To Be Or Not To Be...A Parent

[VeeJay]

Not a Britney thread.

I got this co-worker. For the sake of it, I'll call him....oh,..."Carpool Guy."

He's getting divorced from wifey. Wifey has his kid, a 8 y.o. son, and a kid by another dude that she had just before CPG came along. Girl is about 14 years old. CPG went and had his name entered on the birth certificate as the daddy of record, even knowing it tweren't his young 'un. At the time, he wanted the kid to grow up knowing him as the father. Noble and honorable, to say the least.

The 14 y.o. has never been told any different. But, now with the looming divorce CPG has decided he can be better off by not paying child support for both kids, and is wanting to go back to court to reduce the child support for the daughter since she ain't his.

I suppose this is a way of payback to wifey for the dumping she adminstered on him, and if I were him the thought would cross my mind to do something similar. But, to spring this on the daughter at this point - is that an honorable thing to do?

Legally, can dude carry out this strategy?

It seems once he decided to be the girl's parent, he was pretty much in it for the long haul. But apparently CPG doesn't see it that way.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

So is this a Car Pool Guy update?

Does he still have his 'Stang?

I think he is hosed...I don't think judges normally look kindly on a guy asking for a do-over.

[leavingthezoo]

i hope a judge doubles his child support.

it's one thing for a man to THINK he's supporting his child and finding out it's not his, although, it seems once you've made the emotional commitment it's kinda hard to undo that... but i get the theory "i didn't know he wasn't my child, i shouldn't have to support him now that his ho mama is shackin' up with blah, blah, blah."

but to knowingly take responsibility for the child, raise it as your own, and change your mind later is... pathetic. i hope his child support is tripled, and his rights to see both children are revoked.

and he gets herpes.

:D

[OU4LIFE]

Morally I think he needs to just buck and support the daughter, if he wanted to be a father figure, and wants to CONTINUE to represent that figure, then deal with it.

[sooneron]

VeeJay, just pay the damn child support!

[mdklatt]

CPG went and had his name entered on the birth certificate as the daddy of record, even knowing it tweren't his young 'un.

Is that even legal? :confused:

[TopDaugIn2000]

i saw previews for a new show about carpool guys.

[Vaevictis]

But, to spring this on the daughter at this point - is that an honorable thing to do?

No. Doing that is as big an example of *********gery as I can imagine. He's punishing the kid, emotionally and financially, for what the mother is doing.

The guy deserves to have the sack-ripper sicced on his ***.


Legally, can dude carry out this strategy?

I don't know, but I imagine not. IMO, he accepted responsibility a long time ago -- with full knowledge -- and he can't back out now.

Analogy: If you adopt a kid with your wife, and you get divorced, do you get out of child-support just because you're not the biological father? Hell no.

IMO, same thing here.

[frankensooner]

In Oklahoma he would be on the hook until the girl turned 18.

[Widescreen]

Dude sounds like a major doosh. He felt strongly enough to make himself her father and now he wants to say "just kidding"? Were the last however many years not spent developing a fatherly relationship with this girl? I can't imagine how the guy sleeps at night.

[usmc-sooner]

if he loved and raised the kid for 14 years how could you not want to take care of her, and keep her in your life. My .02

[JohnnyMack]

This isn't about him, it's about the kid(s). He sounds incredibly selfish at this point. Sad that he would even consider it.

[royalfan5]

This sounds like a situation where the kids are going to get the short end of the stick no matter what happens because clearly the adults are dropping the ball. That's really too bad.

[crawfish]

He should support the kid, as tough as it is.

[Okla-homey]

I'd say he's going to have to nut-up for DNA testing, which ain't cheap, and of course he'll have legal fees. He might be better off paying the child support until the kid turns 18 -- or, per the law in Okrahoma, until she's out of skool.

Not to mention the fact he raised her as his own to this point. Somewhere, the real baby daddy got off light.

Think about it, anybody could say they didn't do the impregnating after they went down and effectively swore it was their biological kid. I bet the d00d in the black robe is going to require proof.

