new & looking for input

[snowrose]

Legally, no.  But emotionally... that depends on the person.

That can be gotten over.  It's far worse to be financially responsible for 18+ years for a child who is not biologically yours.

 
I know several men who would disagree with you.  They accepted the child as theirs, even knowing well ahead of time the child was not and they are content to be looking out for the child for the next 18+ years.
 
As I said, it depends on the person.

[CuriousMom]

I agree with snowrose.  My step-brother did the exact same thing with TWO children that were not his, because of his 2 older daughters.  Long story, but none of the children know any different to this day.  He took on the responsiblity and treats them as if they were bio's.

[MrCustodyCoach]

I didn't mean to imply that there aren't those who ultimately are ready, willing, and able to be a parent to kids that aren't biologically theirs.  However, it's a very rare man who can do that with children born of an extra-marital affair.

[mdegol]

Actually it is way more common than you think.  This has been proved to be an evolutionary strategy of females (mate with male who has better genes, but bad parenting skills (hmm, sound familiar? cute-jerk) then let good dad help raise offspring (I know it sounds cold).  If you think that is bad, we all know that males have their own strategy of mating with some females to invest and raise offspring increasing the chances that those children will survive (wife) and other females (affairs) while investing very little in her children (don't want to pay child support, also wife wouldn't want to pay since it takes away from her own children's resources, of course) however even if only 50% or less survive male has actually succeeded because these kids are "extra". 
 
Anyway, IMHO, it is not good when a guy who has raised kids for several years suddenly decides to get a DNA test, especially just to get out of child support, especially if the child is 8 years old or something like that.  If you have a doubt-do it at the beginning- or at least before child is aware and attached.  After that, you have just accepted responsibility because you made an emotional commitment to the child and forget about doing a DNA test.  Some of the saddest stories are when fathers reject children, that they find out aren't theirs (even if they are still held responsible for child support).  DNA has a big down side in family court.  Sometimes, it is better not to know, if you ask me.

[gemini3]

I would start by doing the following:
 
1.  read custody statutes for your state
 
2.  make a list of things that are in your favor, and things that are in her favor based on the statutes  (number one thing in her favor: she's the mom)
 
3.  take the list with you to visit several attorney's in your area.  ask them to look at the list and tell you which of those things, in their experience, will actually be considered by the court - and what kind of evidence they would need to consider them.  (ie: in cases of drug abuse, alcoholism, mental illness, etc)
 
This will give you a better idea of where you stand in regards to your chances of getting custody, and help you establish a plan of action.  Just because you're the dad the odds are not in your favor, but that doesn't mean they are hopeless.  If you're 100% sure that you're not going to stay in the relationship, getting some sort of custody/visitation agreement filed is in your best interest - whether or not you get sole custody.
 
Start making a journal regarding your parenting.  Note things such as when you took child to daycare, church, doctor, etc.  DO NOT bash mom in this journal, but do note negative behavior in a non-judgemental way.  (for example:  "BM drank six-pack, started acting aggressive.  Took child to park from 3:00 to 6:00.  BM passed out when we returned."  This journal will be very helpful to you in showing that you are the primary caregiver.
 
You will need a DNA test to establish paternity.  I would wait until I filed to get this.  The element of surprise is in your favor - so no need to tip her off to what you're planning to do. 

[MrCustodyCoach]

I am aware at the scary prevalence of paternity fraud.  What I called "rare" was the dad who is willing to just raise a child knowing that the child is not his and born of an illicit affair between his wife and another man.

Also, probably a debate for another thread - I am of the firm belief that not only should a man be permitted to get out of his financial obligations for a child that is not his - he should be able to do it without a time limitation.  Further, I believe he should be able to seek reimbursement for all child support paid as a result of the CRIME OF FRAUD that has been perpetrated upon both him and the child.

The alleged financial best interests of any child should not trump the rights of any other human being, particularly one who is in the spot he's in as a result of a crime.

Money doesn't save the irreparable harm done to the psyche of the individual upon whom the fraud is committed, but invariably damages the relationship between the (non)parent and child anyway.  Pretending that doesn't occur while saying "Oh well, he should pay anyway because someone should pay for the child" is digusting and disgraceful.

The person who should pay is the person that fathered the child - and the fact that this situation would occur is solely the fault of the mother.

[mdegol]

As you said this is really for a different tread....
 
Well, I see your point prior to the advent of DNA tests.  But....
 
That means mom has to KNOW, rather than have good reason to suspect.  Impossible to prove.  Even if she tells dad she did that, she is likely just trying to hurt dad, or means she was "pretty" sure.  You would be criminalizing adultery really. 
 
For the named father to accept that children are his, he must at least be a contender, right?  Considering DNA exists, any father CAN find out for sure.  I believe even drug store tests exists (although not court admissible).  DNA test has existed long enough now, that a majority of children alive today were conceived within its use.
 
My problem with time limits are: If dad raised kids for 10 years, never got a test, and suddenly decides to because a divorce is now happening and he wants to get out of child support?  I mean, randomly, some dads are going to find out that kids aren't his.  If you think divorce has a cost on society, what do you think the cost is when a 10 year old is rejected by his father???  A whole lot more serial killers I think.  You can blame mom, but geez, that's simple  biology. When a man cheats, he isn't going to get pregnant.  Many a man has hid an affair. When a woman cheats, she might get pregnant.  And many woman hide affairs too.  They aren't trying to make dad pay child support.  They are trying not to get divorced. 
 
That's why I say it is better not to know sometimes.
 
