Women did you ever suspect your partner's child wasn't his? Was paternity proven?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of heartless ahole do you have to be to reject a kid you raised as your own for 9 years? Yes, the woman was a liar and that's a horrible thing to do to someone you say you love, but that's not the kid's fault. Could a non-sociopath really look at the kid and say "oh, you're some other man's bastard so I'm not your dad anymore"?

Where is mom's responsibility? She lied to the man and child. A man should not have to financially support a child whom he was told was his and was not. At that point, chid support should be terminated and if he chooses to continue, he can, just as if he chooses to continue to have a relationship with the child. Both he and the child have the right to know.

I think that PP's point is that at some point while the action might matter quite a bit in terms of the deceived father's relationship with the deceiving mother, that it would be a cold person indeed who would abandon a child he'd raised as his own for a decade simply because he found out that his sperm had nothing to do with it. And anyone who doesn't understand this I don't think is a parent.

And that isn't necessarily saying they don't deserve to know, just that, at age 9 or 10, the parent/child bond is really firmly in place and it has nothing to do with money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of heartless ahole do you have to be to reject a kid you raised as your own for 9 years? Yes, the woman was a liar and that's a horrible thing to do to someone you say you love, but that's not the kid's fault. Could a non-sociopath really look at the kid and say "oh, you're some other man's bastard so I'm not your dad anymore"?

Where is mom's responsibility? She lied to the man and child. A man should not have to financially support a child whom he was told was his and was not. At that point, chid support should be terminated and if he chooses to continue, he can, just as if he chooses to continue to have a relationship with the child. Both he and the child have the right to know.

I think that PP's point is that at some point while the action might matter quite a bit in terms of the deceived father's relationship with the deceiving mother, that it would be a cold person indeed who would abandon a child he'd raised as his own for a decade simply because he found out that his sperm had nothing to do with it. And anyone who doesn't understand this I don't think is a parent.

And that isn't necessarily saying they don't deserve to know, just that, at age 9 or 10, the parent/child bond is really firmly in place and it has nothing to do with money.

You are assuming a lot, including the child has a strong bond with that man. If the adults are no longer together, it could be an issue where mom just wants the child support and man/child do not have any contact or a relationship. Then, it is strictly financial and why should a man support a child who he has no relationship with and is not his biological or adopted child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of heartless ahole do you have to be to reject a kid you raised as your own for 9 years? Yes, the woman was a liar and that's a horrible thing to do to someone you say you love, but that's not the kid's fault. Could a non-sociopath really look at the kid and say "oh, you're some other man's bastard so I'm not your dad anymore"?

Where is mom's responsibility? She lied to the man and child. A man should not have to financially support a child whom he was told was his and was not. At that point, chid support should be terminated and if he chooses to continue, he can, just as if he chooses to continue to have a relationship with the child. Both he and the child have the right to know.

I think that PP's point is that at some point while the action might matter quite a bit in terms of the deceived father's relationship with the deceiving mother, that it would be a cold person indeed who would abandon a child he'd raised as his own for a decade simply because he found out that his sperm had nothing to do with it. And anyone who doesn't understand this I don't think is a parent.

And that isn't necessarily saying they don't deserve to know, just that, at age 9 or 10, the parent/child bond is really firmly in place and it has nothing to do with money.

You are assuming a lot, including the child has a strong bond with that man. If the adults are no longer together, it could be an issue where mom just wants the child support and man/child do not have any contact or a relationship. Then, it is strictly financial and why should a man support a child who he has no relationship with and is not his biological or adopted child.

Yes its totally crazy to think that a man who has served as 'father' for ten years has a strong bond with that child.

I agree with you in this narrow example, if the relationship had been exclusively financial for 10 years and the child did not have a relationship with the non-father and it turned out the mom had lied then yes financial support should be terminated. This is not the case in many of the examples being given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of heartless ahole do you have to be to reject a kid you raised as your own for 9 years? Yes, the woman was a liar and that's a horrible thing to do to someone you say you love, but that's not the kid's fault. Could a non-sociopath really look at the kid and say "oh, you're some other man's bastard so I'm not your dad anymore"?

