Should a father be sued for child support if he is living in the home and paying the bills?

Discover How To Stop The Daily Pain And Heart Wrenching Suffering, Put An End To The Lying, Face The Truth About Your Marriage, And Create A New, Peaceful, Harmonious And Joyous Marriage Get it now!

Of course he should. A father should always be sued for any reason imaginable. You see, children should be brought up to serve the state, and so - we can't go around having healthy family structures, and .. .. Crap like that.

Just ask David Rockefeller - he might know, but asking him would be a waste of your time.

Probably what has happened is the papers never got filed indicating they were back together and child support was not needed. Having dealt with child support courts before, they are a huge mess and nothing is ever done correctly. I pay my ex monthly with a check because she does not want to deal with the hassle of waiting on the check from the court(and if she needs it early she just ask and I give it to her).

If the wife is being honest and is not involved, all it will take is the court appearance with both of them together and it should be changed and fixed. After paying court cost of course.

On the surface the answer would be no. But consider what is not said or explain. What are "the Bills?"

We see this a lot when the state has to provide medical coverage for children while the father or mother is driving brand new cars and eating dinner out every night of the week. Paying "the Bills" is subjective and raising children is the responsibility of the people who had them. Everyone may need help at some point... So the answer to the question may be yes, the father should be sued.

The State takes up the case in the instance that no one filed to have the support request nullified. Dead beat dads, that is the way they see it. I personally had a structured payment set up from an account for 5 years, never missing one payment, paid by the bank on the first of the month...Got served with a summons to appear in court because my ex had filed that I had made no payment, that was five years ago, and she swears she didn't...Thank God for bank statements.

The court should rule in his favor, but he probably needs an attorney...W.

No, a father should not be sued for child support if he is living in the home and paying the bills. I believe the father has the responsilbity to provide support to his child/children. Once the couple reconciled their differences it was their responsibility to take care of paperwork that was previously filed with the Attorney General's office.

Plain and simple bureaucratic red tape in normal slow motion. No reasonable judge will allow that. Of course the wife will have to get on the witness stand and admit she had nothing to do with it.

Then any rat in the wood pile will come out.

I've handled cases like this and generally what happens is both the mother and the father show up for the hearing and tell the AG what has happened and that they want the case dismissed. The whole thing goes away. She probably didn't do anything.

The AG's office is highly automated. The computers spit stuff like this out all the time.

An 'acknowledged father' is the biological father of a child born and whom paternity has been established. This can be done by either admission or agreement between the parents. Obviously, an acknowledged father must pay child support if they do not have custody.

Now for the 'presumed father'. If any of the following situations occur then a man is presumed to be the father of a child in the eyes of the court. One, the man was married to the mother when the child was conceived or born.

Two, a man attempted to marry the mother, whether the marriage was legal or not does not matter, if the child was conceived or born during this time he is the presumed father. Three, the man married the mother after the conception or birth and has his name on the birth certificate. Or four, a man had welcomed a child into his relationship and home and chose to call the child his own.

Now the fact is this, any father acknowledged or presumed can not be disproved in a court of law and is considered 'conclusive'. Even in the case of negative blood tests and proven paternity for another man. A man can be "conclusively presumed" to be the father of any child if he is both married to and living with the mother.

The only qualification is that he is not sterile or impotent. So, this means that if a wife cheats on her husband and a baby is born during the time of the marriage the husband is legally the father. Here's the kicker, if a blood test proves that you are not the father, whether the real father is made known by proof or not, then the presumed father must still pay child support.

Also, if the biological father is made known to the court he will not be obligated to pay child support but the custody and visitation will be shared only between the biological parents involved. By law, a presumed father must pay child support. "Under the Child Support Enforcement Act of 1984, it is against the law for any father, presumed or assumed, to not pay court ordered child support to the custodial guardian, regardless of joint custody.

Federal laws permit the interception of tax refunds to enforce child support orders, and other methods of enforcement include wage attachments, seizure of property, suspension of a business license, and in California, driver's license revocation. So, my question to you, do you believe that this is a fair law to be held so high in our courts? Here is the argument after interviewing a friend of mine that has actually had this happen to him.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.

Related Questions