Wolf's Den

Apparently, there's an outdated law in Pennsylvania, that says, if you are married to someone or cohabiting with them, you being male, even though you are sterile, have been proven, medically to be sterile, unable to father a child, and your wife gets pregnant, you are 'legally' that child's parent, biological or not. The law does not allow for paternity testing of any sort, does not take into account your medically proven sterility.

So if you divorce, or otherwise separate, because of this law, you are forced to pay child support for a child not yours. You have no recourse. The court will not allow you to have a paternity test to show the child is not yours. You lived with the woman, therefore, even though you didn't father the child, it's considered yours.

This is taking the point of view that the man had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the raising of said child.

I think the law needs to be updated.

Allow me to clarify- the law needs to provide for cases where it is medically proven, the man was and is sterile, incapable of siring ANY children. Adoption laws already cover those- the birth parents' right are severed, that child is YOURS, period, you divorce, it's still yours, so yes, you should support it.

But in the cases where the man was unable to have a child and KNEW this, as did the woman, why should he be forced to pay when they both know the kid isn't his? Why shouldn't the man who sired the kid have to pay? Because the man who was living with the woman was there when the kid was born? That's not fair to him, in my opinion. Especially since/if the woman left, taking the kid with her, not long after the birth of said child.

Siring a child, in my book, does NOT make you a father or a mother. I certainly do not consider the woman who bore me to be my mother in any sense of the word. My step mother, is my mother. That's another post for another day.

However, I do feel that, if you sired that child, you should help support it. And that means YOU should pay the child support, not the cuckolded man. He should only have to pay if HE feels its necessary, if he considers himself the father, regardless of parentage. But in the cases where the man does not claim the child, in ANY way, why should he have to pay, simply because he was under the same roof?

If that were the case, then all these women getting pregnant by random men, their 'Live In' boyfriend who may not have sired any of her kids, would be forced to pay child support simply because he lived with her. And it that's also the case, why, when step families break up, isn't the step parent required to now pay child support for the children he helped raise while married to their mother? He's not related to them, any more than the sterile man is, yet, he's not forced to pay while the medically proven sterile man is.

How does that make any sense?

I agree that SOMEONE needs to help support the kid, so why shouldn't it be the man who sired it? Why should the cuckolded man be the one to take all the responsibility? Simply because he lived with the mom when the kid was born? That's too simple. Because otherwise, there'd be a hel of alot of guys walking around scot-free while someone else not only raises, but also supports THEIR kids.

Oh, wait, that's already happening.


In regards to custody- if the man took the woman to court to fight for custody of the child, the fact that the child is not his could then be used as a reason for him not to get the child. Genetics now come into play. How is that fair in regards to the law?

( I will most likely add or rewrite bits of this as I clarify them in my mind. Comments will become screened if they degenerate into a flamewar. I won't shut them off, but I will screen if needed.)