[thurman01]

My husband was sent a letter claiming he was going to have to pay child support on a kid that may or not be his so we set up a partenity test, but have to wait because the mother is in rehab at the moment so we are waiting and this woman has claimed many times the child was not his and just now she has decided ater 5 years o this child's lie to come ater him when she claime dit wasn't his, where to go rom here??

[cdad]

You have to wait for paternity to be established. But I don't understand why the mother being in rehab is holding up any testing. The test should already have been done and the results known to both parties. The longer this goes on the more devastating it can be.

[thurman01]

I understand but she's in drug rehab and can't get out to go to court

[passmeby]

If he is the father, he is obligated to support the child. He can't relieve himself of the responsibility. If he is the father, he will also likely be responsible to pay all back child support for the child's entire life up to this point and of course into the future until 18 to 21 years old. If the child got medical care from the state, or food stamps etc, the father may also be responsible for paying all that back as well.

[cdad]

If he is the father, he is obligated to support the child. He can't relieve himself of the responsibility. If he is the father, he will also likely be responsible to pay all back child support for the child's entire life up to this point and of course into the future untill 18 to 21 years old. If the child got medical care from the state, or food stamps etc, the father may also be responsible for paying all that back as well.

Sorry but this isn't true. The courts usually only go back to when the support order is filed and not before that unless it is being done close to birth. Do you have a law you can point to that says anything different ?

[passmeby]

I went through this personally, so I am going by that experience. But since I did not cite the exact law, that is why I used the word "likely" opposed to definitely. Perhaps it differs by State, and by the circumstances of each case, I do not know. But mine went back 13 years! So it's entirely possible.

[cdad]

i understand but shes in drug rehab and can't get out to go to court

Her being in drug rehab has no bearing on paternity as far as a DNA test is concerned. It only has to do with the legal establishment. Why should a person wait for her to get her life together to know the results of a medical test? That way they can plan their future one way or another. If he is the father of the child he can at least start saving up the child support payments rather then facing stiff arrears. Or try to make plans for taking custody of the child depending on the situation that is in front of him. There are so many options hanging in the balance it is in the best interest of the child for it to be known one way or another ASAP.

[cdad]

I went through this personally, so I am going by that experience. But since I did not know the exact law, that is why I used the word "likely" opposed to definitely.

Was this a recent case in the last few years or something much older? Laws have changed a lot in recent times. And most judges won't go back a lifetime unless there was some sort of avoidence being charged. Like a mother tries or attempts through the courts to find the father and does not or he evades.

[passmeby]

Quite recent. I wonder if the specific circumstances of the case have a big hand in this issue. I'm really not sure. I also have a close friend who ended up owing a ton of back support and money to the State for medical and other things.

[thurman01]

Well I get boh points but I see no reason to pay child suport on a cild that he has never seen and was told was not his when she was born 5 years ago he has had no contact with because he was told it wasn't his so in the interest o the child he would rather sign his rights over then put a 5 year old through that prolems that's what brothers me having to come into a child's lie where she has no idea who he is so signing his rights over were the best option or the child..

[cdad]

No. The best option for the child is to have the contribution of both parents in the child's life. He may be able to sign rights over but not responsibilities and he will still have to pay child support if the child is proven his. Also the child will have an established right to inhieritence. Child support and visitation don't really go hand in hand except in the case of many states where time spent with the child is counted for you and could show cause to reduce child support in total.

[passmeby]

well I get boh points but I see no reason to pay child suport on a cild that he has never seen and was told was not his when she was born 5 years ago he has had no contact with because he was told it wasn't his

Well, he knows he had sex with the mother, therefore he knows he has the potential to be the father, he's known it for 5-6 years now. He probably should've got a test done 5 years ago, regardless of what the mother said...

I don't understand how he thinks he can just "sign over" rights... Sign over rights to whom? No one can just sign off on their responsibility and obligation to a child that is theirs. Adoptions and other such situations are possible, but in this case I think you are not talking about the child being adopted by another man, are you? I think what you mean here is that the father wants to just "sign off" the child and not have an obligation to him. Well he can't do that, there's no way. If people could do that, we wouldn't have Child Support collections/enforcement, every person that didn't want to pay for their kid (which would be A LOT of people! ) would just sign off their kids. That's not how things work!

[cdad]

Well, he knows he had sex with the mother, therefore he knows he has the potential to be the father, he's known it for 5-6 years now. He probably should've got a test done 5 years ago, regardless of what the mother said.....

I don't understand how he thinks he can just "sign over" rights....Sign over rights to whom? No one can just sign off on their responsibility and obligation to a child that is theirs. Adoptions and other such situations are possible, but in this case I think you are not talking about the child being adopted by another man, are you? I think what you mean here is that the father wants to just "sign off" the child and not have an obligation to him. Well he can't do that, there's no way. If men could do that, we wouldn't have Child Support collections, every guy that didn't want to pay for his kid (which would be A LOT of men!!) would just sign off their kids. That's not how things work!!

Careful about blanket statements. I will haunt you with them. Per example. Its been proven that percentage wise there are more deadbeat mothers then there are fathers. So please be more careful in the future.

[passmeby]

Ah true! I guess being a woman, I don't really think about the deadbeat moms. I should edit it to say "parents" instead of "men"!

