You've made a couple of comments like this. Children don't get a say - they have parents and must live according to that and this man did love these kids "as his own". So the love part comes first....you don't stop loving kids that you've cared for and abandon them for something that is no fault of theirs (or yours). A "responsible" man gets that and wouldn't consider leaving the kids out on a limb.
Why do people sponsor children living in poverty that aren't "their own"? I'm glad not everyone has the horrible attitude some here do about the well being of children. How could any "parent" walk away after over a decade of caring for children based on money? Children bring more joy and happiness throughout a lifetime than any money can bring.
How do you force a woman to find out? What if she's a tramp who slept around at the time and there were multiple men involved? So the kids starve throughout the process? What if the biological father is long gone and she doesn't even know where he is? I do agree that, ideally, it would be best to find out and transfer the responsibility to the man who donated sperm, but I think the measures in place try to take the route that's the least disruptive to the children. They've known this man as "Dad" their entire lives and to yank that rug would be wrong. It's a tough situation, but one of the children IS his, so do you simply "pay" for him? Then that money gets too thinly spread because, obviously, all children involved have to be cared for and then he suffers in the process?
The well being of children is already considered by government which is why women are afforded so many programs to assist them. Government could also attempt to find the real father, chances are they won't want to screw around either since they're so adamant about making someone
This is an issue of parenthood and financial responsibility, as well as the ramifications of such acts.
Man is responsible and takes are of children he thinks are his, finds out wife lied and paternity test reveals he isn't the father, gets punished and cannot remove his responsibility as the father as he should be able to.
This is not the man's fault, so punishing him gives a pass to the woman veiled as "the well being of children". Great for the children, great for the mom, pathetic deal for the guy here.
As for how to force the woman to find out, who knows, that's her problem, and since society wants someone to pay, why not the person who acted out of dishonesty and infidelity? When she opens her legs to a bunch of different men and lie to her husband, that's another thing not his responsibility to figure out for her, and truthfully not government's either, make her responsible for both portions should the guy choose not to have anything to do with kids that aren't his. However, as it currently stands, mother gets a free pass for infidelity and dishonesty, all because some lawmakers arbitrarily decided the only actual "victim" in circumstances like this should be hit because the notion that the children's well being is harmed by father not being in the picture to fork over a chunk of his salary to kids that aren't his, all because he did the right thing and was responsible for children he believed was his. This kind of thing, especially now that it's becoming more prominently known, will prevent father in laws from wanting to help take legal responsibility for the children of a mother that he knows aren't his, because should the other dad disappear, the responsible guy again will be screwed.. it also will foster more loser dads who want to evade responsibility for their children due to not knowing if it's truly theirs, and knowing that should they be financially responsible they'll be forced into paying for children not theirs anyways.As it is men have very few choices and options in matters surrounding children. It's nice that everyone else has rights without consideration of the guy in the equation, but cases like this where the disparity leans so heavily against a man deserve the criticism it gets.
There is no good reason for the law to function as is, beside people thinking it's "right" to force a man to pay for others' kids (after already having his world destroyed learning they aren't his) because they're dependent on him. You don't force people in a free country to pay for unrelated children simply because they were lied to long enough. Well, I guess we do, but our governments are already full of stupid, incompetent leaders who shouldn't be trusted to run a convenient store.
Edited by zaibatsu, 18 February 2013 - 10:05 AM.