There are some cases where a man is considered the legal father for a child who may not be his biologically. This can happen if he has acted as a father for the child for a significant period of the kid's life or if he is a stepfather. The child should not have to suffer if the man decides to leave, so yes, there may be circumstances where the man has to pay for a child who is not his.
No, the biological parents should be responsible for the caring of their child. That is not to say that step parents can not do so. But it should not be expected of them. If however, a step parents became the legal guardian of the child through adoption then he should.
Why should a man be forced to take responsibility for a kid that's not his? She should of thought about the well being of the child and the family unit before assigning the daddy role to another man.
Financially hooking a man who was kind enough to fulfill that role absent the biological father is just wrong. Perhaps the woman, the one who chose to have a child, needs to rethink about the grass being greener on the other side and put her child's interests ahead of her own if that's the case.
If a man is not the biological father, and he is no longer with the mother, then why on earth should he be forced to pay her? So, in this scenario, he is forced to pay his hard-earned pay, has the chance to have his license suspended, be called a deadbeat dad, and go to jail if he can't, or is unable, to pay? For a child that is not his? This is a travesty of justice and is the inherent flaw of the family courts system. They are stupid and anti-male. After all, would a woman who had met and married a single dad ever be forced to pay support for HIS children if she left him? No. Simply ridiculous.
The man shouldn't have to pay for some random kid. The only time he should pay is if it was biologically his. Does a woman even have the right to demand child support on her ex boyfriend? Can she be Sued? She should be that is totally not right. Poor guy .
I have seen a few women suggesting men should pay simply because they acted as a father.
The law needs to be clean cut and DNA gives that, instead of a determination based on an opinion of a man serving as a father.
People need to place themselves in the position of the innocent payer, after all how many women would want to pay child support for acting as a mother to their boyfriends kids for a couple of years.
Often the cry is best interest of the child, my reply is the child deserved a better mother in the first place lets not force the child into a relationship with a man that isn't the father for simple expedience of making someone pay for a woman's choice.
Good gosh no he shouldn't have to pay child support. Chances are the mother is already getting child support from the biological father. Even if she is not, the boyfriend or the stepfather should not have to pay. I think mommy should just get a job, because the bills have to be paid. Plus the chances of that man still getting to be a part of that kids life is probably slim to none due to the mother.
So is the graphic for this discussion, by the way. But I digress, no, if the man isn't the father, then there's no reason that they shouldn't be exempt from child support regardless of the scenario. They may have been in the life of the child for a brief time and left which is unfortunate, but they didn't create it.
If the child is not legally his child, a man should not have to pay child support. However, if the child is his through adoption after the man married the child's mother, then he should have to pay child support, as he took on responsibility for that child when he adopted the child.
A man should not have to pay child support for a child that is not his. If he did not help conceive the child, then he should not pay. The only other reason a man should pay is if him and the female adopted the child. Other than that, it is ridiculous to do this.