Hello, My boyfriend and I have been together for eight years and have 2 children together, we both work but are struggling to make ends meet, He also has a child support order for his oldest son. A woman is now coming out and asking him for a paternity test for her 12 year old daughter because the father got a test last year and found out it was not his child after caring for her and paying child support one other guy was tested and he is not the father so now my boyfriend has to go get a test next week, This woman's name is listed on his child support as parent to receive support (My boyfriends current order for other son has her name as well ,). He also received a letter that if this child is his he will have to pay back support to her and the welfare system because she was on welfare, I am all for a parent paying support but why should he have to pay back welfare for her if this is his child (she does resemble our son).

Why should the taxpayers have to carry the burden of support if she was on Welfare?

That's the reason. There is absolutely no reason that the public should have to pay for the kid(s) if the parent is able to be located.

Because that's the law, and back child support still goes for the welfare of the child, and it starts at birth, so if he didn't handle is business at the birth of the child, he must do it now.

Why should the taxpayers have to carry the burden of support if she was on Welfare?

That's the reason. There is absolutely no reason that the public should have to pay for the kid(s) if the parent is able to be located.


I understand that completely, but If he had known that he had this child he would have been paying support, this woman is still on welfare to this day (they are actually paying for the paternity test) why does a man that pays support have to pay back welfare for a woman who does not want to work and can not keep track of the men she sleeps with. (I hear she is also pregnant now)

Well, if he thinks she's that bad, he should sue for custody.

Then SHE would be the one that had to pay support.

Basically it comes down to choosing wisely the people you sleep with--and while she can't keep track of who SHE slept with... apparently he stooped low enough to hit that.

The responsibility is that of BOTH parents.

I say again: If you (or the child's father, anyway) do not feel that she is a good enough person to HAVE those kids, then he should sue for custody of the children.

Whining about child support always ticks me off, frankly. I don't like, as a taxpayer, supporting someone else's kids. Especially since I can't get the taxpayers to pay for ME to have a child (the infertility testing and IVF treatments get REALLY expensive).

So... since kids are a "lifestyle choice", then the people who MADE the kids should have the financial hit on their lifestyle.

Or give the kids up for adoption at birth, when they still have a chance of being adopted.

Either way... no whining about it.

Where are you in?Whare does that woman?

Well, if he thinks she's that bad, he should sue for custody.

Then SHE would be the one that had to pay support.

Basically it comes down to choosing wisely the people you sleep with--and while she can't keep track of who SHE slept with...apparently he stooped low enough to hit that.

The responsibility is that of BOTH parents.

I say again: If you (or the child's father, anyway) do not feel that she is a good enough person to HAVE those kids, then he should sue for custody of the children.

Whining about child support always ticks me off, frankly. I don't like, as a taxpayer, supporting someone else's kids. Especially since I can't get the taxpayers to pay for ME to have a child (the infertility testing and IVF treatments get REALLY expensive).

So...since kids are a "lifestyle choice", then the people who MADE the kids should have the financial hit on their lifestyle.

Or give the kids up for adoption at birth, when they still have a chance of being adopted.

Either way....no whining about it.



I agree 100% about taking care of your responsibility, I wonder if the first guy gets his money back seeing the new will have to pay as well (the first one also paid welfare), my question really is how do they add her name to his support order wihout a test yet and if it is his child and they get a court order and she stays on welfare does he still pay the current welfare as well as back.

where are you in?Whare does that woman?


Massachusetts if that is what you are asking

I would consult a lawyer about whether it is legal to add the new child to the support order before paternity is determined.

It sounds like a lawyer might be a good idea in general, with the strange history this woman has.

The first guy can get his money back if he gets a lawyer and goes to court especially if they do get the right father paying. As far as current welfare goes no he will only have to pay the back amount that he would have been paying in support. When ever she goes in to renew her welfare (every 6 months or so I think) all support payments received by her are to be reported because they figure into the amount of assistance she receives. I do know of a couple women that know how to play the system so in order to protect himself make sure all of his payments are made through the court system and he gets the reciepts from them (they are good about giving reciepts) this way she can't claim she didn't get it. Well, she can claim she didn't but he has the best back up he can get.

