Pregnant - two putitive fathers

[justalayman]

I just supported it below. The law allow special orders in exceptional circumstance in the best interests of the child. It does not prohibit multiple support orders and in fact when a third party has a child, initiates them.

still not seeing anything below (other than my posts)

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Then perhaps you should stop going after me and discuss OP's question instead of a ten post hijack against me.

 

[TheGeekess]

Then perhaps you should stop going after me and discuss OP's question instead of a ten post hijack against me.

Then stop posting pure fiction.

 

[justalayman]

That is above, or you need to turn your monitor over.


you are speaking to a very unique situation. That is not what you are attempting to make it to be. In California (and only California as far I am aware) it is possible to have more than 2 legal parents. Due to that oddity in their laws, you can have several people being liable for child support of a single child. That is not the same thing as the issue of having a father whose parentage has been terminated for whatever reason and a subsequent man being determined to be the legal father.

 

[Zigner]

Show ME the case law that says they can't for 50 states.

For example: CA law

You're missing a step. This thread is NOT an example of a situation in which this might apply, not even close.

Your claims are outrageous. Really. Be gracious and acknowledge it.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

NC law also allows for situational deviations. You can protest, complain, and argue. It does not change the statute that permits the scenario.

§ 50-13.4. Action for support of minor child.

(a) Any parent, or any person, agency, organization or institution having custody of a minor child, or bringing an action or proceeding for the custody of such child, or a minor child by his guardian may institute an action for the support of such child as hereinafter provided.

(b) In the absence of pleading and proof that the circumstances otherwise warrant, the father and mother shall be primarily liable for the support of a minor child. In the absence of pleading and proof that the circumstances otherwise warrant, parents of a minor, unemancipated child who is the custodial or noncustodial parent of a child shall share this primary liability for their grandchild's support with the minor parent, the court determining the proper share, until the minor parent reaches the age of 18 or becomes emancipated. If both the parents of the child requiring support were unemancipated minors at the time of the child's conception, the parents of both minor parents share primary liability for their grandchild's support until both minor parents reach the age of 18 or become emancipated. If only one parent of the child requiring support was an unemancipated minor at the time of the child's conception, the parents of both parents are liable for any arrearages in child support owed by the adult or emancipated parent until the other parent reaches the age of 18 or becomes emancipated. In the absence of pleading and proof that the circumstances otherwise warrant, any other person, agency, organization or institution standing in loco parentis shall be secondarily liable for such support. Such other circumstances may include, but shall not be limited to, the relative ability of all the above-mentioned parties to provide support or the inability of one or more of them to provide support, and the needs and estate of the child. The judge may enter an order requiring any one or more of the above-mentioned parties to provide for the support of the child as may be appropriate in the particular case, and if appropriate the court may authorize the application of any separate estate of the child to his support. However, the judge may not order support to be paid by a person who is not the child's parent or an agency, organization or institution standing in loco parentis absent evidence and a finding that such person, agency, organization or institution has voluntarily assumed the obligation of support in writing. The preceding sentence shall not be construed to prevent any court from ordering the support of a child by an agency of the State or county which agency may be responsible under law for such support.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_50/GS_50-13.4.html

 

[Zigner]

NC law also allows for situational deviations. You can protest, complain, and argue. It does not change the statute that permits the scenario.



http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_50/GS_50-13.4.html

Really OH - what are you smoking?

 

[justalayman]

NC law also allows for situational deviations. You can protest, complain, and argue. It does not change the statute that permits the scenario.



http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_50/GS_50-13.4.html

again you are attempting to shoehorn a law into a situation it does not address. Remember, this is your original statement:

Actually, the state can make both pay child support. It all depends on how it shakes out in court.

now read the statute you just provided and show where, even in it's loosest interpretation, it would apply to the two men in the situation at hand.

 

[stealth2]

See - that wan't so difficult.

Now... that paternal dad thing...

 

[justalayman]

See - that wan't so difficult.

Now... that paternal dad thing...

redundancy?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Apparently you had a problem understanding the language of the statute. I suggest you get a dictionary and look up these words

In the absence of pleading and proof that the circumstances otherwise warrant

While you are looking, decipher this part also

Such other circumstances may include, but shall not be limited to, the relative ability of all the above-mentioned parties to provide support or the inability of one or more of them to provide support, and the needs and estate of the child. The judge may enter an order requiring any one or more of the above-mentioned parties to provide for the support of the child as may be appropriate in the particular case, and if appropriate the court may authorize the application of any separate estate of the child to his support.

again you are attempting to shoehorn a law into a situation it does not address. Remember, this is your original statement:


now read the statute you just provided and show where, even in it's loosest interpretation, it would apply to the two men in the situation at hand.

 

[Isis1]

I think what is being misinterpreted.....if grandma has custody of child....BOTH the mother and father can be ordered to pay support.

Not in a situation with parent having custody and two other persons paying support.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It is not being misinterpreted. The court can institute an order for any interested party in loco parentis to pay support as required to provide continuity of the child's support. Though the circumstance is rare, I am not aware of any state that does not have provision for it in their deviation statutes.

 

[Isis1]

It is not being misinterpreted. The court can institute an order for any interested party in loco parentis to pay support as required to provide continuity of the child's support. Though the circumstance is rare, I am not aware of any state that does not have provision for it in their deviation statutes.

Dear god in heaven. You just did NAWT invoke loco parentis for a fetus.

*headdesk*

 

[I'mTheFather]

It is not being misinterpreted. The court can institute an order for any interested party in loco parentis to pay support as required to provide continuity of the child's support. Though the circumstance is rare, I am not aware of any state that does not have provision for it in their deviation statutes.

Interested party? So, how is a man with no biological or custodial ties to a child considered an interested party?