Child Support

[annoyed2009]

What is the name of your state (california)

I remember this case where the woman cheated on her husband, gave birth to 2 children that is not her husband's and sued him for child support after the husband found out about the cheating and divorced her.

What is the name of that case? I want to know. It's just one really messed up lawsuit.

[IsabellaSoriano]

Originally Posted by annoyed2009

What is the name of your state (california)

I remember this case where the woman cheated on her husband, gave birth to 2 children that is not her husband's and sued him for child support after the husband found out about the cheating and divorced her.

What is the name of that case? I want to know. It's just one really messed up lawsuit.

we don't do homework here. based on what you stated, seems like the law worked the way it's supposed to. dad is legal dad since he was married to the mother at the time of birth. not once, but TWICE!

[annoyed2009]

I don't know. It seems to me everyone is throwing away their common senses and blindly do what the law says.

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by annoyed2009

I don't know. It seems to me everyone is throwing away their common senses and blindly do what the law says.

The two aren't mutually exclusive you know...

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by abys32

I remember that one too!! I know the court's first priority is the children. The guy did nothing wrong and the wife violated her oath of marriage, which I thought was a legal arrangement. In doing so she further created quite emotional anguish for both this guy and the kids, who were all under the impression that they are related!!

They should have made this woman find and sue the bio dads for support AND this guy should be able to get visitation if wanted because she lied to him AND the children.

Was there something about "knew or should have known?" What happended there?

Husband is the legal father of ANY children born during marriage. If he didn't want to be daddy then he should have disputed paternity IMMEDIATELY, filed for divorce and requested a paternity test on both children. He didn't. Most likely he held himself out to be the children's father and enough time elapsed that he forfeited the right to not be daddy. Abys again you know NOTHING about the law. AT ALL.

[abys32]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

Husband is the legal father of ANY children born during marriage. If he didn't want to be daddy then he should have disputed paternity IMMEDIATELY, filed for divorce and requested a paternity test on both children. He didn't. Most likely he held himself out to be the children's father and enough time elapsed that he forfeited the right to not be daddy. Abys again you know NOTHING about the law. AT ALL.

I know it sounds unreasonable. That is important in law. You have to admit that there was an incredulous response to this case across the state and the country. How often do you hear about a family law case on the news in another state?

Are you saying that you think it is reasonable for all married dad's to get DNA testing just in case they later find out that their wife cheated? When you get married, shouldn't you be able to assume that your spouse is not having sex with other people? If not, why is that even grounds for divorce? I understand the law that led to the decision. I think this sounds unreasonable and it should be changed. Do you know if he knew or should have known? Maybe that was a factor as well.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by abys32

I know it sounds unreasonable. That is important in law. You have to admit that there was an incredulous response to this case across the state and the country. How often do you hear about a family law case on the news in another state?

Are you saying that you think it is reasonable for all married dad's to get DNA testing just in case they later find out that their wife cheated? When you get married, shouldn't you be able to assume that your spouse is not having sex with other people? If not, why is that even grounds for divorce? I understand the law that led to the decision. I think this sounds unreasonable and it should be changed. Do you know if he knew or should have known? Maybe that was a factor as well.

I am saying it is the law -- something of which you are ignorant and continuously post stupidity regarding. The law states that the LEGAL presumption is that the husband is the father of the children. He could raise the issue of paternity at birth and get a DNA test if he wanted to then. Or he could have raised the issue at the time of the divorce filings or before the court finding that he is the father of the children for the purposes of the divorce. You think it is unreasonable? I think YOU are unreasonable and really need to quit posting.