If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Duped Dads concept
I'm curious... What if a married woman, whose husband earns maybe $20K per year, has an affair with a "fabulously wealthy" gentleman who earns over $100K. There is a pregnancy, she gives birth, her husband is legally (in many/most states) the "father". Later, she divorces her husband and gets that standard custody and CS arrangement. But she knows her ex isn't the father, and she could get a lot more cash from the bio dad. The state knows this too. Is there any way for her to insist that ex-hubby be let off the hook so she can pursue biodad? Surely the state would be in favor of this if it meant more federal incentive money, yes? - Ron ^*^ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Duped Dads concept
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:0wGUf.518$t22.59@dukeread08... I'm curious... What if a married woman, whose husband earns maybe $20K per year, has an affair with a "fabulously wealthy" gentleman who earns over $100K. There is a pregnancy, she gives birth, her husband is legally (in many/most states) the "father". Later, she divorces her husband and gets that standard custody and CS arrangement. But she knows her ex isn't the father, and she could get a lot more cash from the bio dad. The state knows this too. Is there any way for her to insist that ex-hubby be let off the hook so she can pursue biodad? Surely the state would be in favor of this if it meant more federal incentive money, yes? - Ron ^*^ Interesting idea. Being the optimistic sob that I am.. I'd have to say that the state would keep the non-bio dad on the hook until such time as the state can land bio dad in family court and slam him with C$ and a huge arrears. Of course, non-bio dad will have to take the state to court, fight them for a few more years, then they "might" let him go before he reaches his 80's and just can't produce for them and longer... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Duped Dads concept
Dusty wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:0wGUf.518$t22.59@dukeread08... I'm curious... What if a married woman, whose husband earns maybe $20K per year, has an affair with a "fabulously wealthy" gentleman who earns over $100K. There is a pregnancy, she gives birth, her husband is legally (in many/most states) the "father". Later, she divorces her husband and gets that standard custody and CS arrangement. But she knows her ex isn't the father, and she could get a lot more cash from the bio dad. The state knows this too. Is there any way for her to insist that ex-hubby be let off the hook so she can pursue biodad? Surely the state would be in favor of this if it meant more federal incentive money, yes? - Ron ^*^ Interesting idea. Being the optimistic sob that I am.. I'd have to say that the state would keep the non-bio dad on the hook until such time as the state can land bio dad in family court and slam him with C$ and a huge arrears. Of course, non-bio dad will have to take the state to court, fight them for a few more years, then they "might" let him go before he reaches his 80's and just can't produce for them and longer... Oh, sure. I only ask because it seems that state policy seems to be that hubby is the de facto father, even if he can prove otherwise, but this seems to usually involve cases where the biodad is either a bum or in the good graces of the mother. I'd be curious to see if the state backtracked on its own policy if the mother squawked and the state realized that there was more money to be had in pursuing biodad. - Ron ^*^ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Duped Dads concept
"Werebat" wrote in message news:0wGUf.518$t22.59@dukeread08... I'm curious... What if a married woman, whose husband earns maybe $20K per year, has an affair with a "fabulously wealthy" gentleman who earns over $100K. There is a pregnancy, she gives birth, her husband is legally (in many/most states) the "father". Later, she divorces her husband and gets that standard custody and CS arrangement. But she knows her ex isn't the father, and she could get a lot more cash from the bio dad. The state knows this too. Is there any way for her to insist that ex-hubby be let off the hook so she can pursue biodad? Surely the state would be in favor of this if it meant more federal incentive money, yes? In Oregon the law says the married man who is not sterile is "conclusively presumed" to be the bio-father at the time of divorce. There are provisions for modifying all terms in a decree at a later date and the ability to challenge established paternity for up to a year, so case law may allow a secondary challenge. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Duped Dads concept
Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:0wGUf.518$t22.59@dukeread08... I'm curious... What if a married woman, whose husband earns maybe $20K per year, has an affair with a "fabulously wealthy" gentleman who earns over $100K. There is a pregnancy, she gives birth, her husband is legally (in many/most states) the "father". Later, she divorces her husband and gets that standard custody and CS arrangement. But she knows her ex isn't the father, and she could get a lot more cash from the bio dad. The state knows this too. Is there any way for her to insist that ex-hubby be let off the hook so she can pursue biodad? Surely the state would be in favor of this if it meant more federal incentive money, yes? In Oregon the law says the married man who is not sterile is "conclusively presumed" to be the bio-father at the time of divorce. There are provisions for modifying all terms in a decree at a later date and the ability to challenge established paternity for up to a year, so case law may allow a secondary challenge. Right, right, that's what the law SAYS... I'm wondering if the state might find a way around its own rule if it comes to pass that biodad earns ten or more times what the ex-hubby does and the mommy insists that biodad is responsible for payment, not ex-hubby. Seems to me the state would have every reason to pursue biodad in that case. Rules, schmules, the state has to power to do what it wants. - Ron ^*^ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Duped Dads concept
Werebat wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:0wGUf.518$t22.59@dukeread08... I'm curious... What if a married woman, whose husband earns maybe $20K per year, has an affair with a "fabulously wealthy" gentleman who earns over $100K. There is a pregnancy, she gives birth, her husband is legally (in many/most states) the "father". Later, she divorces her husband and gets that standard custody and CS arrangement. But she knows her ex isn't the father, and she could get a lot more cash from the bio dad. The state knows this too. Is there any way for her to insist that ex-hubby be let off the hook so she can pursue biodad? Surely the state would be in favor of this if it meant more federal incentive money, yes? In Oregon the law says the married man who is not sterile is "conclusively presumed" to be the bio-father at the time of divorce. There are provisions for modifying all terms in a decree at a later date and the ability to challenge established paternity for up to a year, so case law may allow a secondary challenge. Right, right, that's what the law SAYS... I'm wondering if the state might find a way around its own rule if it comes to pass that biodad earns ten or more times what the ex-hubby does and the mommy insists that biodad is responsible for payment, not ex-hubby. Seems to me the state would have every reason to pursue biodad in that case. Rules, schmules, the state has to power to do what it wants. - Ron ^*^ My guess is that, if there was not a statute in place, just the "conclusive presumption," the state would look that wonderful, fluffy, ever-wavering, subjective, indeterminable standard of the "best interests of the child." The trial court would rule against biodad and let ex-hubbie off the hook. If it was an appellate case, it would reach the same result, with either an affirmation without opinion, or, in states that allow this, an unpublished opinion. (This way, the ruling does not set precedence.) Maybe I am just cynical, but the more family law I read, the more I see the courts just siding with mommy. Take some of the move-away jurisprudence. Anything to justify allowing the move, folks. The move is not "in the best interest of the child?" CHANGE THE STANDARD AND CHOOSE TO FOCUS ON THE MOTHER'S "RIGHTS." They would never do this for a father. In lots of the case that do go "our" way, it is an NCP mom challenging. NCP's need a planned litigation strategy (like the ACLU or other groups) to help us get favorable precedent. NCP mom's should always be the plaintiff if possible. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MI: Duped 'dads' seek relief - Legislation would reform rules on who pays child support to protect men forced to provide for nonbiological kids | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | March 21st 06 03:28 AM |
AU: Pity the poor kids of loser dads | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | September 23rd 04 02:15 AM |
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads | Don | Child Support | 8 | August 12th 04 07:17 AM |
Dad's Day--Letter to the Editor | Gini | Child Support | 8 | June 21st 04 06:23 PM |
Recognizing Good Dads | Gini52 | Child Support | 12 | June 1st 04 10:06 AM |