Replies

I think it is absurd to create the straw-man of subsequent DNA testing potentially disproving fatherhood to undermine an overall obligation to support ones children. Of the three parties involved in these cases; the husband, the wife, and the children, those with the greatest moral rights, but least legal rights are the children. Fatherhood isn't just biological and genetic. Once you have formed a bond with a child you have an obligation to maintain that bond both financially and emotionally. Kids, even those not biologically yours, are pretty damned special and rewarding.

“Once you have formed a bond with a child you have an obligation to maintain that bond both financially and emotionally.”

I will grant you the latter, but as the system has been turned into a means for deceptive persons to con the innocent out of 18 years of cash payments, not the former.

By the logic of “once a bond is formed” uncles, grandparents, and teachers of the children should look out for support payments levied against them? Obviously not. Nor is it reasonable, in the case of deception, to reward the deceiver.

In my opinion, someone who lied to get a support payment attached to the wrong father ought not to receive years of cash payments for the deed, but ought instead to be deemed an unfit parent. If the non-bio parent is, as you say, closely bonded with the children, let that parent have custody and let the liar become the payor if not be jailed for perjury.

Where there is not fraud:
Certainly there are many cases in which the (bio)father does not have a bond with the children but is correctly ordered to pay; and legally the issues of visitation (emotional/parenting support) and financial support are 100% separate (ask any non-custodial parent who tries withholding payment when the custodial parent withholds visitation).

It is certainly not correct to say on the one hand that when the non-custodial parent complains about not being able to provide support in the form of visitation that the monetary and emotional support are kept separate, but then simultaneously to assert that when it suits the desires of the custodial parent that an emotional link and a financial one are one and the same.