I understand that completely, but If he had known that he had this child he would of been paying support, this woman is still on welfare to this day (they are actually paying for the paternity test) why does a man that pays support have to pay back welfare for a woman who does not want to work and can not keep track of the men she sleeps with. (I hear she is also pregnat now)


Possibly because she wasn't exactly Snow White when he knew her and he didn't use protection. At times people should weigh the cost of condoms (or whatever) against the cost of child support for the next 18 or 21 years and then make purely a financial decision.

I think she DID keep track of the men she slept with - that's why your boyfriend just got notified. If she DIDN'T keep track she would still be trying to remember his name.

Seems like a harsh lesson when back support for a child you didn't even know existed is involved but that's the law and I, too, don't want to support someone else's child/children.

where are you in?Whare does that woman?


I don't know if I'm reading this the way you meant it but I am on the floor with laughter! Great tongue in cheek response!

Possibly because she wasn't exactly Snow White when he knew her and he didn't use protection. At times people should weigh the cost of condoms (or whatever) against the cost of child support for the next 18 or 21 years and then make purely a financial decision.

I think she DID keep track of the men she slept with - that's why your boyfriend just got notified. If she DIDN'T keep track she would still be trying to remember his name.

Seems like a harsh lesson when back support for a child you didn't even know existed is involved but that's the law and I, too, don't want to support someone else's child/children.


I understand him not using protection, but my question is if my boyfreind looks online at his current support order for his older son (which he pays faithfully) this other woman's name is there and says no court order established, how can they assume he is the father already with no test and he is the 3rd guy to be tested, and also He knows he will have to pay back support but if she ever gets a job does she have to pay welfare back or only fathers pay welfare back, she gets it for herself also not just the child so why does he have topay her part back, I am a taxpayer as well and agree with everyone on that issue.

Well, if he thinks she's that bad, he should sue for custody.

Then SHE would be the one that had to pay support.

Basically it comes down to choosing wisely the people you sleep with--and while she can't keep track of who SHE slept with...apparently he stooped low enough to hit that.

The responsibility is that of BOTH parents.

I say again: If you (or the child's father, anyway) do not feel that she is a good enough person to HAVE those kids, then he should sue for custody of the children.

Whining about child support always ticks me off, frankly. I don't like, as a taxpayer, supporting someone else's kids. Especially since I can't get the taxpayers to pay for ME to have a child (the infertility testing and IVF treatments get REALLY expensive).

So...since kids are a "lifestyle choice", then the people who MADE the kids should have the financial hit on their lifestyle.

Or give the kids up for adoption at birth, when they still have a chance of being adopted.

Either way....no whining about it.


He is not whining about, but she chooses to be on welfare and not work, I was a single mother for nine years before I met my boyfriend and I did not receive child support, But I did not go on welfare I worked.

I understand him not using protection, but my question is if my boyfreind looks online at his current support order for his older son (which he pays faithfully) this other womans name is there and says no court order established, how can they assume he is the father already with no test and he is the 3rd guy to be tested, and also He knows he will have to pay back support but if she ever gets a job does she have to pay welfare back or only fathers pay welfare back, she gets it for herself also not just the child so why does he have topay her part back, I am a taxpayer as well and agree with everyone on that issue.


Good questions, all of them - I really don't know.

They expect him to pay back the benefits SHE got on her own? Hmm -

Have you tried calling - or has he tried calling - and asking? It sounds like they are presuming he's the father... and have no proof.

Sounds like they've got it backwards.

Good questions, all of them - I really don't know.

They expect him to pay back the benefits SHE got on her own? Hmm -

Have you tried calling - or has he tried calling - and asking? It sounds like they are presuming he's the father ... and have no proof.

Sounds like they've got it backwards.

