Open mariages and paternity

[merithyn]

It depends Meri.  If this couple splits when the child is still an infant, the husband may well not wish to be involved in the child's life.  Being involved brings complications.  It means constant contact with the woman you no longer love.

But if I discovered Timmy wasn't my child, after almost 3 years there's no way I'd just cut him out of my life.

The father wants children. To him, regardless of whose sperm made it, the child is already his. For some, time isn't what creates the bond so much as the desire for children. My cousin's son is one such guy.

[garbon]

Of course being an amateur genealogist I immediately starting fretting about the family tree ramifications

Would you do the same if a child were adopted?

I'd be like sorry, you've got no family tree.

[Barrister]

I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.

I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce.

Paying for the kid and getting to maintain contact with the child are two different things.

There was a case in Quebec, exactly like that (save for the open marriage thing).  The guy alwasy had a doubt, but treated the kid as if it was his own.  Some years later, he asked for a paternity test.  He wasn't the father.  He kept paying for the kid, but the ex-wife said he wasn't the father so he had no right to see the kid.

He went to court, trying to stop paying for the kid and the ex-wife.  Court slammed him down, saying he had a responsibility to pay for the child's care until she turned 18 and the fact he wasn't seeing her changed nothing.

And this isn't a unique case either.  One of my employee was in the same situation.

In either case, the court was also saying the not-dad had no visitation rights?

[Malthus]

I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.

I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce.

Paying for the kid and getting to maintain contact with the child are two different things.

There was a case in Quebec, exactly like that (save for the open marriage thing).  The guy alwasy had a doubt, but treated the kid as if it was his own.  Some years later, he asked for a paternity test.  He wasn't the father.  He kept paying for the kid, but the ex-wife said he wasn't the father so he had no right to see the kid.

He went to court, trying to stop paying for the kid and the ex-wife.  Court slammed him down, saying he had a responsibility to pay for the child's care until she turned 18 and the fact he wasn't seeing her changed nothing.

And this isn't a unique case either.  One of my employee was in the same situation.

Did the court say he didn't have visitation rights because he wasn't the bio-father?

[merithyn]

Paying for the kid and getting to maintain contact with the child are two different things.

There was a case in Quebec, exactly like that (save for the open marriage thing).  The guy alwasy had a doubt, but treated the kid as if it was his own.  Some years later, he asked for a paternity test.  He wasn't the father.  He kept paying for the kid, but the ex-wife said he wasn't the father so he had no right to see the kid.

He went to court, trying to stop paying for the kid and the ex-wife.  Court slammed him down, saying he had a responsibility to pay for the child's care until she turned 18 and the fact he wasn't seeing her changed nothing.

And this isn't a unique case either.  One of my employee was in the same situation.

It sounds to me like he was trying to get out of being a father, and therefore tried to divorce himself financially from the child. Nowhere in this do you mention that he wanted or fought for more time with the child, only that he fought to avoid paying for her.

[garbon]

It depends Meri.  If this couple splits when the child is still an infant, the husband may well not wish to be involved in the child's life.  Being involved brings complications.  It means constant contact with the woman you no longer love.

But if I discovered Timmy wasn't my child, after almost 3 years there's no way I'd just cut him out of my life.

The father wants children. To him, regardless of whose sperm made it, the child is already his. For some, time isn't what creates the bond so much as the desire for children. My cousin's son is one such guy.

I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.

*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?

[Eddie Teach]

My suggestion: get a divorce and a paternity test (if you choose not to be the parent of your wife's child). That would be pretty convincing.

Why not get the paternity test first and then go from there?

[merithyn]

I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.

*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?

I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.

[viper37]

I'm fairly sure that you're mistaken. If he pays child support, then the courts consider him the father, and he will have parental rights. What those rights will be, however, depends entirely on the judge a couple gets. (Not even the jurisdiction, but the actual judge, sadly.)

I'm sure about Quebec.  Not so sure about other jurisdictions.

[Malthus]

My suggestion: get a divorce and a paternity test (if you choose not to be the parent of your wife's child). That would be pretty convincing.

Why not get the paternity test first and then go from there?

Sure, whatever order you want ... but at the end of the day, if you are still married to this woman and living in the same residence as her and the kid, it's going to be hard to argue that you did not choose to be the father.

I say a divorce and a paternity test (in that order) for the simple reason that, if your marriage hinges on a paternity test, seems to me the actual relationship is over - I can't imagine any woman accepting "let's get a paternity test and if the kid passes, we stay married; if not, I hit the road".

[viper37]

It sounds to me like he was trying to get out of being a father, and therefore tried to divorce himself financially from the child. Nowhere in this do you mention that he wanted or fought for more time with the child, only that he fought to avoid paying for her.

He wanted to be with the child, but the mother would not let him saying he was not the father and no rights.
So, in frustration, he decided not to pay for the kid's education.
She brought him to court, he lost.  He still can't see the child, but he has to pay.

[Valmy]

Because it's a sad commentary on society?

People generally do not like being forced to pay money to support other people's kids.  If Jerry had a bunch of kids with other women on the side back when you were married would you have been cool with paying child support for them?  Granted this particular situation is completely different since the person in question made this situation an agreed upon possibility by going the open marriage route. 

Would you do the same if a child were adopted?

It is the ambiguity not knowing who the biological parent is that would make me fret .  Generally when kids are adopted we know the adopters are not the biological parents, and we may even know who one or both of the biological parents actually are (and in fact most cases I see are adoptions inside the family...you know the crackhead daughter keeps popping out kids so the family snags them up).

[Legbiter]

I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.

We can't all be glowing balls of enlightenment like you Meri.

[frunk]

It sounds to me like he was trying to get out of being a father, and therefore tried to divorce himself financially from the child. Nowhere in this do you mention that he wanted or fought for more time with the child, only that he fought to avoid paying for her.

There should be an equivalence to the laws though.  If the parent is required to support the child (regardless of parentage) they should have visitation rights (regardless of parentage).

[garbon]

I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.

*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?

I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.

I wouldn't say biology would be that important to me (in part, of course, because of my position) but I can see that attachment wouldn't necessarily stem from day 0 and so length of time would play a factor if the relationship with mother/spouse tanked.