Does a man have the duty to care for a child even if it's biological not his?

[Deleted]

Having been gone all day I found the other thread had moved on and been closed because of going off topic too far. One of the things that came up was the opinion of at least one poster that being the child's biological father is not relevant and

You don't need consanguinity to be a father. If you sign the birth certificate, you've stated you're going to be the kid's father. That's what signing it means.

even if the birth certificate was signed under the assumption that said man is in fact the biological father.

Because apparently

Finding out that your kid isn't biologically yours doesn't give you a free legal "out" that lets you abandon them. So no. It isn't relevant.

ignoring that said child isn't infact the man's child but a cuckoo's. Because apparently signing said birth certificate is akin to an "adoption" even if it came to be fraudulently.

I'm kinda curious what other people think about it, because such an opinion in all honestly baffled me since to me it seems completely outlandish. Especially since the man usually has to trust the word of the mother whether or not it's his child. Demand a paternity test would cause a lot of havock and most likely spell the end of the relationship even if the child were his and several countries have by now banned the man to undertake a parternity test on his own without the consent of the mother to "protect the unity of the family and the well being of mother and child".

[Deleted]

Unless he wants to, no. If he wants to be a part of the kids life and raising, yes.

[Deleted]

Hell no, you should not be forced to pay for another mans pleasure. You pay for the kid because you love it like your own not because you are forced to.

[Stelio Kontos]

I really don't care about what a man or woman wants in the case of taking care of a child.

The child needs to be supported, and if that inconveniences the mother or the father (or man who legally accepted responsibility for said child) then the child's well-being comes before either of them.

Now, in the case of the child not being the man's biological offspring, he should be absolved of financial responsibility if the biological father can be found and made to pay instead.

[Vermicious]

A guy in my apt building moved in, girlfriend in tow, she was just about due to give birth. She stated all along it was his, but then when baby arrived and blood test showed it wasn't his, she was moved out rather quickly. She led him on and expected to get supported by someone other than the baby's real father.

He did the right thing IMHO, and she really should be ashamed of herself.

[Xar226]

I don't know what the law says, there are some strange cases involving things like this. I remember one involving a sperm donor who was left on the hook paying child support...

Financially, nope. If he wants to help out he would be a really good guy, but I don't see any kind of obligation to do so.

Morally is a tougher question. If we're talking about a baby, I'd say the guy is welcome to walk away and not feel bad about it. If he's been this kids father for a few years and just found out it isn't really his, it's going to be devastating to the child to just be abandoned (and I would hope it would be devastating to the father as well), and I would hope he chooses to stay involved. I found out my dad was adopted in a really backhand way. We were doing a project for a health class in high school doing a short medical history, and I was asking my mom about my dad's side of the family and she was like "he's adopted." It didn't change a thing for me. I didn't feel differently toward my grandmother or my aunts. Family is more than shared DNA. I hope the father would see that too.

All that said, if the biological father also wants to be involved at that point I honestly have no idea what the right answer is. He certainly should be, but it's going to be confusing for that child to find out "oh, turns out Bob isn't my daddy, Tom is, but they're both going to hang around and play father."

[Deleted]

Of course not. If you want to do so and be part of the kid's life, sure, but in no way should anyone be obliged to pay for someone else's child.

[truckboattruck]

you have a duty to further your own line
NOT someone elses

maybe if its your friends kid
or a niece. nephew
or a younger brother

raising another mans kid is stupid

[Deleted]

Only if voluntarily and fully known should he be responsible for someone elses child, failing that, make the deadbeat pay or the state (Which occurs in the U.K if the father cannot be found, and CS in the U.K is rather tame in comparison to the U.S).

For example, if i loved a woman seriously enough i'd absolutely raise a child from a prior relationship or fling, but i'd want to have children of my own too with her.

[artemishunter1]

I really don't care about what a man or woman wants in the case of taking care of a child.

The child needs to be supported, and if that inconveniences the mother or the father (or man who legally accepted responsibility for said child) then the child's well-being comes before either of them.

Now, in the case of the child not being the man's biological offspring, he should be absolved of financial responsibility if the biological father can be found and made to pay instead.

Why, the child's well being needs to be supported? If it is for society's good, then society as a whole should pay for it. Not an individual, who has no stake in it.

[Blueobelisk]

Fuck that. It's not the guy's responsibility if the kid isn't his.

Unless that guy is a step father because he's marrying the mother. Then he does have some responsibility.

But the situation you're describing where some chick you don't care about says its not your kid? c u l8er

[Stelio Kontos]

Why, the child's well being needs to be supported? If it is for society's good, then society as a whole should pay for it. Not an individual, who has no stake in it.

The child's well-being supersedes an adult's rights in my view because the child is completely dependent and not liable for questionable actions taken by either of its parents. A child is a ward, either of it's parents, it's legal guardians (people who've adopted it or signed the birth certificate), or of the state. The state is only responsible if both parents are unavailable or unfit to parent.