That is what this whole post was about him paying back welfare that she received, In Massachusetts when woman is on welfare even if she has three kids with three different men they all have to pay for the woman receiving welfare, it is just not fair. Massachusttes is really bad with child support on both ends (the one paying and receiving). Couple of years ago they had aver 4 million dollars and no clue who it belonged too and then arrested a guy at his job (put him on front page of paper as deadbeat) that had paystubs with proof he paid and humiliated him for there mistake. I know this goes off subject but Massachusetts is bad when it comes to child support

Massachusetts if that is what you are asking
Yes:D :D
According to Ma law,/Chapter 119A/-. In any case requiring the establishment of paternity, the IV-D agency may, on the basis of an affidavit by the mother or the putative father alleging that sexual intercourse between the mother and putative father occurred during the probable period of conception and without the necessity of obtaining an order from a court, order the mother, the child and the putative father to submit to genetic marker tests; provided, however, that the IV-D agency may order such tests only if no other man is presumed to be the father under section 6 of chapter 209C. Notice of the order shall be served on the obligor and individual obligee in accordance with rule 4(d)(2) of the Massachusetts Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure. Upon receipt of the results of the genetic marker tests, the IV-D agency may provide the parties with an opportunity to voluntarily acknowledge parentage pursuant to chapter 209C. If the parties do not voluntarily acknowledge parentage as provided in chapter 209C, the IV-D agency may commence an action to establish paternity pursuant to chapter 209C. If any party fails to appear for or refuses to submit to genetic marker tests in accordance with the order of the IV-D agency, or if any party contests the jurisdiction of the IV-D agency to issue the order for genetic marker tests, the IV-D agency shall commence an action to establish paternity pursuant to chapter 209C

The IV-D agency, in accordance with Title IV, Part D of the Social Security Act, is hereby authorized to institute collection procedures for all arrearages which have accrued against child support payments owed pursuant to a court judgment or support order, or an order from a IV-D agency of competent jurisdiction.

That is what this whole post was about him paying back welfare that she received, In Massachusetts when woman is on welfare even if she has three kids with three different men they all have to pay for the woman receiving welfare, it is just not fair. Massachusttes is really bad with child support on both ends (the one paying and receiving). couple of years ago they had aver 4 million dollars and no clue who it belonged too and then arrested a guy at his job (put him on front page of paper as deadbeat) that had paystubs with proof he paid and humiliated him for there mistake. I know this goes off subject but massachusetts is bad when it comes to child support


Sorry - I thought the post was about benefits the mother received on behalf of the child, not her individual benefits.

When a mother is on welfare,she does not receive child support payments.She gets welfare only.CSEA gets cs payments.

When a mother is on welfare,she does not receive child support payments.She gets welfare only.CSEA gets cs payments.


Right, so who should support the mother? Just because a parent is not in the picture(mother or father) should us taxpayers support the other parent, or should they get a job and support there self

Sorry - I thought the post was about benefits the mother received on behalf of the child, not her individual benefits.


Should have made it more clear, I am for paying back support for your child, but just because you're a single parent does not mean the absent parent should support you, they should support there child

right, so who should support the mother? Just because a parent is not in the picture(mother or father) should us taxpayers support the other parent, or should they get a job and support there self

should of made it more clear, I am for paying back support for your child, but just because your a single parent does not mean the absent parent should support you, they should support there child
Legally speaking-it does not matter. /unfortunatelly!! /

right, so who should support the mother? Just because a parent is not in the picture(mother or father) should us taxpayers support the other parent, or should they get a job and support there self


I think this has crossed out of legal advice/info and into discussions and opinions and arguing with the law(s) - could the thread somehow be split and posted elsewhere?

I think this has crossed out of legal advice/info and into discussions and opinions and arguing with the law(s) - could the thread somehow be split and posted elsewhere?

I have no idea how that works.

Aliaricam, this board is for legal opinions. Can you summarize your question, at this point, in a sentence?

Aliaricam, this board is for legal opinions. Can you summarize your question, at this point, in a sentence?


