First you have to prove paternity. The county family support unit does all the paper work for you and you have to go to court. In California, they will attach the father's wages if he doesn't pay.

It just a story I was reading. And I don't know if paternity was in question. But assuming it's proven that somebody fathered kids, are they obligated by law to pay child support even if he never married the mother?

No, that is not the law but depending on how old these kids are/were what the time frame is it is possible.

No way that would happen in today's society. The state doesn't want to have to support kids so they actively pursue dead beat dads.

Yes, they are legally obligated to pay child support.

Yep. In California, even if the unwed father has no biological relationship but has acted the father and been the de facto father, he may have to pay child support. Of course, the courts also want to promote a continuing relationship with the children. For sure, the biological father has to support the children. It doesn't matter if he wanted them or not. If he spread the seed, he's responsible for what grew.

I think there's a lot of overreach in California. The state just wants to pin it on any man they can collect from. Raising a kid is expensive, and the welfare of the child is a true interest of the state, but men should be able to opt out of parenthood the way women can, and shouldn't be held to the standard of an adoptive parent without a formal legal proceeding where he is awarded full rights.

OTOH, having a second child, especially with the same mother, proves an ongoing propensity to spread that seed, and there's a certain point where doing so becomes negligent. He should not only be bound to support his progeny, he should probably help support their mother.

Well, the state would be involved if the mother is collecting some kind of public benefit, but if she's not, it would be up to her to hire a lawyer and file a court action (in my state it's a Paternity action) to have him declared the father (through DNA) and be awarded child support. That is the only legal way to make him pay. If she is awarded cs by the court and he doesn't pay, then she can get the state to help her collect, through wage or bank attachments. If he hides income, or refuses to pay, he can be held in contempt of court and fined and/or jailed. There are also jurisdictional issues, depending on where the child is born, is living and where the father is. Some stepparents can also be assessed child support.

But, of course, any decent man would WANT to provide for a child he brought into the world, to make that child's life better, regardless of what he thought of the mother. In this case, she's good enough to sleep with at least twice, he didn't act to prevent pregnancy, and then denies his children any support. He's a d*#%head in my book and perhaps the children were lucky he wasn't involved.

In Missouri it's a law.

On the flip side I have known women who did not ask for child support because they did not want the man in their child's life. I think that is a huge disservice to any out of wedlock child. I am not speaking of men who were a threat to their child or the woman. That is a different situation that needs to be handled carefully. These women were just vindictive IMO. One told me she kicked her husband out for cheating. Then when he tried to see her and the baby in the hospital she refused him access. No child support for her son. They still both live in poverty. She a low income senior, he a physically fit adult on disability. Cut off her nose in spite. Hurt her child in the process. She doesn't see that way. He hurt her so she is justified in her mind. Never mind how her decision took assets away from her son that may have helped him get a better start in life and thus not be dependent on government support due to his "learning disabilities".

I am not certain, but I think today's laws prevent a lot of that type of thing. But my point is that is it not always that a man doesn't want to. It's that the women pushed him away from his child.

"I was reading a story that doesn't make sense to me. "

When you think about it, having sex and raising children are two completely different propositions. There have always been men who want sex but do not want the obligations of time and money that children entail.

Paternity tests and modern child support laws help assure that men know that whether they are married or not, (there is a presumption that can be overcome that a child of a married couple has been fathered by the husband) if they father a child they need to contribute child support.

By the way, custodial parents have in the past sued for unpaid back child support after the children are adults (rules vary by state) and won.

Definitely the paternal father should pay for his kids. I also think that the financial responsibility has to be fair. If the wife makes a ton of money or his married to a millionaire, and the father is struggling, that has to be taken into consideration.

What I don't agree with, is a man who lives with a woman and her child from a former marriage.

Because he is seen as the 'father figure' in the family he is held responsible if that relationship ends. Even though he is not the paternal father.

This happened with my ex-husband's member of the family.

Def. a mess. In this day an age when most people believe a piece of paper does not a marriage make, it stunned me reading that a guy would think no paper nulled paternity, oy!

If these children are adults, so say early-mid 20's, perhaps he could get away with it. But today, where I live, if you have lived common-law for 2 years you have all the rights, responsibilities and obligations of a married couple.

If a man doesn't want to accept fatherhood & all its attendant obligations, he should make sure he doesn't become a father.

"She told me she was on the pill" makes no difference.

"I also think that the financial responsibility has to be fair. If the wife makes a ton of money or his married to a millionaire, and the father is struggling, that has to be taken into consideration."

I dated someone for a while whose wife divorced him and he was raising their son. She made more than he did, and she was required to pay child support to him.

I believe that a proof of paternity would entitle the minor child to Social Security death benefits in the case of the death of the father. It would be good to have that proof just in case. Ya never know........

