Should a man still have to pay child support if

Just heard on the news about this guy stuck paying support even after DNA tests proved the kid wasn't his (mom lied) because his name is still on the birth cert. as the father.

Nope, if DNA clears you then that should be the end of it. That'd be like having DNA proof that a guy didn't kill or rape somebody, but still keeping them in prison just because they were charged with it.

I have heard of cases like that too. I think it varies by state. I also think that a guy can take it to court and eventually have it overturned, and his name removed from the birth certificate.

Of course not. And if he's been paying for the kid all along, he should sue the lying tramp for compensation.

No but he would need to get his name legally removed as father. Until then he's legally the father and still responsible.

He shouldn't HAVE to.

The legal system tries to avoid bastardizing children, so even if it is proven that a man has no biological connection to the kid, he will still be legally considered its father (and therefore financially responsible for its wellbeing) for as long as he is listed on the birth certificate. Trying to get his name removed can be difficult because, again, the courts will put the child's needs above all else. If the kid is four years old and the father has been a healthy contributor to his well being, they will resist upsetting that.

I think before a man is put on the birth certificate, the hospital should do a DNA test. Even if the baby look like him test anyway cause its gonna be like pulling teef to get out of taking care of the shit machine after your name on the birth cert. even if the ho bag admitted to lying.

I know somebody who actually went thru that. Its true they put the well being of the child first and the longer you been its father, the harder it is to cut thru the red tape of not having to be legally responsible for it when its proved that he wasn't yours.

Wadsworth wrote:I think before a man is put on the birth certificate, the hospital should do a DNA test. Even if the baby look like him test anyway cause its gonna be like pulling teef to get out of taking care of the shit machine after your name on the birth cert. even if the ho bag admitted to lying.

Agreed. If the test proves that the child isn't biologically his, and he still wants his name on the birth certificate....then by all means. But there should be some sort of on-record proof, and if the father isn't present at the time of birth, then leave that spot blank until he can be presented.

The court system is strictly designed for women. A man gets the short end of stick. To answer the question: hell no.

No he shouldn't be legally required, but at the same time if the kid is five years old and he's raised him from birth, then I hope that if the guys finds out the child isn't biologically his he won't up and abandon it.