If my boyfriend is found to be the father of this 12 year old girl, why does he have to pay back welfare for the 12 years this woman had received it for herself as well as the child, The first alleged father paid some of it.

If my boyfriend is found to be the father of this 12 year old girl, why does he have to pay back welfare for the 12 years this woman had received it, The first alleged father payed some of it.
Because that is the law!Maybe he has to pay retroactive for 12 years,maybe for five...
It is possible for the first alleged father to sue your boyfriend for recoupment:confused:

Because that is the law!Maybe he has to pay retroactive for 12 years,maybe for five...
It is possible for the first alleged father to sue your boyfriend for recoupment:confused:


So basically if you have a child and are not married the father has to support you for as long as you refuse to work?

I will put it this way Why does my boyfriend (if found to be the child's father) have to support the mother?

I will put it this way Why does my boyfriend (if found to be the child's father) have to support the mother.
He doesn't have to support the mother, just his child.

He doesn't have to support the mother, just his child.


According to Massachusetts law he does, the mother has been on welfare for 12 years, and if he is the father he has to pay welfare back for everything she received for herself and the child, I can see the child but why her, who makes these laws? Iknow sometimes people have hard times and need welfare but what gives this woman a right to get welfare for 12 years, she should get a job and pay back what she received for herself and half of what she got for the child and then the father be responsible for half of the child's welfare

If he had taken care of his business 12 years ago, he would not have to repay her welfare. That's the cost of not doing the right thing, from the get go.

If he had taken care of his business 12 years ago, he would not have to repay her welfare. Thats the cost of not doing the right thing, from the get go.


How can he do the right thing from the getgo when first he did not know she was pregnant and another man has been supporting this child for all these years and signed the birth certificate, he was told last year he may be the father because the other father decided to get a peternity test and found out it was not his, so after the next guy got one and he wasn't she said it has to be my boyfriends, I guess you did not read the beginning of the post. He is just finding out after 12 years, he is waiting a paternity test next week

It sound like your man with every woman but you, why are you looking like you don't see what going on is you a fool for him because you did not say one time that you have a baby by this but all I am reading that you have bills by him does that make sense to you and I know I am not the first to say SO HOW YOU DOING!

My last post here:
1.The parents HAVE primary obligation to support their children.
2.Example:
If she has four children and they are entitled to receive CS /let me say $300,$300,$200 and $200=$ 1,000 a month... /,she and her children are on welfare/let me suppose she gets $2000 a month/,she will receive $ 2,000 but the state has to be compensated with $ 1,000 through CSE.That does NOT mean that the father support his ex.OK?

My last post here:
1.The parents HAVE primary obligation to support their children.
2.Example:
If she has four children and they are entitled to receive CS /let me say $300,$300,$200 and $200=$ 1,000 a month.../,she and her children are on welfare/let me suppose she gets $2000 a month/,she will receive $ 2,000 but the state has to be compensated with $ 1,000 through CSE.That does NOT mean that the father support his ex.OK?


Can you tell me how he would have gone about taken care of this from the getgo when he just found out the child could be his. And does she pay back the other $1000

Retroactive child support refers to child support which you may have an obligation to pay at some point but have not yet been ordered to pay.A scenario would occur if you are not married. In that case your child support obligation could begin at the time of the child's birth. You could also be ordered to help pay prenatal and postnatal expenses for the mothers which were not covered by insurance.
The court may order a parent to pay retroactive child support if the parent:

Has not previously been ordered to pay support for the child; and
Was not a party to a suit in which support was ordered.
If they are not married, child support could be ordered as far back as the date the child was born, plus prenatal and postnatal expenses not covered by insurance. However, the court will usually limit the amount of retroactive child support to an amount that does not exceed four years of support.