Where is mom's responsibility? She lied to the man and child. A man should not have to financially support a child whom he was told was his and was not. At that point, chid support should be terminated and if he chooses to continue, he can, just as if he chooses to continue to have a relationship with the child. Both he and the child have the right to know.

Do you have kids? I think it would be terribly traumatic to just stop being a dad to a 10 year old child. There's a bond that doesn't rely on DNA. It isn't about money.

NP here. There it is the old DCUM standby you don't agree with me so you can't have kids. Plenty of parents ditch their kids all the time.
It's sad, but in this case the only person who created this mess is dear old mom- the woman. Another thing it's hard for DCUM to do- hold a woman accountable. Her actions and selfishness hurt a lot of people. You can't throw morality to the wind and then expect everyone else to be moral.

Also, it's highly likely once her scam blew up she was the one to keep kid from seeing the guy, and not the guy.

I think if you can't comprehend why abandoning a child at 10 years old that you had raised as your own since birth would be traumatic/unthinkable than you either don't have kids or are a horrible parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happened to my brother. When the baby was born he looked nothing like our family and we immediately suspected. Brother was in denial. About 4 years later he had a DNA test and it was confirmed that it was not his. She denied- denied- denied and swore it was his. 2nd DNA test. Not his. She denied denied denied.. 3rd DNA test-- yes.. 3rd.

Brother loved and raised this boy as his own.

Good for him. That's the correct response in this scenario.

It has not been easy for him. It's much much better now but this poster's examples have been true and issues:

Mom's lie creates some incompatible goals:

1. Make sure the kid is supported & is not punished for mom's behavior.

2. Do not reward (and preferably punish) mom for her behavior. (For example, her life should not be financially easier because of her lie.)

3. Preserve the emotional bond between child & non-father.

4. Do not put non-father in a financially worse situation than he would have if mom had been honest.

I don't doubt it. But he is still doing the right thing. Are they divorced or still together?

They were never married. They are both with other people now but son lives with Brother. Brother and x have a very good relationship now. It's not to say that many many years were painful b/c of the deceit.

[Anonymous]

Feminist here, I'd be fine with having to prove the father with a DNA test. That's fair.

Then there should be a statute of limitations so that a kid's life is not ruined by losing a dad. Dad should do DNA immediately upon birth. If the mother names him on the certificate she can't refuse the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feminist here, I'd be fine with having to prove the father with a DNA test. That's fair.

Then there should be a statute of limitations so that a kid's life is not ruined by losing a dad. Dad should do DNA immediately upon birth. If the mother names him on the certificate she can't refuse the test.

I think this is a stupid approach. Men don't want to be fathers of children born to women with whom they had unprotected sex, then the onus is on men to prove they are not the father. Meaning the burden of initiating and paying for the paternity test should be on the man. Don't want that? Then put on a condom, you fucking cocksucker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminist here, I'd be fine with having to prove the father with a DNA test. That's fair.

Then there should be a statute of limitations so that a kid's life is not ruined by losing a dad. Dad should do DNA immediately upon birth. If the mother names him on the certificate she can't refuse the test.

I think this is a stupid approach. Men don't want to be fathers of children born to women with whom they had unprotected sex, then the onus is on men to prove they are not the father. Meaning the burden of initiating and paying for the paternity test should be on the man. Don't want that? Then put on a condom, you fucking cocksucker.

Actually, the burden should be on both adults. The woman has the primary responsibility if she is sleeping with multiple men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feminist here, I'd be fine with having to prove the father with a DNA test. That's fair.

Then there should be a statute of limitations so that a kid's life is not ruined by losing a dad. Dad should do DNA immediately upon birth. If the mother names him on the certificate she can't refuse the test.

But, the issue is he is NOT dad.