Are you liable for child support if marrying a woman with kids and divorcing later?

[Brenden_E]

Oops, I didn't realise I had stumbled into a teenage MRM thread. Are we going to talk about how nice guys, like yourselves, can't get laid next?

What on earth is MRM? And what the sex life of nice guys have to do with coercing a man to pay for someone else's child?

 

[scudsucker]

What on earth is MRM? And what the sex life of nice guys have to do with coercing a man to pay for someone else's child?

Do some research, I get the feeling you'll fit right in.

 

[Brenden_E]

Do some research, I get the feeling you'll fit right in.

Well that does sound like my kind of gig. You still have made no reasonable argument for your position - which at this point leads me to believe you cannot formula one.

 

[Fulcrum29]

It may not always fall to the mother but I suspect it's does have baked in presumptions that assist women with preferential treatment.

When you go into mediation it is asked who are the primary caregiver, money doesn’t play the primary role in this discussion, but it will establish which party will be paying the maintenance to the other party. The court determines this by analysing the circumstances. Both parties are responsible to maintain the child or children, but the circumstances and the child or children’s best interest will determine in which parts a sum will be paid. In the case, the court is unable to determine this and where co-parenting is a challenge, they will appoint a third party to resolve disputes. A Facilitator will then be appointed by the court, or through mediation, and will report back the court and their role is to resolve disputes and it may result in the secondary caregiver being promoted to the primary caregiver.

Two things to know. Parenting and Maintenance orders are separate orders by separate courts. You cannot take a parenting dispute to a maintenance court, vice versa. However, changing circumstances within the parenting plan, say the mother marries again, may be taken to the maintenance court to argue your position as a co-parent. The mother’s household will have one more contributor.

The court calc sheets usually work in parts,

Child = 1 part

Adult = 2 parts

which would make the maintenance payer 1/3 responsible. This is a basic calculation, circumstances and the position the parties are in still needs to be taken under consideration. Schooling, medical aid, etc. are separate to this.

Say a single mother marries a man with another child. That would be,

Child = 2 parts

Adult = 4 parts

Which would make the maintenance payer 1/5 responsible. That is quite a ‘discount’ to argue in the maintenance court when you are required to contribute to the basic needs.

 

[scudsucker]

you cannot formula one.

I can formula one with the best of formulas.

MRM is "mens rights movement" - a bunch of childish chauvinists who think the world owes them something due to the fact that they have a penis.

 

[Brenden_E]

I can formula one with the best of formulas.

MRM is "mens rights movement" - a bunch of childish chauvinists who think the world owes them something due to the fact that they have a penis.

Ironic that you have this stance, but you think a man owes a woman something because she has a vagina (and she used it on someone else).

Awaiting your formulation to support why men should be coerced to pay for other men's children - it's what, like 5 posts later and you still haven't managed to output a single point. All you've done is throw tantrums about matters that aren't even being questioned.

 

[scudsucker]

"Ironic"
"tantrums"

These two words have a different meaning to what you think they mean.

 

[Brenden_E]

These two words have a different meaning to what you think they mean.

Ok, I'm calling it game at 6 posts. You have made no effort to present a reasonable argument and instead hide behind childish digs. Very grown-up.

 

[Jabulani22]

When you go into mediation it is asked who are the primary caregiver, money doesn’t play the primary role in this discussion, but it will establish which party will be paying the maintenance to the other party. The court determines this by analysing the circumstances. Both parties are responsible to maintain the child or children, but the circumstances and the child or children’s best interest will determine in which parts a sum will be paid. In the case, the court is unable to determine this and where co-parenting is a challenge, they will appoint a third party to resolve disputes. A Facilitator will then be appointed by the court, or through mediation, and will report back the court and their role is to resolve disputes and it may result in the secondary caregiver being promoted to the primary caregiver.

Two things to know. Parenting and Maintenance orders are separate orders by separate courts. You cannot take a parenting dispute to a maintenance court, vice versa. However, changing circumstances within the parenting plan, say the mother marries again, may be taken to the maintenance court to argue your position as a co-parent. The mother’s household will have one more contributor.

The court calc sheets usually work in parts,

Child = 1 part

Adult = 2 parts

which would make the maintenance payer 1/3 responsible. This is a basic calculation, circumstances and the position the parties are in still needs to be taken under consideration. Schooling, medical aid, etc. are separate to this.

Say a single mother marries a man with another child. That would be,

Child = 2 parts

Adult = 4 parts

Which would make the maintenance payer 1/5 responsible. That is quite a ‘discount’ to argue in the maintenance court when you are required to contribute to the basic needs.

These laws are a relic of the past which sought to protect women and children , they needed this protection because women weren't as big a force In the whole employment thing.
Women are equal now days and as such the laws require updating to make them fair again.
There is an inherent bias in favour of the women.