Retroactive child support refers to child support which you may have an obligation to pay at some point but have not yet been ordered to pay.A scenario would occur if you are not married. In that case your child support obligation could begin at the time of the child’s birth. You could also be ordered to help pay prenatal and postnatal expenses for the mothers which were not covered by insurance.
The court may order a parent to pay retroactive child support if the parent:

has not previously been ordered to pay support for the child; and
was not a party to a suit in which support was ordered.
If they are not married, child support could be ordered as far back as the date the child was born, plus prenatal and postnatal expenses not covered by insurance. However, the court will usually limit the amount of retroactive child support to an amount that does not exceed four years of support.

I understand all that, but you said he should have taken care of that from the get go, how would he have done that

And does she pay back the other $1000
NO

NO

I know your tired of this but, she gets supported by us taxpayeres and all her baby daddys right.

"Retroactive support" is a support amount established for a time before the start date (or effective date) of a child support obligation. The start date is the date when the first payment is due. Support that is effective on or after the start date is considered to be "ongoing support". A retroactive support amount is owed to the state when clients assign their rights to support to the state when they receive Public Assistance for their children. A retroactive support amount is owed to the client if CSE establishes a support amount based on the NCP's fair share of specific expenses that were incurred by that client for the child(ren) prior to the start date of the support obligation, or by establishing an amount pursuant to the guidelines for the time for which support is sought.

Since June 30, 1975, acceptance of Public Assistance on behalf of a child creates a debt due and owing the state. Under the authority of 110-135, if child support was required to be paid for a period when Public Assistance was received, that support is owed to the state. CSE must address retroactive support owed to the state if Public Assistance was received for a child whenever an ongoing support obligation is being established.

If an ongoing obligation is not established, CSE does not pursue retroactive support owed to the state. (For example: The court establishes paternity but does not order ongoing support because the NCP is 17 years old and in school, or the client and NCP reunite after the establishment process has begun and no ongoing support is established. In these situations, an obligation for retroactive support that is owed to the state should not be established.) If ongoing support is established at a later date and the statute of limitation has not been reached, CSE addresses the establishment of retroactive support owed to the state.

Retroactive support is owed to the state for a time prior to the start date of the order because Public Assistance was paid on behalf of the child. When clients receive Public Assistance, they assign their rights to support to the state. Because of the legal principles of "res judicata" and "collateral estoppel", CSE must address the issue of retroactive support owed to the state when establishing child support obligations.

"Retroactive support" is a support amount established for a time period before the start date (or effective date) of a child support obligation. The start date is the date when the first payment is due. Support that is effective on or after the start date is considered to be "ongoing support". A retroactive support amount is owed to the state when clients assign their rights to support to the state when they receive Public Assistance for their children. A retroactive support amount is owed to the client if CSE establishes a support amount based on the NCP’s fair share of specific expenses that were incurred by that client for the child(ren) prior to the start date of the support obligation, or by establishing an amount pursuant to the guidelines for the time period for which support is sought.

Since June 30, 1975, acceptance of Public Assistance on behalf of a child creates a debt due and owing the state. Under the authority of 110-135, if child support was required to be paid for a period when Public Assistance was received, that support is owed to the state. CSE must address retroactive support owed to the state if Public Assistance was received for a child whenever an ongoing support obligation is being established.

If an ongoing obligation is not established, CSE does not pursue retroactive support owed to the state. (For example: The court establishes paternity but does not order ongoing support because the NCP is 17 years old and in school, or the client and NCP reunite after the establishment process has begun and no ongoing support is established. In these situations, an obligation for retroactive support that is owed to the state should not be established.) If ongoing support is established at a later date and the statute of limitation has not been reached, CSE addresses the establishment of retroactive support owed to the state.

Retroactive support is owed to the state for a time period prior to the start date of the order because Public Assistance was paid on behalf of the child. When clients receive Public Assistance, they assign their rights to support to the state. Because of the legal principles of "res judicata" and "collateral estoppel", CSE must address the issue of retroactive support owed to the state when establishing child support obligations.


