Pregnant - two putitive fathers

[I'mTheFather]

You can keep running yourselves and this thread in circles all day. It does not change the state law I provided. It does not change the many ex husbands paying support for children proven not their own in the divorce proceedings. Even if dad is established to not be the father in the divorce, he can be ordered to pay support.

Word play...

Legally disestablished as father=no longer father, no longer financially liable. If not legally disestablished, then still legally dad even if not biologically.

Really, I know you know that.

 

[stealth2]

You can keep running yourselves and this thread in circles all day. It does not change the state law I provided. It does not change the many ex husbands paying support for children proven not their own in the divorce proceedings. Even if dad is established to not be the father in the divorce, he can be ordered to pay support.

And NO ONE has disputed that. The question is whether two putative fathers (in a case as stated by OP, in his state), are likely to be ordered to pay child support. In a case as stated by OP, without your various flourishes and permutations ... it is extremely unlikely. My dogs are easier to separate from abone than you are from your stubborn insistence on being right. Just let it go.

 

[LdiJ]

You can keep running yourselves and this thread in circles all day. It does not change the state law I provided. It does not change the many ex husbands paying support for children proven not their own in the divorce proceedings. Even if dad is established to not be the father in the divorce, he can be ordered to pay support.

Your assertion was that TWO fathers could be required to pay child support at the same time. Unless we are talking about a same sex relationship with the parent's child being cared for by a third party, that is NOT going to happen.

Nobody has been running in circles. All anybody asked you to do was to provide a cite that backed up that assertion...which you did NOT do.

 

[Proserpina]

The prosecutor was referring only to the parents. NOT grandparents. Counsel next to me and I just bit our lips and shook our heads. Yep... maternity established... I wasn't aware that was a prevalent thing until the prosecutor brought it up.

yes yes yes - I know that.

It was a sad attempt at humour on my part.

epic fail.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Your assertion was that TWO fathers could be required to pay child support at the same time. Unless we are talking about a same sex relationship with the parent's child being cared for by a third party, that is NOT going to happen.

Nobody has been running in circles. All anybody asked you to do was to provide a cite that backed up that assertion...which you did NOT do.

I provided the state law that allows a court to order it in more than one state. If you care to pay for my law school, entrance to the bar in 50 states and access to family court cases online in 50 states, I will be happy to do more research for you. Demanding I provide something it is impossible to have access to provide is like demanding I make a pig fly. If you care to provide the thrust, I can make one fly for you.

 

[LdiJ]

I provided the state law that allows a court to order it in more than one state. If you care to pay for my law school, entrance to the bar in 50 states and access to family court cases online in 50 states, I will be happy to do more research for you. Demanding I provide something it is impossible to have access to provide is like demanding I make a pig fly. If you care to provide the thrust, I can make one fly for you.

What you posted does not even remotely say that. Did you even read what you posted? No where in there does it say that two fathers can be legally liable for child support at the same time.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It does not say they cannot. It leaves any non standard judgment up to the court based on best interests of the child. I provided the circumstance when best interest of the child would warrant such a permitted order. If you disagree, please show me anywhere in the statutes it says the court cannot order that as a best interest solution. I won't hold my breath waiting. They can also in come states order it be paid by grand parents. In fact if you want to get technical, under the equitable doctrine of estoppel, support could also be ordered against a friend or lover if the court was so inclined.

 

[Proserpina]

Well, let's have a look, shall we?

Roadwarrior said:

You can keep running yourselves and this thread in circles all day. It does not change the state law I provided. It does not change the many ex husbands paying support for children proven not their own in the divorce proceedings. Even if dad is established to not be the father in the divorce, he can be ordered to pay support.

And this is from the statute HE provided.

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.

That confirms the statements of EVERYONE except ORW.

Warrior:

Don't you DARE sit there and criticize others when it's YOU who doesn't understand the flamin' statute. Just don't. You. Dare.

Let's have an example, shall we?

Billy and Milly have a child born during the marriage, Little Willy. Nine years later, Milly wants a divorce. Billy, being somewhat peeved, decides that he no longer wants to support Little Willy and demands a court ordered paternity test.

