Child support question – in extreme?
Scenario: Woman tells guy she had a one-night stand with that she is pregnant with his child, and he (stupidly) agrees to pay her child support without any sort of paternity test. Not only is he not the father, but she knows (from the start) that he is not the father.
She has INARGUABLY committed the crime of theft by fraud, right? Yeah, he may be an idiot. Yeah, he should watch where he puts his private parts - but fundamentally, she is receiving money from him by telling him a lie, right? Is that not the definition of fraud? The fact that she may be using the money for a child that he had nothing to do with does not change her culpability for this lie, does it?
Now, clearly the life of the child is paramount, and sending the primary custodian to jail would be a problem, but if she had committed an unrelated murder, we'd send her to jail and the kid would be "out on the streets", right? Primary custodians are not above the law just because society cares about its children, right?
Unfortunately, if you look at current case law, you might think differently. We just recently had a case where the guy went to jail because he was unable to make his payments, and he turned out not to be the father. Yes, the court said he didn't have to continue making his payments now that they knew he was not the father, but nothing (so far) has been done about the time he spent in jail or the money he has already paid.
Personally, I think this is a great argument for mandatory paternity tests before any child support decrees are made.
Legally and morally, how is telling a lie under these circumstances any different than borrowing your neighbor's kid, misrepresenting him as yours and the guy's and demanding child support?
I guess I'm not really asking what either the man or the woman SHOULD do. Clearly she shouldn't have lied. Clearly he should have demanded proof.
I'm really asking what our courts should do, and how society should treat this.
The scenario specifically states "she knows" - that isn't part of the question. If you want me to make it more specific, how about "he was drunk and she knew that she didn't have sex with him but she told him she did."
She knows. Take it as fact.
Kylie, why is not the same as using the neighborhood kid? Because she is doing it for the kid? There are plenty of reasons why people commit crimes. If we're going to balance punishment against need, are we going to give nastier penalties to white collar criminals than thugs holding up donut shops to survive?
Home | Contact | About | Privacy Policy | Sitemap
Filed under: Test Your DNA Info
In this case it is fraud, if you get someone to belive something for money.
It is against the law, if found guilty its a F3 up to 3 years in prison
thats intense… 1st she shouldve told the truth…but its not the same as borrowing the neigbours kid under any means…
she asked for child support from the guy which was definetly wrong.. but she could always just tell him and instead of going to court just pay him back some of the money overtime…
This only goes to show that the man should ask for proof first.
Is this in canada? If so FRO has the responsibility to ensure repayment, or you can wait to fight it out in family court, or sue her for fraud and misrepresentation in civil court(fastest and most apt to win).
Child support is a complex issue, because the money isn’t really for the mother, but for the child. The child needs support from both parents to be in the best possible situation. Courts also have ample systems in place to challenge requests for child support. A paternity suit is inexpensive, simple, and can be done without a lawyer.
Since they had sex and he agrees with her that the child is his, the agreement to pay support is NOT a crime. His agreement concerning the facts and the assumption of obligation are key to understanding this transaction.
Since these two persons had sex, her assertion that he is the father may not be a lie. A lie is a false statement made by a person who KNOWS the statement to be false. Though you state in this scenario that "she knows", she actually cannot know. Whether or not she was exposed to any other man’s sperm, both of them acknowledge that she was exposed to his.
If it is a lie, it is morally wrong. It may not be legally wrong, but if it is, proving the case may be impossible.
A man is allowed to acknowledge paternity of a child. The court’s approval makes it official.
When I was a child support officer, I confronted a man who was over 65 years old, asking if he was the father of the child just born to a woman (age 27) with whom he had had a relationship. His response (with a smile): "Does she say it is? Really? What do I sign?"
It’s better for the child in the long run to have the DNA testing done before establishing any child support payments. Going through court and having DNA testing and then having a court order payment plan through wage garnishing is the way to go..
People do things that are not right, but with paternity, there is testing to prove the truth..