 

[scudsucker]

Ok, I'm calling it game at 6 posts. You have made no effort to present a reasonable argument and instead hide behind childish digs. Very grown-up.

As I said, I think you'll fit right in with the MRM

There is an inherent bias in favour of the women.

...as will your mate here.

 

[Brenden_E]

These laws are a relic of the past which sought to protect women and children , they needed this protection because women weren't as big a force In the whole employment thing.
Women are equal now days and as such the laws require updating to make them fair again.
There is an inherent bias in favour of the women.

In western countries, anyway. In the Middle-East and many countries in Asia women get the short end of it.

 

[Fulcrum29]

These laws are a relic of the past which sought to protect women and children , they needed this protection because women weren't as big a force In the whole employment thing.
Women are equal now days and as such the laws require updating to make them fair again.
There is an inherent bias in favour of the women.

Quote me the laws in question, because I don't understand which laws a relic.

 

[Jabulani22]

In western countries, anyway. In the Middle-East and many countries in Asia women get the short end of it.

True , the middle east and Asia basically treat women as a commodity or property , Western laws are certainly more fair but we should update some.

 

[Jabulani22]

Quote me the laws in question, because I don't understand which laws a relic.

Any law unduly protecting women against threats that fell away years ago.
No I don't have the laws on hand but I think people can agree that some laws are outdated and convey preferential treatment whether Intentionally or not.

 

[Brenden_E]

Any law unduly protecting women against threats that fell away years ago.
No I don't have the laws on hand but I think people can agree that some laws are outdated and convey preferential treatment whether Intentionally or not.

I can quote one, if I man discovers he is not the father of the children he was deceived into believing to be his, still obligated to pay child support.

If anything, the woman should be liable for fraud.

 

[scudsucker]

I can quote one

Please do.

 

[Kosmik]

I can quote one, if I man discovers he is not the father of the children he was deceived into believing to be his, still obligated to pay child support.

If anything, the woman should be liable for fraud.

No he is not and a parent is well within their rights to demand a paternity test prior to any funds being transferred. My gardener had this exact situation, his gf and her family wanted him to pay for a child but they had broken up at the time and she slept around so the paternity was in question. After he asked for the test, the whole discussion was dropped.

Courts would have insisted on one as well and if he was the parent, then yes, he would have been liable for back maintenance as well.

 

[Brenden_E]

No he is not and a parent is well within their rights to demand a paternity test prior to any funds being transferred. My gardener had this exact situation, his gf and her family wanted him to pay for a child but they had broken up at the time and she slept around so the paternity was in question. After he asked for the test, the whole discussion was dropped.

Courts would have insisted on one as well and if he was the parent, then yes, he would have been liable for back maintenance as well.

You are mistaken. Here's an exert from Florida law, and I know most western law systems have the same:
Florida law is mostly protective of children – not dads. There are many situations where someone who is not the father will be obligated to pay child support until the child is an adult. Being on the birth certificate is one instance. Another is as simple as telling everyone you are the dad. Paternity law is a complex subject and tends to force people into a long term child support bill.

Paying Child Support When You Are Not the Real Father - Ayo and Iken

Many men are stuck paying child support for a child that is not theirs. The rules and laws concerning paternity and disestablishment are complex. Learn more

www.myfloridalaw.com

Imagine taking this line of reasoning to anything else. A person murders another and reasons that he cannot be put in jail because he is the sole breadwinner, and it will affect his children. The entire concept is ludicrous.

 

[Kosmik]

You are mistaken. Here's an exert from Florida law, and I know most western law systems have the same:
Florida law is mostly protective of children – not dads. There are many situations where someone who is not the father will be obligated to pay child support until the child is an adult. Being on the birth certificate is one instance. Another is as simple as telling everyone you are the dad. Paternity law is a complex subject and tends to force people into a long term child support bill.

Paying Child Support When You Are Not the Real Father - Ayo and Iken

Many men are stuck paying child support for a child that is not theirs. The rules and laws concerning paternity and disestablishment are complex. Learn more

www.myfloridalaw.com

Imagine taking this line of reasoning to anything else. A person murders another and reasons that he cannot be put in jail because he is the sole breadwinner, and it will affect his children. The entire concept is ludicrous.

Actually south African law is based more off British than American but I was quoting an actual local case, as well as familial experiances with the South African courts.

 

[GoofySmurf]

I can formula one with the best of formulas.

MRM is "mens rights movement" - a bunch of childish chauvinists who think the world owes them something due to the fact that they have a penis.

Wanted to say I sensed some extreme feminist undertones, you dont seem to mind sucking those scuds for a feminist?




Signed
The Male Patriarchy