.

Child support is a form of probation. Until and unless you can get out from under it, you are not a free man anymore. You can be sued or even thrown in jail at any time for anything, if someone thinks that you are breaking the rules.

[XenaLee]

That is exactly correct. The Court wants someone paying, and they don't necessarily care who it is. Anybody that they can reach is good enough. Also, they don't care if you can afford to pay or not. They will take the money even if you wind up in a homeless shelter eating from a soup kitchen. They don't care. They don't consider the welfare of the debtor at all.

Once you get a child support judgement, from that point on you are a presumed criminal on probation.
If you lose a job, you have to report it.
If you get a new job, you have to report it.
If you move, you have to report it.
If you leave the State, you have to report it.
If you remarry, you have to report it.
And on and on.

Child support is a form of probation. Until and unless you can get out from under it, you are not a free man anymore. You can be sued or even thrown in jail at any time for anything, if someone thinks that you are breaking the rules.

And those same exact rules didn't used to apply to the woman if she's the one that walks away from or abandons the kid(s), leaving custody with the father.  Unless the father got an attorney and sued for full custody, at that point.... which takes more money than the father can afford in most cases.... she could come back, grab the kid back to start getting child support again and didn't have to worry about paying child support to the dad for the time she was 'gone'.  It's not fair.

[XenaLee]

The justification for this scenario is "Well, someone needs to pay for this woman's child". The money needs to come from somewhere.

Yeah...suddenly.... it doesn't take a village.  It just takes some poor smuck, any smuck, they can find to harass and hound for ever having known the mother in question.

[Sanguine]

And those same exact rules didn't used to apply to the woman if she's the one that walks away from or abandons the kid(s), leaving custody with the father.  Unless the father got an attorney and sued for full custody, at that point.... which takes more money than the father can afford in most cases.... she could come back, grab the kid back to start getting child support again and didn't have to worry about paying child support to the dad for the time she was 'gone'.  It's not fair.

Not true, @XenaLee.  I know two women who had to pay child support after the father got full custody.  Not sure where the idea that they wouldn't came from?

[Sanguine]

The justification for this scenario is "Well, someone needs to pay for this woman's child". The money needs to come from somewhere.

It's not exactly "this woman's child" - it more like "this child". 

[240B]

This is the most absurd part of the whole thing. Some States base the amount of child support on what they call the 'family income' of the divorced spouse. When they are single, the family income is only their one salary. However, should they remarry, then the income and assets of the new spouse would be included in, family income, and the amount of child support would be adjusted accordingly. Think about it.

If I remarry, my new wife could wind up paying child support to my ex-wife. In what universe does this make any sense? Why would I ever remarry under these circumstances, and what woman would ever agree to marry me?

So, when the child support judgement was issued, several other things came with it, from this point on.

You will report all events that happen in your life directly to us.
You will never be allowed to be successful, because the more you make, the more we take, to keep you at a certain level of income. If you get a raise, we need to know about it.
You will never remarry, and if you do, we will punish you, and her.

That's life in modern America. That is why I always warn people about to get married to make sure they know what they are doing. I'm not saying to not get married. I'm only saying, be very careful. It is a serious thing, not to be taken lightly.