Now, admittedly, I feel torn on the issue of lying about paternity. I can see some of the arguments for why a man shouldn't have to pay for a child that's not his. And ideally, the biological father should be found and forced to contribute. But if, in some rare occasion, that's not possible, the child's well-being should be paramount. What's better for the child's well-being, having the legal father pay support, or stripping the child away from its home and making it a ward of the state?

[Theinquisition]

I really don't care about what a man or woman wants in the case of taking care of a child.

The child needs to be supported, and if that inconveniences the mother or the father (or man who legally accepted responsibility for said child) then the child's well-being comes before either of them.

Now, in the case of the child not being the man's biological offspring, he should be absolved of financial responsibility if the biological father can be found and made to pay instead.

Still horse-shit.

If a man signs a birth certificate under the presumption that he is the biological father, and finds out he is not, then he should be absolved of the financial burden. Why should someone be forced to care for a child that isn't theirs? how can you advocate that?

[Endus]

I have no idea why Deleth is trying to be coy about who it was; I'm the guy who said that.

The context (which is kind of important), was specifically about a guy who signed off on the birth certificate saying he was the child's father, and finding out afterwards that he wasn't the biological dad. There was no time frame mentioned, but there isn't one under the law, either; if you've signed the birth certificate, you've agreed to be the child's father, biological or not. That's true in every modern nation I'm aware of.

Now, can you sue to have those parental obligations shifted to the biological father, if it's early enough in the child's life (like, within a month)? Probably. But until he's identified and confirmed, you're still going to be on the hook, because the primary, central issue is the child's welfare.

I was not saying you were automatically obligated to any child your significant other had. If you're both lily-white, and the kid comes out a lovely chocolate-brown, you probably shouldn't sign the birth certificate and should instead demand a DNA test, so you never get locked into that in the first place.

If you do sign, though, the welfare of the child comes first. Unless you can shift the obligations to the biological father (which doesn't require his permission or consent, FWIW), you're on the hook. That's all I said.

[MatadorMedia]

If you adopt a child, then yes you are legally responsible for support. Morally, I think you would be in the clear to drop responsibility of the child if you find out that you are not the father. However, it would be wrong of you to leave the child or the mother in an abandoned and penniless scenario so you'd probably want to help them both out in some way if needed. When an ex of mine got pregnant after we broke up it was a 50/50 chance that it was mine so I kept talking to her and supporting her decisions but I did not physically meet with her or accept responsibility; she knew that I would take the paternity test before I committed to anything real other than moral support.

[Blueobelisk]

if you've signed the birth certificate, you've agreed to be the child's father, biological or not. That's true in every modern nation I'm aware of.

Now, can you sue to have those parental obligations shifted to the biological father, if it's early enough in the child's life (like, within a month)? Probably. But until he's identified and confirmed, you're still going to be on the hook, because the primary, central issue is the child's welfare.

How is that even possible?

Example: If I come up to you and ask for your autograph, and it turns out you signed mortgage papers to help me take out a loan for a house, would you be held to that? No fucking way, you signed that under false pretenses.

If the child isn't biologically yours and you signed the birth certificate, regardless of what's the best for the child or what you signed, you shouldn't be held to that.

[Deleted]

Once he signed the birth certificate as the father he pretty much adopted the child.

[Vanyali]

How is that even possible?

Example: If I come up to you and ask for your autograph, and it turns out you signed mortgage papers to help me take out a loan for a house, would you be held to that? No fucking way, you signed that under false pretenses.

I believe you would be, actually.

You're supposed to read what you're signing, especially if part of it is hidden/ beneath something else. You signing it is the statement that you have read/ agreed what you're signing. Which is why all the people that scream and cry that "i didn't READ my contract i just SIGNED it so i could have [item]!" are still stuck for it.

[SL1200]

The law says yes. Moral of the story is don't play daddy to babies that aren't your own. No matter how much you like the female.

[Airlick]

I believe you would be, actually.

You're supposed to read what you're signing, especially if part of it is hidden/ beneath something else. You signing it is the statement that you have read/ agreed what you're signing. Which is why all the people that scream and cry that "i didn't READ my contract i just SIGNED it so i could have [item]!" are still stuck for it.

Not really, there's always that "I have read the document and agree to all terms blah blah" clause that you have to SPECIFICALLY sign in addition to the autograph at the end of the document. So if you came up with a blank page and asked someone for autograph, and it turned out there was something else written on the other page, you couldn't be held accountable in my country. If you signed a document without reading it, then that's a different story, though, and you can only blame yourself.

As for the birth certificates, it's only logical that you have no obligation towards a child if you sign up the birth certificate and it later turns out it's not yours. Why would you? At this point you can CHOOSE whether you want to accept this child as your own, but noone can force you to.