View Full Version : Non Bio-dad to continue paying child support for a child he found out is not his

January 24th, 2008, 06:31 PM
What do you think?


A Hunterdon County man who discovered he was not the father of a 10-year-old girl, was denied his appeal to lower his child support payments, according to an opinion handed down this week by the state Appellate Division.

An appeals court on Wednesday affirmed an October 2006 decision made by state Superior Court Judge Stephen Rubin in Flemington against the request made by the man, identified in court papers only as W.S.Y. Jr. to protect the child's identity.

W.S.Y. claimed that a paternity test proved he was not the biological father of the child, whom he thought he had conceived with his then wife.

He went before Rubin seeking disclosure of the identity of the child's real father, appointment of a mental health counselor to address paternity issues, and reduced child support, including reimbursement for support previously paid retroactive to the child's birth.

The opinion, referring to the child by her initials, F.Y., states that the appeals panel was satisfied with the way Rubin made his decision against the requests. The judge "conducted a thorough analysis of the appropriate best interest factors and concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that the issue of paternity at this point in F.Y.'s life is not in her best interests."

W.S.Y's attorney was not immediately available for comment.

Mrs X
January 24th, 2008, 06:45 PM
Oh, the poor child!

However, for some balance, I know plenty of bio fathers who have tried all kinds of ways to reduce their support payments in cases of separation, which is equally as sickening.

January 24th, 2008, 07:03 PM
This is my take on it, for what it is worth: I think the mother is doing a huge disservice to her daughter for pulling this stunt. And yes, I put a huge lump of blame on the mother. From what I read in the article, they were married, she got pregnancy and the father had no reason to suspect the child was not his. Seems reasonable. Then he finds out she had an affair, the child is someone elses and yet he is still held accountable. If that woman had 1 shred of decency, she would not ask for child support. And yes, I believe that the natural father should be found and made to pay for child support. Why should he get out of taking responsibility for this child.

Do they honestly think it will be easier on this child to find out when she is 16 and in the throws of a hormonal teenage rebellion. :rolleyes: How about when she is 20 and has lived a lie for 20 years. If the bio-dad is a decent guy, does he not deserve the chance to see his daughter grow up? Who is to say he even knows he has a daughter and would not love the idea of being a father. The sooner she is told (with a whole lot of counseling) the better chance she has of forming a relationship with the bio-dad.

Now that does not mean that I don't think that the "dad" should not continue to be a part of this child's life. I just don't think that he should have to continually pay child support on a child that is not biologically his. But then this would mean that the mother, father and bio-dad would actually have to act like adults. Which I find highly doubtful. :mad: This woman played this man for a fool, and yet, she gets off free and clear and a pay check to boot.

One reason this ticks me off so much is because there are thousands of parents out there who are struggling financially every day because the ex will not pay support. Yet, we spend our time and tax payers money hauling this man through court because his wife chose to sleep with another man and then lie about it. SHE is abusing the system. The money that is being wasted on this woman's lies would be better spent helping people get the child support they deserve, not the child support they lied to get.

Why is the wife not being held accountable for this.

Okay, I'll get off my soap box now.

January 24th, 2008, 10:25 PM
Oh I agree wholeheartedly, grubby.

The only question I have is... did the mother KNOW that the child wasn't his? Sounds like she may not have been sure at the time.

I'm more concerned with the relationship between non-bio and daughter. I think bio-dad ought to pony up, but IMO non-bio ought not be 100% off the hook until bio has paid. I'd hate to see the child suffer, and the non-bio *did* accept her as his own for that many years.

What would make a person question a child's paternity that far removed from the birth? Doesn't it seem like, if you had a loving relationship with a "daughter" for 10 years, you'd leave it? You'd just PAY for HER benefit?

Maybe its just me.

But yeah... what a tough situation.

ETA: I know some kids whose bio-dad put the XW through the ringer seeking joint custody etc., which would be fine if he really wanted it for any reason other than to punish his XW. He had remarried and treated his kids like cr*p when they'd go over. They are all very thankful that he picked up and moved 2,000 miles away and hasn't contacted them since (they had to get a P.I. to find out where he went). The mom is living in practical poverty, but she's relieved that money is now her ONLY trouble.

January 25th, 2008, 08:12 AM
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Family Law in most states assume the father of the child is the spouse of the wife. Biologically, the husband may not be the father, but legally he is. That law has been in place for many years to protect children.

There are groups out there now trying to fight this law. They argue that it's not right for husbands to be duped into raising children that aren't theirs. Wives are being immoral and dishonest by passing off another man's child as his. Well, I agree. But who pays the price? It's always the child, and I think the court made the right decision. The man may not be the biodad, but this is the father she's always known. He needs to put this child before all else.