I am sure it varies from state but I do know that wages can be attached and of course that requires proof of paternity...However collecting is another thing..Some Men change jobs and just do anything they can to get out of paying. My granddaughter has a court ordered support and he hasn't paid a dime...This was his second out of wedlock child and he doesn't support the other one either.

"If a man doesn't want to accept fatherhood & all its attendant obligations, he should make sure he doesn't become a father"

You can take the same sentence, change the male references to female ones, and it's equally true. People do a lot of irresponsible things but nothing more so (in my opinion) than to have children when their domestic circumstances aren't stable. Yes, relationships change, but those "families" that start out with only a single parent are often doomed from the start.

A single parent who cannot afford to raise children under their existing economic circumstances (whether it's male or female) shouldn't have children. It's not fair to the kids to bring them into such situations.

Snidely, that's why I got my tubes tight when I was 22. I knew as a teenager that I don't have a maternal bone in my body. (Except when it comes to animals)

"A single parent who cannot afford to raise children under their existing economic circumstances (whether it's male or female) shouldn't have children."

Snidely, are you saying there should be no premarital sex (good luck with that) or are you making a case for pro choice?

I said what I said because it's almost always the mother who has custody & responsibility for the child, many times without the resources to care for the child.

If fathers had to pay for their "accidental children", were unable to get out of paying because they had the money to spend on lawyers or because the mothers were afraid of the fathers using their superior financial power to take the children away from them, I'd bet there'd be far fewer children living in poverty.

The problems are too complex to apply a "one size fits all" solution-what if the father intimidates the mother, physically, mentally, financially?, what if the mother can't care for the child because of her own health? etc-but if we start from a "level playing field" assumption, then the answer is that a parent who doesn't want to be a parent doesn't have to be a part of the child's life, but that parent still has to pay their share of the expense of supporting the child.

lucille, here's my view.

I don't accept the "pro choice" label because it suggests that every individual's right to personal privacy and conduct is anyone else's business or a political matter. It's not either in my view.

There are a lot of ways to not have babies, it's not that hard. Without getting into a pseudo-religious conversation (which are also private matters that people should keep to themselves), I think everyone is free to do whatever they want so long as their conduct doesn't adversely affect others. Having a child one can't support adequately and give a good start into life doesn't fit into that expectation as far as I'm concerned. Who suffers is the child, who didn't have a choice. The "parent" has a choice and making the wrong choice is very selfish. And costly to society.

PS - as with anything else, people are welcome to disagree with me. It would be hypocritical for me to say that I think everyone has freedom of thought and action and then not respect others who have a different view on this or any other topic.

I read that a client of Ashley Madison was suing them because they failed to encript his information, but also because he wanted the services he'd paid for, including introductions to some women he had evidently been 'paired with' by the service. He also alleged that the service listed some 'ghost females' -- made up people. He's not married and doesn't want to be in a relationship. He's just a 40-year-old guy who wants sex he doesn't have to pay for -- in any way.

This reminded me that some things never change. The ideal target for such a Lothario continues to be a married woman. He doesn't have to support her. He's not the putative father of any unintended children; the husband is. She can't to go after him for child support without providing grounds for divorce as well as becoming a social pariah.

Do you know any cuckolded husbands who have raised children sired by a wife's lover? I'm aware of a few. (Valid reasoning about some religious laws that continue only through the mother.)

Any man that fathers a child, under any circumstances, should have to support that child. Child Support isn't a bonus for ex-wives; it's to provide food and clothing for the child.

I don't think any man should ever be expected to pay any type of support for a step child, or any child that is not his issue. That is ridiculous.

Lucille; there's many more options other than "abstinence" - which is not going to happen - or abortions, that should never need to happen. How about wonderful Birth Control Pills, or the myriad other ways of preventing pregnancy? In this day and age there should never be an unexpected pregnancy. What are these women thinking just having sex willy-nilly like they don't know about babies.

JasDip...I'm with you. I have never, ever, from my youngest days ever wanted to be a Mom. I tried getting my tubes tied, but the doctor said..."you'll marry...you'll want kids...you're too young..." etc., so I just stayed on the pill - forever. I did take breaks from the pill, and used various other methods, very carefully, until I got back on the pill. It's not brain surgery.

And I do know that even careful monitoring and pill use can, very rarely, allow a pregnancy. That's just the luck of the draw and that child should be loved and cared for. My youngest niece was the result of, after seven carefree years, the pill let down my SIL. That baby is just simply the best! And then SIL got her tubes tied!

Is it the law? well, what jurisdiction are you in? Certainly in the US, most (if not all) state laws require men to pay child support for their children.