Uh oh! Billy's little soldiers were not invited to play with Mom's eggs at that time. What's he going to do? Why, he's going to tell the court that Little Willy isn't his, of course.

Nice Mr. Judge orders the DNA test.

It confirms that someone else's little soldiers did the happy happy with Milly.

Now what?

Mr. Judge looks sympathetically towards Billy and says, "Well, biologically it is true - you are not Young William's biological father. However, the court does not feel that it's in Young William's best interest to make you no longer Daddy. Sorry and all. Yes Mom? Oh I'll get to child support in a minute. Court is in recess because I need a quick pick-me-up"

NOW are we getting it?

Gawd, someone get me some coffee please.

 

[Proserpina]

It does not say they cannot. It leaves any non standard judgment up to the court based on best interests of the child. I provided the circumstance when best interest of the child would warrant such a permitted order. If you disagree, please show me anywhere in the statutes it says the court cannot order that as a best interest solution. I won't hold my breath waiting. They can also in come states order it be paid by grand parents.

Uh..actually, it specifically does say that the court cannot do that.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Uh..actually, it specifically does say that the court cannot do that.

You are misunderstanding the quote. The Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel is what I have been talking about all night based on the longevity of a relationship. You are falling behind in the debate. That is exactly the situation we are discussing where it exists. The section you quoted supports exactly what I have been saying.

 

[Proserpina]

Look. I'll eat crow when I have to.

But you're truly not understanding it, ORW.

I'm over-simplifying this to the Nth degree, but that's more for my sake than yours.

Grandparents can be told to pay child support. But not in addition to the parents.

Legal Dad can be told to pay child support. But not in addition to the biological Dad.

If you can show me even one example (case law would be nice) where what you're saying has actually happened, then by all means post it, and I'll happily take my pie off to the corner.

Crap, I'm even going to apologize. My earlier post was just a tad pissy. I'm sorry.

Still, there isn't a state in the country which will effectively enable the CP to "double dip". I realize that you're using the argument that "If it doesn't say they can't, then they can..." I get that. But it's nonsensical in this discussion.

Going through all of this http://sogpubs.unc.edu//electronicversions/pdfs/flb18.pdf? is a pain in the backside, but it's worth the read.

 

[wavehopper27]

Here is some caselaw from Massachusetts that supports ORW's claim

Department of Revenue v. Ryan R., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 380 , 387


e. Award of child support, After factoring in alimony and

Page 388

child support payments from Sheldon, as well as earned income of $15,000 per year attributed to Susan, [Note 15] the Probate Court judge ordered Ryan to pay child support in the amount of $285 per week and to provide medical insurance for the child. The award was based, in part, on the judge's finding, challenged by Ryan, that Ryan's income at the time of trial was $70,000 per year.[/B]
The findings reflect that the judge considered significant the evidence of the annual income reported by Ryan and his wife on their jointly filed Federal tax returns, reflecting that for the years 1997 through 2000, Ryan and his wife both claimed earnings from the dental laboratory business that was owned and operated by Ryan. [Note 16] The judge was not required to believe testimony that the nature of the work performed by Ryan's wife as office manager for the business (the only occupation she lists on the tax returns) entitled her to a substantial salary that was equal to or greater than that of Ryan, [Note 17] and the judge's attribution of income to Ryan was reasonable on the basis of the credible evidence. In any case, even had the judge determined that Ryan's income consisted solely of the amounts set forth on his

Page 389

W-2 form and some or all of the interest income, it would not have been error for the judge to consider whether the income of Ryan's wife made more of the income earned by Ryan available for the support of the child. See Department of Rev. v. Mason M., 439 Mass. 665 , 675 (2003).

f. Other claims. To the extent we do not discuss other arguments made by Ryan (viz., judicial estoppel requires dismissal; the trial judge should have attributed a greater amount of annual income to Susan), they "have not been overlooked. We find nothing in them that requires discussion." Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66 , 78 (1954).