I predict this is gonna be 'spensive and a hassle for all involved...especially carpool guy.

[TUSooner]

I'd say he's going to have to nut-up for DNA testing, which ain't cheap, and of course he'll have legal fees. He might be better off paying the child support until the kid turns 18 -- or, per the law in Okrahoma, until she's out of skool.

Not to mention the fact he raised her as his own to this point. Somewhere, the real baby daddy got off light.

Think about it, anybody could say they didn't do the impregnating after they went down and effectively swore it was their biological kid. I bet the d00d in the black robe is going to require proof.

I predict this is gonna be 'spensive and a hassle for all involved...especially carpool guy.
I'll defer to Homey's Okie law anaysis, but morally, the guy is compete POS if he does anything but stick by the kid. And let this be a lesson to you whippersnappers who think a few little lies here and there - especially on legal documents - are OK as long as they are convenient. Courts don't like take-backs and do-overs.

[olevetonahill]

The dudes a vinegar and water mixture !

[Hamhock]

I'd say he's going to have to nut-up for DNA testing, which ain't cheap, and of course he'll have legal fees. He might be better off paying the child support until the kid turns 18 -- or, per the law in Okrahoma, until she's out of skool.

Not to mention the fact he raised her as his own to this point. Somewhere, the real baby daddy got off light.

Think about it, anybody could say they didn't do the impregnating after they went down and effectively swore it was their biological kid. I bet the d00d in the black robe is going to require proof.

I predict this is gonna be 'spensive and a hassle for all involved...especially carpool guy.


psst...you misspelled school.

[frankensooner]

10 O.S. 2001 § 7700-204 provides:
A. A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

1. He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;

2. He and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within three hundred (300) days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, dissolution of marriage or after decree of separation;

3. Before the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and the child is born during the invalid marriage or within three hundred (300) days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, a decree of separation, or dissolution of marriage;

4. After the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, whether or not the marriage is or could be declared invalid, and he voluntarily asserted his paternity of the child, and:

a. the assertion is in a record with the State Department of Health, Division of Vital Records or the Department of Human Services,

b. he agreed to be and is named as the child’s father on the child’s birth certificate, or

c. he promised in a record to support the child as his own; or

5. For the first two (2) years of the child’s life, he resided in the same household with the child and openly held out the child as his own.

B. A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by an adjudication under Article 6 of the Uniform Parentage Act.

So, he would have a tough row to hoe in Oklahoma.

[Hamhock]

heh..I'm in a legal battle going the other direction.

I'm trying to prove my baby daddy, even though he donated the seed, doesn't deserve to raise the kid.

[TUSooner]

10 O.S. 2001 § 7700-204 provides:
A. A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

1. He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;

2. He and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within three hundred (300) days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, dissolution of marriage or after decree of separation;

3. Before the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and the child is born during the invalid marriage or within three hundred (300) days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, a decree of separation, or dissolution of marriage;

4. After the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, whether or not the marriage is or could be declared invalid, and he voluntarily asserted his paternity of the child, and:

a. the assertion is in a record with the State Department of Health, Division of Vital Records or the Department of Human Services,

b. he agreed to be and is named as the child’s father on the child’s birth certificate, or

c. he promised in a record to support the child as his own; or

5. For the first two (2) years of the child’s life, he resided in the same household with the child and openly held out the child as his own.

B. A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by an adjudication under Article 6 of the Uniform Parentage Act.

So, he would have a tough row to hoe in Oklahoma.
So... how easy is it to get "an adjudication under Article 6 of the Uniform Parentage Act"?
By the way, those presumptions are very simialr to thse in Louisiana Civil Code, IIRC (but it's been a long time since I studied that stuff.

[Okla-homey]

B. A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by an adjudication under Article 6 of the Uniform Parentage Act.

So, he would have a tough row to hoe in Oklahoma.