If a man doesn't want to pay child support, he needs to keep his pants on. Children are NEVER mistakes. If you don't want them, use protection. The best protection is abstinence. But we live in a world where few people know what that is. ;) It's so easy for men to say, "I'm not the father, prove it!" when the mother clearly can't say "I'm not the mother, prove it!". Fine, you think you're not the father, pay for the dna test. And when it comes back you are the father, support your child. It's not the child's fault he or she was born and that child should not be deprived of anything because the parents don't get along.

ANYONE, male or female, who does not wish to be a parent should be taking ALL necessary steps to prevent pregnancy.

Don't rely on your partner to take the steps, I.e. he wears condoms or she's on birth control; if YOU don't want kids then YOU should make sure it doesn't happen and then, IF it does happen, be prepared to step up to the plate and take responsibility.

There is no such thing as safe sex!!! It is one of my pet peeves! There is safer sex which minimizes risks but there is still a chance that a pregnancy could occur. It is still possible to get Herpes with a condom or HPV even if you are vaccinated.

KNOW the risks and be prepared to accept them should they occur. If you aren't able or willing to accept them then you shouldn't be having sex.

"KNOW the risks and be prepared to accept them should they occur. If you aren't able or willing to accept them then you shouldn't be having sex."

This only works when you are preaching to the choir.

It is difficult to convince youngsters to wait (or even to use birth control) in our 'have it now, pay for it later' society.

Or if a man doesn't want responsibilities and abandons his family, telling him he should pay support is counter to the very lack of responsibility that led him to abandon in the first place.

THAT is why we have paternity tests and child support statutes.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but that doesn't mean that everyone selects the ounce.

I taught my kids early on that 2 forms of birth control are better than one. Drilled it into their heads early on.

Told my DD always use two forms of birth control whether it's pill /condom, chemical/condom or other. He wears a condom unless you are ready to take the responsibility of parenthood on. Told my DS I didn't care what his partner told him. She says she's on the pill, you still use a condom. No exceptions.

Worked for them. It is not that difficult. When DS was barely 18 he had a condom failure. Asked me if he could borrow my car, without embarrassment, to take the young lady to get the morning after pill. Responsible. So I agree with Snidely here.

It all comes down to real sex education. Don't slough it off on the schools and don't wait until puberty. It starts long before they are thinking of having sex, it's frank,upfront and it's honest. It teaches them to respect themselves and their partner.

Men "should" this, "should" that. In reality, since it is almost always the mother who will spend 18 years raising a child, it's the female who needs to assume responsibility. I'm sure a psychologist can explain the magical thinking involved when an *aimless female* wants to be some guy's Baby Mama.

I all ways told my boys to "wrap it twice, no baby before its time!"

Had a very honest discussion with my DD about all forms of birth control, including abstinance. She asked about this just before her 18th birthday.

Her responses to:

Adoption- I couldn't give baby up

Abortion- couldn't do that

The pill- it causes cancer

Abstinance- that's not gonna happen

So, I made her an appointment with an OBGYN and she went on the pill.

BUT many times I told her long term bf's, "wrap it twice"!

No early grandbabies in my family, they listened.

I hope when you said "wrap it twice" it was in reference to using 2 types of birth control and not actually using 2 condoms at once!!

My older daughter once told me, if she ever got pregnant, she would never have an abortion. i was somehow proud and happy for her resolve. My younger (unmarried) daughter did have a baby this past May. Just my experience. no moral to this story.

Has anyone's family had experience with the under-the-skin contraceptive? I believe those are supposed to be effective for months, and there's no 'forgetting' the pill.

I don't think they do those implants much anymore, if at all. They do quarterly injections instead. The under the skin ones could be bothersome. A lot of athletes get the injections--there's no pause.

The implant is still available (lasts up to 3 years), as are depo shots (every 4 months), hormonal or copper iud's (up to 10 years), birth control pills (daily) and the birth control patch(weekly), though use of the patch has declined.

It can not be stressed enough that these birth control methods do nothing to prevent sexually transmitted diseases so condoms should still be worn at all times to reduce the risk of infection.

A recent article in the Chicago Tribune referred to attempts to fight a local HIV *epidemic* among young men who have sex with men. (Too young to have experienced the AIDS era?)

Takes two to start making a baby.

Female gets stuck with the consequences ... can choose morning-after pill or abortion to forestall the ongoing portion.

Following birth ... can keep - or adopt.

It seems to me that, though the one who raises the child may be unwilling to share nurture, both should have obligations to support the child until s/he becomes independent.

When they are teens with no or minimal income for either ... that gets to be a problem.

ole joyful

Do children conceived out-of-wedlock have a lesser need for food, clothing, shelter, sports equipment, school supplies, and orthodontics than children conceived within the confines of marriage? Child support is not about the mother's or the father's rights, it's about the rights of the children. It's not the kids' fault that their parents conceived them without benefit of a stable union.