You still did not tell me how he could have taken care of this 12 years ago

I know your tired of this but, she gets supported by us taxpayeres and all her baby daddys right.
;) You are wrong to think that legal and logical are equal:D

You want to know how he could have taken care of this from the get-go? By checking back with her for at least 9 months after they hooked up to see if she was pregnant. By keeping it in his pants to begin with. By having better sense than to think that sex and babies aren't linked.

Like I said before... if you don't like the idea of supporting this woman, then go to court and get custody.

You want to know how he could have taken care of this from the get-go? By checking back with her for at least 9 months after they hooked up to see if she was pregnant. By keeping it in his pants to begin with. By having better sense than to think that sex and babies aren't linked.

Like I said before...if you don't like the idea of supporting this woman, then go to court and get custody.
Very well said,Synnen!

You want to know how he could have taken care of this from the get-go? By checking back with her for at least 9 months after they hooked up to see if she was pregnant. By keeping it in his pants to begin with. By having better sense than to think that sex and babies aren't linked.

Like I said before...if you don't like the idea of supporting this woman, then go to court and get custody.


This is a woman who has mutual friends we have seen her at cookouts over the past couple of years and she never mentioned once that he could be the father, that child was calling someone else daddy for 11 years and now that he got a test and it proved he was not the father. So I guess that is my boyfriend fault. She should not have named just any man as the father if she knew she slept with at least 3 people around the same time. My boyfriend is willing to step up to the plate if she is his daughter, But she needs to get off welfare and get a job

Can you read?

you should layoff the vodka when trying to answer a question


You are rude and ignorant beyond belief.

You asked a LEGAL question, it was answered - and answered and answered. GV70 did a ton of research which he posted... but that's not good enough for you.

What answer do you want from "us?" I already said this is not a debate board - if that is your interest, go post there. Post on the Public Opinion Board and everyone can gather together and discuss injustice in the World - this is most definitely NOT that Board.

This is a LEGAL board and you have the answer to your LEGAL question - an answer which apparently you don't want to hear or believe or understand.

I believe "Mary" is making the point that your "man" has 4 children by 3 women and you are now picking up the pieces after him. That's all. I believe she is also concerned that the taxpayers are going to be taking care of you and your kids at some point down the road.

I guarantee you don't have enough money to pay GV70 for the time he spent on your post(s) and you aren't even grateful to him and you aren't going to find his level of expertise FOR FREE anywhere else.

So retain an Attorney and go and argue with him/her. You asked the question, you got the answer. Enough already.

OK- I am not interested in her sexual experience... I am not interested whether she has a job or not... You wrote,"So I guess that is my boyfriend fault."
Perhaps, but people have to live with the consequences of their actions and lives.

This is a woman who has mutual freinds we have seen her at cookouts over the past couple of years and she never mentioned once that he could be the father, that child was calling someone else daddy for 11 years and now that he got a test and it proved he was not the father. So I guess that is my boyfriend fault. She should not have named just any man as the father if she knew she slept with at least 3 people around the same time. My boyfriend is willing to step up to the plate if she is his daughter, But she needs to get off welfare and get a job


I trust everyone is getting regular AIDS/HIV testing? The math on the number of partners here could be staggering - and each one carries the sexual disease history of the others.

(Probably not a good subject, by the way, to bring up over hot dogs at a cook out.)

You are rude and ignorant beyond belief.

You asked a LEGAL question, it was answered - and answered and answered. GV70 did a ton of research which he posted ... but that's not good enough for you.

What answer do you want from "us?" I already said this is not a debate board - if that is your interest, go post there. Post on the Public Opinion Board and everyone can gather together and discuss injustice in the World - this is most definitely NOT that Board.

This is a LEGAL board and you have the answer to your LEGAL question - an answer which apparently you don't want to hear or believe or understand.

I believe "Mary" is making the point that your "man" has 4 children by 3 women and you are now picking up the pieces after him. That's all. I believe she is also concerned that the taxpayers are going to be taking care of you and your kids at some point down the road.

I guarantee you don't have enough money to pay GV70 for the time he spent on your post(s) and you aren't even grateful to him and you aren't going to find his level of expertise FOR FREE anywhere else.

