Man Paying Child Support for Son Who Cannot be His

This man has the legal system stacked against him but he was not duped. If you read the articles on this case they indicate the man knew from the beginning that the child was not his, but he decided to "make it work". Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the child is most likely not his, as no DNA test has been performed yet, but he is using his vasectomy as proof that he does not produce sperm. An article on this case indicates married men in his state have one year to reject paternity when a child is conceived out of adultery (These types of policies are decided 'state-to-state'*). So if he had just consulted a lawyer or familiarized himself of the law, he would not be in this position. The state looks at this as if it was an informal adoption of the child since he did not reject paternity.

Let's also not forget that most likely there is a biological father out there who has no idea he has a child. IMO, more should be done to prevent and correct these situations.

The men I hear about who are on birth certificates for kids who they are not biologically related to, knew the situation from the start and made a conscious choice to enter into the situation (just as this man did). I often wonder what will happen if they break up. Certainly they must be aware of child support laws.

* I know on MRA sites it is often said that married men automatically have presumed paternity. This is true when paternity is never questioned and years have gone by. However, many states have laws indicating married men can challenge paternity if done within a year (and the man in the article could have done so). I am in full support of more being done for men who find themselves duped after years of believing they were the biological father, or know they may not be the father but they decide to stay married, but not necessarily legally adopting the child. Maybe that is what this guy wanted.

Also, I just want to reiterate that I am a firm believer that birth certificates should be accurate.

HG.org Legal Resources

"Paternity testing is DNA analysis to determine whether or not a given man is the biological father of a given child. There are many different reasons people want to have a paternity test. Sometimes alleged fathers are told many years later that a previous relationship resulted in the birth of a child, and they want to make sure they are actually the biological father."

"When a married couple has a child, most jurisdictions presume that the husband is the father of the child (even if he is not). When an unmarried couple has a child, on the other hand, it is usually necessary to establish paternity as soon as possible after the baby is born. This protects the mother, the baby, and the father, by establishing everyone's rights with regard to one another, such as visitation, support, and inheritance."

from what I've been able to glean, there are very few places where married men have any recourse when a child's parentage is suspect. he is it. end of story. this of course can wind up hurting everybody involved and is the stupid way of doing things, which is sop for our legal system. some day dna will be routinely analyzed and the truth will be told. why tell a lie and set everybody up for a fall? if there is no legit claim of matrimony, the guy has a much better chance of getting dna testing to prove/disprove his rights and responsibilities. I had dna testing done on my youngest son and to this day I have never had any reason to be sorry for that decision.