Also why ancient societies had great penalties for woman who cheat, and very little or no penalties for men who cheat.  Because non-biological father may raise child.  Respectfully, I think you are proposing a modern equivalent to these practices (actually stonings and such still done in some countries).
 
In paternity cases, a DNA test should be done anyway.
 
He pays child support because he made commitments somewhere along the way.  He "de facto" adopted the child as his own, due to his role in child's life as father.  Is it after 1 year of raising a child?  5 years?  10 years?  We all say that being a "father" is more than biology.  Who has made commitment to child?  One night stand dad?  Or man child has called dad?
 
Paying back child support?  What a mess... 

[gemini3]

That means mom has to KNOW, rather than have good reason to suspect.  Impossible to prove.  Even if she tells dad she did that, she is likely just trying to hurt dad, or means she was "pretty" sure.  You would be criminalizing adultery really.

No it wouldn't be criminalizing adultery.  Your assuming that a child would result from every incidence of adultery, which is a little far fetched, if you ask me.

As long as there exists the legal statutes that allow states to force a person to hand over a percentage of his/her income to another person for the support of a child, then there must be laws to protect people from this kind of fraudulent activity.

For the named father to accept that children are his, he must at least be a contender, right?  Considering DNA exists, any father CAN find out for sure.  I believe even drug store tests exists (although not court admissible).  DNA test has existed long enough now, that a majority of children alive today were conceived within its use.

My problem with time limits are: If dad raised kids for 10 years, never got a test, and suddenly decides to because a divorce is now happening and he wants to get out of child support?  I mean, randomly, some dads are going to find out that kids aren't his.  If you think divorce has a cost on society, what do you think the cost is when a 10 year old is rejected by his father???  A whole lot more serial killers I think.  You can blame mom, but geez, that's simple  biology. When a man cheats, he isn't going to get pregnant.  Many a man has hid an affair. When a woman cheats, she might get pregnant.  And many woman hide affairs too.  They aren't trying to make dad pay child support.  They are trying not to get divorced. 

Some states allow you to put whoever you want on the birth certificate - and no one checks to see if you're lying.  It is solely up to the man who is named to prove that he is NOT the father.  If you're in a relationship with someone there is a presumption of trust which would override the idea of getting a DNA test when your partner conceives.  It is only after the break up of the relationship, or the discovery of the affair, etc, that someone realizes that there may actually be a need to get a test done.  This can, in some cases, take years - which is why there should be no statute of limitations on paternity fraud.

A positive DNA test will not get anyone out of CS - so that point is moot.  If the child is NOT his, then he has no obligation to raise it.  If he so chooses then great - but it should not be a law that a man be financially responsible for children that are not his own.

Yes, absolutely I blame mom - and that is not "pure biology".  There is a such thing as contraception.  AND the only person who would know that there is a chance that someone else could possibly be the father she should request a paternity test then.  That's the right thing to do - for all involved INCLUDING the child.  But, when you're talking about cheaters you can't expect that they would do the right thing - which is why there should be laws to protect people from social predators - such as women who would use children to extort money from a man.

He pays child support because he made commitments somewhere along the way.  He "de facto" adopted the child as his own, due to his role in child's life as father.  Is it after 1 year of raising a child?  5 years?  10 years?  We all say that being a "father" is more than biology.  Who has made commitment to child?  One night stand dad?  Or man child has called dad?

Paying back child support?  What a mess... 

BS.  If the child wasn't his he made that commitment under false pretenses.  You can't say that someone "de facto" did anything when they did it under false pretenses and based on lies.  You have to know what you're getting into.  Once the truth comes to light he might have a the choice to continue as the father - but he should not HAVE to.

And absolutely the money should be paid back.  And if it isn't the person committing the fraud should face the same penalty faced by people who don't pay CS - they should lose their driver's licenses and go to jail.  Where criminals belong.
 
Oh my goodness... I am just totally shocked and distgusted that anyone would even think to argue that paternity fraud is ok.  Most people want to protect others from criminal behavior - you're almost encouraging it.

[mdegol]

I am not saying it is ok.  It is certainly immoral.  I am just saying I don't believe it should be criminalized.  I understand what you mean about protecting people.  But there are reasons for time limits.  And it would be a mess to order women to pay back child support.  Sorry, it would.  I suppose I will be in the minority on this one.  Paternity fraud, also means paternity mistake.  Woman may think it was one guy and turns out to be another.  Yes, in a perfect world everyone would admit that they had an affair.  We just don't live in one.  It is already illegal to commit perjury.  I agree with almost everything you wrote in terms of moral arguments.  But you are trading one bad situation for another.   I think it is easier to expect dad to prove that he is not father, than for every woman to prove that he is.
 

[MrCustodyCoach]

It's not  criminalizing adultery... it's criminalizing fraud, which has already been done - and it punishes the truly innocent person every single time - the father, in the name of "the best interests of the children."

If there is even a question, the mother should speak up, because out there - there exists a father (or potential father) who will never know he has a child out there... a child who will never know what could be CRITICAL health information about his family background... and in the meantime - the only one punished is the innocent father.

There is no excuse you could come up with that will change my position on the matter.  In fact, if you want to reduce infidelity and eliminate paternity fraud - DNA testing should be mandatory at birth.

Anything less is giving carte blanche to the mother to do whatever she wants and suffer no consequences for her actions, not to mention rob another parent of his right to be so.

Mothers have rights AND responsibilities.  Arguing that she shouldn't have the responsibility to own up to such a serious issue (intentional or "mistaken") is negligent thinking.