So retain an Attorney and go and argue with him/her. You asked the question, you got the answer. Enough already.

I am not rude, I appreciate everyone's answer but did you read what this person wrote, if you did read it again and realize she has no clue what she is talking about, it has nothing to do with the subject

You are rude and ignorant beyond belief.

You asked a LEGAL question, it was answered - and answered and answered. GV70 did a ton of research which he posted ... but that's not good enough for you.

What answer do you want from "us?" I already said this is not a debate board - if that is your interest, go post there. Post on the Public Opinion Board and everyone can gather together and discuss injustice in the World - this is most definitely NOT that Board.

This is a LEGAL board and you have the answer to your LEGAL question - an answer which apparently you don't want to hear or believe or understand.

I believe "Mary" is making the point that your "man" has 4 children by 3 women and you are now picking up the pieces after him. That's all. I believe she is also concerned that the taxpayers are going to be taking care of you and your kids at some point down the road.

I guarantee you don't have enough money to pay GV70 for the time he spent on your post(s) and you aren't even grateful to him and you aren't going to find his level of expertise FOR FREE anywhere else.

So retain an Attorney and go and argue with him/her. You asked the question, you got the answer. Enough already.

Tax payers do not take care of me and never will, I have worked all my life, never on welfare, my boyfriend also works and takes care of his kids, this whole big discussion turned in to a lot more than it should have. Everyone is making him out to be some bad guy, we both had a child from previous relationships when we met and then we had two children together which he supports as well as his oldest son, then this woman comes along and says he may be the fathere of her child, OK that's fine if it is his he does not have a problem taking care of her, its paying back welfare for for 12 years that she received and still receives, How is my boyfriend the bad guy when he was never told about the child until 12 years later, GV70 did do a lot of research and I appreciate it 100% but he kept saying he should have taken care of it 12 years ago, how could he when he had no clue about her

You are rude and ignorant beyond belief.

You asked a LEGAL question, it was answered - and answered and answered. GV70 did a ton of research which he posted ... but that's not good enough for you.

What answer do you want from "us?" I already said this is not a debate board - if that is your interest, go post there. Post on the Public Opinion Board and everyone can gather together and discuss injustice in the World - this is most definitely NOT that Board.

This is a LEGAL board and you have the answer to your LEGAL question - an answer which apparently you don't want to hear or believe or understand.

I believe "Mary" is making the point that your "man" has 4 children by 3 women and you are now picking up the pieces after him. That's all. I believe she is also concerned that the taxpayers are going to be taking care of you and your kids at some point down the road.

I guarantee you don't have enough money to pay GV70 for the time he spent on your post(s) and you aren't even grateful to him and you aren't going to find his level of expertise FOR FREE anywhere else.

So retain an Attorney and go and argue with him/her. You asked the question, you got the answer. Enough already.

I am not rude, I appreciate everyone's answer but did you read what this person wrote, if you did read it again and realize she has no clue what she is talking about, it has nothing to do with the subject

I know this post is done and over with but I want to apologize if I came off rude to anyone, its just almost everyone had to leave a comment along with there advice as if my boyfriend is in the wrong because of the mother not telling him she may have his child which she did not know either, If the first guy never had a test done he would have never known, but I guess he will not know if its his until its his turn for the paternity test, he is next in line. And this woman has no right to receive welfare for 12 years, she is still obligated to support herself and provide half of support for her child.

And this woman has no right to receive welfare for 12 years, she is still obligated to support herself and provide half of support for her child.

Please focus on your rights and options, and not hers, as your frustration is obvious. While your looking at the worst case scenario, consultation with an attorney may ease your frustration once you have a definite course of action to pursue, after the paternity test. This is a fairly long process to be involved with, so short term solutions will not work. Talk to an attorney. No if's, ands, or but's, as the court only cares who pays, and you must insure your rights are protected.

Just to let everyone know, turns out he was not the father, Good luck to the mother on her journey.

Thank you for updating us!