There you go, I fixed it! I totally didn't mean that, thanks for pointing it out! Guess I'm a little bitter still about my situation!

[ScottGem]

my husband was sent a letter claiming he was going to have to pay child support on a kid that may or not be his so we set up a partenity test, but have to wait because the mother is in rehab at the moment so we are waiting and this woman has claimed many times the child was not his and just now she has decided ater 5 years o this childs lie to come ater him when she claime dit wasnt his, where to go rom here?????

This is going to sound harsh, but I have a LOT of problems with what you have posted here.

1) Who did you get this letter from?
2) Who did you setup a paternity test with? If it wasn't ordered by a court it may not be admissible.
3) What does the mother being in rehab have to do with anything? The testing lab needs to take samples of your husband's DNA and the child's. The mother is not needed.
4) Why did your husband wait FIVE years for a paternity test? He obviously had sex with this woman around the time the child was conceived. So the possibility existed. So why didn't he ask for a test when the child was born? Could it be that he was relieved to be off the hook?

well i get boh points but i see no reason to pay child suport on a cild that he has never seen and was told was not his when she was born 5 years ago he has had no contact with because he was told it wasnt his so in the interest o the child he woudl rather sign his rights over then put a 5 year old through that prolems thats what brothers me having to come into a childs lie where she has no idea who he is so signing his rights over were the best option or the child..

5) It doesn't matter what you see reason for. What matters is what the law says.
6) Who's fault is it that he hasn't seen the child? Granted the fact that the mother has denied his paternity, why did your husband let it go? Again, why did he not ask for a test to be sure?
7) I love your "in the interest of the child" . So who is going to support the child if your husband reneges on his responsibilities? Is it better for the child to live on welfare then be supported by his real father? Is it in the best interests of the child to learn that his father abandoned him?

So please, don't insult our intelligence by claiming your husband cares about the interest of this child. If he really did, then he would have had a paternity test done when the child was first born. He would have tried to be a part of HIS child's life and help support HIS child.

You asked where do you go from here. I would recommend hiring a Family Law attorney and entrusting them with the case. But I can tell you that your husband CANNOT sign away his rights. If you had bothered to read the sticky note at the top of this forum, you would have learned that courts will not grant a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) except in certain conditions. Either to clear the way for an adoption or if the parent is a danger to the child. Neither of which appears to be the case here. And the courts will not grant a TPR just to allow the parent out of paying support.

I know you may find my post harsh and even rude. But you have to understand how the courts will look at this. And if he tries to use this best interest argument, the courts will see right through it and he will look rather bad. Also, you have no rights in this case. Your husband has to deal with it with his attorney.

So after he hires the attorney, the attorney will arrange for a court sanctioned paternity test. You then wait for the results. If it comes back negative, he's off the hook. If it comes back positive then he will have to pay support from the time the support order was requested. If the mother has received public support, then he may be required to reimburse the state for some part or all of that.

[Fr_Chuck]

And to add to Scott, he can not merely sign over his rights, he does not have to ask for any visits, he does not have to ask to have any say with the raising of the child, but he will have to write a child support check each month if the test comes back that it is his child.

[GV70]

Sorry but this isnt true. The courts usually only go back to when the support order is filed and not before that unless it is being done close to birth. Do you have a law you can point to that says anything different ?

[/QUOTE]ScottGem disagrees : Back support can only be applied back to the time a request for support was filed.[/QUOTE]

It depends on the state legislation.
Example:
Tn code 36-2-321. Limitations period for child support payment orders. —
Judgments for child support payments for each child subject to the order for child support pursuant to this part shall be enforceable without limitation as to time.
OR In re T.K.Y. /the father was obligated to pay child support till child's birth/

[passmeby]

Thank you! I knew I was right. It happened to ME for Pete's sake! I got (well, got ORDERED to get... )money from actually BEFORE my son was born (for medical I got from the State) and support from his date of birth onwards. This after almost 13 years. Of course I don't get the money for the medical, he has to pay it to the State... but he has to pay for it regardless. His income taxes are currently being garnished because he owes so much back support and current support and he doesn't pay regularly.

Oh and if he's the father, he'll have to pay the courts back for the paternity test as well. The cost varies, but it's going to run around at least a few hundred dollars.

ScottGem, you should remove your comment, that's not fair. Or apologize at least! You are incorrect in your post, ALL parties typically must submit samples for genetic testing for absolute accuracy. It's a standard that the mother submits as well as the alleged father.

[Synnen]

Actually, Scott is both right and wrong.

In general, support is owed ONLY from the time it is sought. In YOUR case, you sought "support" from the state before your child was even born--so the STATE wants the money paid back that they sought from that time.

[passmeby]

No, I did not seek support before my child was born. I did not actually go into the courts until my child was nearly 10 years old, and the process took a long time. The courts, on their own, went retroactive. I didn't have a lawyer, I didn't know anything about getting back support, nor did I know that the State would want to be paid back for the medical expenses. I didn't even want to go through this, but I had to because I had applied for aid and they wanted to go after the father. So I went along with it, and that's what I ended up with.

I do believe that it is quite typical for the State to go after the father for State-paid medical expenses and possibly other things such as Food Stamps and so on, regardless of how long ago those things were acquired, and regardless of when in the child's life the mother seeks support.