We have to listen to what Marilyn Sue is telling us. She *cannot* talk to her spouse. He is evidently completely disinterested in her thoughts or opinions. I gather it has been 'his way or the highway' ever since she married him as a teenager. Do you remember that he 'gave' her a tractor or front end loader or something one Christmas -- something she has never seen, since he uses it in his business? She doesn't drive because he didn't want her to learn how to drive. I am surprised that she is allowed to use a computer and communicate with people outside her immediate family and church. We are not all 'emancipated', and some women are OK with that -- although I have not known many of my generation. A friend told me that when he married, her second generation Italian-American father gave her mother a set amount every week for household expenses, and she made do with it. The amount stayed the same for years (and two children) until she couldn't make it stretch and dared ask for more. Only THEN did he tell her of several raises he'd had; he'd could give her a *little* more. My DM taught me how to balance HER checkbook when I was in middle school. I've paid our bills since I was a newlywed. At first I just had more time to ddo it. DH and I decide together what to spend, invest, etc., but I do the bookwork.

What I mean about having our ups and downs the first few years are...she accused me of being the reason for the divorce even though I met him a month before the divorce was final. It wasn't until 2 years later that she finally spoke to me. This woman has been on 3 different types of anti-depressants, at the same time. She has talked bad about me, my husband, and our daughter to anyone that will listen in front of the boys including to her former pastor. About 3 years ago her and I actually became friendly to each other. We had breakfast together one morning with all the kids and even had all the kids picture taken with Santa that Christmas. I couldn't deal with being friends with her because it was too wierd. We eventually stopped talking and she took it personal. Right now it's almost like we are on a "need to know basis." We only talk to each other when we absolutely need to. Yes, I know a lot about what goes on in her house. When the oldest SS was about 8 he had a sleep over at a friends house. He ended up taking his friends gameboy. He knew better and he lied about it when she asked if he had taken it. When she found it she flipped out. She called the cops and told them the story and that she wanted them to "take it all the way." They ended up coming to her house, put him in handcuffs and took him to jail at the station. They told her she could pick him up in 15 minutes. They also told his little brother that he would never see him again because they were taking him to jail. This all came from her mouth. Yes, I believe in punishing to fit the crime but to send an 8 year old to jail is a little too much. I think the cops should have come to the house and talked to him but not have gone that far and she let it. To me that's borderline child abuse. Of course I could go on but you get the picture.

and a boy who has no right to find out who his real dad is? Define "real dad". My brother is my nieces real dad. He is *not* her biological father. If he and my SIL divorced and some new girlfriend thought he should not be paying child support because he is not her "real dad", he would kick her to the curb faster than you can say dna test. My niece, and your BFs son, deserve ***stability*** and they deserve to know that the people who have been raising them are not going to some day abandon them based on a biological technicality. And, yes, I mean a technicality, in the sense of something that doesnt really matter in the real scheme of things. If your BF didnt want to be this boys "real dad", he should have addressed that fact and had the DNA test long ago, before acting in the role of dad to the child. Ok, he didnt. If it matters to him, he darn well needs to do it now and do it soon, but do it knowing that he either takes on full dad role including paying support, including paying back support, or he is no longer the dad, period. If that is what he wants, thats a terrible thing to do to that child, imo, but its better to do it now than later. But its an all-or-nothing thing. He cant use it to get out of the financial support payments, and still get to be a dad to the boy. What if my partner isn't a donor match but there is a biological father out there who is a perfect match and could add years to the boys life? Well, what if? What good is *him* having a dna test going to do? The boys mother certainly knows whether or not there are other possibilities in terms of his biological father, and she is capable of asking them to be tested for a match whether or not your BF gets dna tested. If there is a chance of such a thing, then as the boys "real dad" (the one whos been raising and caring for him as a son), then I would think your BF might consider raising that possibility with the mother. Its not your business, either way, though and you obviously have enough of a personal self-interest in wanting him to not be the dad that you cant really give objective advice here. But taking me and our relationship completely out of the picture, what you are all essentially saying is that its none of your business. You have to let them deal with it themselves; you dont get to have a say. Then you can put you and your relationship back into the picture and you get to decide if the end result is something you want in your life.

Snidely, to be a little more clear... SushiPup originally said, "I started my SS at 63. My husband has planned on not starting his until he is retired, which should be next year when he turns 69. When he turned 66, he started getting spousal benefits from me. And his new (just this month) medicare B account is under my SS#! But when he starts collecting his own benefits, I'll start to get spousal benefits based on his account, which is more than mine." As you stated, Snidely, the spouse can file/suspend, but the spouse needs to be full retirement age (which, for most of us is 66 but is changing depending on the person's year of birth). That way, the spouse can receive one-half of the suspended amount while his/her own benefit increases because it isn't being drawn upon. The spouse who has suspended payments is also going to receive an increased amount when he/she finally begins receiving monthly payments. It seems that SushiPup's husband was not yet 66 when she started receiving her benefits at age 63. Because she started receiving her benefits before her full retirement age, she is receiving a permanently reduced benefit. Also, when her husband begins drawing on his own benefits, SushiPup can apply for spousal benefits, but, again because she was not yet full retirement age when she began receiving her own benefits, she will receive a reduced amount of spousal benefits. Here is an example/quote from one of the FAQs on the SSA web site: "Mary Ann qualifies for a retirement benefit of $250 and a spouse’s benefit of $400. At her full retirement age, she will receive her own $250 retirement benefit, and we will add $150 from her spouse’s benefit, for a total of $400. If she takes her retirement benefit before her full retirement age, both amounts will be reduced." [bolded emphasis added] Since SushiPup's husband plans on retiring when he is 69, and because he is already receiving a monthly spousal benefit (albeit not nearly as much as what he will receive from his own SS account), he might want to hold off claiming benefits on his own account until he is 70 so that he will receive the maximum. Yes, he could file and suspend so that SushiPup can get an increase by adding the spousal benefit, but since her spousal benefit is going to be less than half of her husband's amount because she filed early, it would be more beneficial to wait. Hindsight is always 20/20, so it pays to learn as much as you can BEFORE you begin drawing benefits. :-) For example, did you know that if you've started receiving benefits and then come to the conclusion that you should have waited (for whatever reason), you can pay it all back to the SSA and it would be as if you'd never received a dime? You can, but you have only one year exactly in which to do it. Day 366? You're out of luck permanently. My husband and I both started receiving our SS benefits early -- me at age 64-1/4, and Hubs at age 63-3/4 (quarter-years figure in when calculating amounts). Yes, we would have received more if we waited until full retirement age of 66, or even delayed until age 70. It's not like we needed the payments -- both of us simply put it into savings each month because we each have a government pension from working for the State. But, if I had waited until age 66 to claim my benefits, it would take me over 15 years to recoup the money I received between ages 64 and 66. It would take my husband almost 24 years. And who knows if we'll live that long??