I agree. That's where the DNA evidence comes in. Bottom line is it's a fact question, but I'm not sure what standard is applied.

[frankensooner]

10 O.S. 2001 §7700-607
A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection B of this section, a proceeding brought by a presumed father, the mother, or another individual to adjudicate the parentage of a child having a presumed father shall be commenced not later than two (2) years after the birth of the child.

B. A proceeding seeking to disprove the father-child relationship between a child and the child’s presumed father may be maintained at any time if the court, prior to an order disproving the father-child relationship, determines that:

1. The presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception; and

2. The presumed father never openly held out the child as his own.

Sorry it took me so long to get back, here is the answer. After two years, he is screwed.

[Okla-homey]

10 O.S. 2001 §7700-607
A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection B of this section, a proceeding brought by a presumed father, the mother, or another individual to adjudicate the parentage of a child having a presumed father shall be commenced not later than two (2) years after the birth of the child.

B. A proceeding seeking to disprove the father-child relationship between a child and the child’s presumed father may be maintained at any time if the court, prior to an order disproving the father-child relationship, determines that:

1. The presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception; and

2. The presumed father never openly held out the child as his own.

Sorry it took me so long to get back, here is the answer. After two years, he is screwed.

ssems to me, on the above facts, B.2. hoses the guy. Either way, a delightful and just result for Mr. Carpool Guy.:D

[frankensooner]

I believe having his name placed on the birth certificate would overcome that, especially to a Judge. ;)

[VeeJay]

It appears to me that Carpool Guy is trying to, at age 63, absolve himself of financial obligation regarding support for the minor child.

His thinking is, "She knows who the daddy is - let her go after him for child support." But, he willingly placed his name on the child's birth certificate as the daddy, which, to me signaled a responsibility to be the daddy in a sort of, well, unconditional state. Not just because he was knocking the bottom out of mommy and felt like all was right in the world from hereafter.

I hope to hell at age 63 I don't find myself in such a state of familial chaos. There aren't any winners in this Carpool Guy scenario.

Just the fact he spent the first 13-14 years of the daughter's life as daddy and he's willing to walk away from that relationship, even though it's not a biological relationship, sickens me.

It makes me look at my own challenges and all is not so bad.

[Viking Kitten]

Has it occurred to you that maybe CPG's wife has some sound reasons for divorcing him, given the level of dooshbaggery of which he is clearly capable?

[Hamhock]

Has it occurred to you that maybe CPG's wife has some sound reasons for divorcing him, given the level of dooshbaggery of which he is clearly capable?


it is always, always the wimmens fault.

[critical_phil]

CPG is a :chicken: sucker.

[8timechamps]

Weak!

I was in the same situation about 3 years ago. I had a child with my wife at the time and she had a 1 yo when we met. I never officially adopted her son, but he was my son (and his biological father was never in the picture).

When we went to court, I asked to pay child support for him. The judge told me I was not obligated. I didn't care.

To this day "Greg" (now 12 yo) is my son. We still share custody of him, and he will grow up as my son.

I love Greg, and will always love him. The fact that I divorced his mother had nothing to do with my love and support of Greg,

Carpool guy needs to grow a pair and grow up. Any ******* can tell a woman that he will be a father to her child. A man needs to honor that commitment and BE a father.

[OklahomaRed]

This isn't about him, it's about the kid(s). He sounds incredibly selfish at this point. Sad that he would even consider it.


Ditto. Shouldn't even be any question in his mind. Money can not buy you the respect, admiration, and love of a kid. That's earned. Sounds like he's got a pretty shallow relationship with both the soon to be ex-mom, and the daughter. Heck, why doesn't he be a total douch bag and not pay child support for the one that's his, too? Or better yet, go and get the kid tested to make sure it's not his, then dump him! After all, it's just money. That's what's wrong with our world today. Shouldn't even be a question. I would sue the mom for custody of both of them, then raise em both to be texasss hatin' Sooners who have a DADDY who ain't goin' to dump em no matter what !!! :mad: