bunner: No Such Agency: Yawn, as always the legal standard standard is "what is best for the children"

I'd say a mother who isn't a two faced, jive assed con artist would be a good start. Then again, I have slightly dated notions about parenting cause I don't see raising kids as an ego booster, a meal ticket or a cruise to the boutique.

I don't think I'll ever favorite someone for a single post, but I almost did, there. I'll have to keep an eye on you. :)

MrsSoapdish: He would be concidered the "psychological father", and it is in the best interest of the CHILDREN, not the biatch of an ex-wife for him to continue child support. Think about what an alternate decision would do to those kids. It's not their fault their mother is a ho.

I think an alternate decision where the cheating ex-wife pays back all child support with interest after the children become adults would not only be in the interests of the children, but in the interests of justice.

You could, of course, have the woman name the biological father so she could recover the money to pay back the "financial" father, which in this case she refused to do so because she "couldn't remember" because of whatever medication she was taking.

As a side note, if I buy a car, and the current owner claims there is no dead body in the trunk, I shouldn't be required to hire a locksmith to open the trunk and look inside before buying the car.

/oops, I'm sorry, you still have to make car payments, because you loved the car and treated it as your own.
//yes, children are different from cars, hence the part about waiting until they are adults before forcing mommy dearest to return her ill-gotten gains.

Kelbesque: There is no problem with the system here. The kids are his. He raised them. He is their father. Relationships are built on interaction, not DNA. They kids have imprinted on him as their father, he imprinted on them as his children. That interaction, six years of primary care-giving is not retractable by any amount of DNA testing or revelation.

Fine.

Now what punishment does the woman get for lying to her husband about the parentage of the children that were supposedly his? And what punishment does she get for (possibly) depriving another man of a relationship with his biological children?

Or are men supposed to just suck that up?

Yeah, I figured.

The Iron duke: When i take over the world, people such as this (both the ex and the judge) will be made to serve those they have wronged.
yes, servitude for a given amount of time depending on the amount of the crime.
you steal from a elderly person, you must serve that person for $1.00 a day of the amount stolen + restitution.
humanly of course.
A moraly bankrupt mother/person such as this should not be raising anything, let alone children.
(obvously this just covers monetary crimes, violence will beget violence of equal or greater pain)
Also, dueling will be legal..

I noticed you're hiring. I don't believe I'd make a good henchman or minion, I have too strong of a mind. However, I'd be glad to get to work if it means I can work up the ranks.

bunner: Do

not

get

married.

She may be the jazz, she might make you sammiches and cater to you, occasionally, she might be bright and sexy and all that and a large fries, but eventually - at some point, should you shove your relationship into the maw of the misandric legal system - she will get a bug up her ass or the curtains wont match or she'll be sitting with her useless biatch girlfriends while they tell her "you SHOULD be screwing he pool boy! You're ENTITLED!" and...

You will, while parsing that dark alley of hard promises, now unkept and vanity turned to vindictiveness, and hear the phrase that has created many a police blotter.

"You HAVE to cause my VAGINA!"

And you will wake up with about three happy meals worth of cash in your pocket, wrinkled clothes and the vague feeling that you got used.

And without that piece of paper, you can't get used.

Sadly, marriage offers nothing, NOTHING, N O T H I N G to western men, anymore. 0.

In an age where women have been told that "empowerment" means "farking you over not only with impunity, but with the full support of the state and the media" and that it actually makes them attractive, interesting and "strong", all those pretty words at the alter stack up to a crock of shiat when it's time to get your nails dirty.

Women?

Women are wonderful.

biatches? They don't even like each other.

Turn on any crock of catty, snotty, "woman targeted" bit of TeeVee programming, take a loot at the self-absorbed train wrecks that fill your screen and then ask yourself if you wanna lie down next to that, every night, for the rest of your life. Because that's what ladies call "role models" now.

It's one more revenue farm.

It's one more way to feed money into the maw of the justice system
and if you ain't sporting an innie, you're already guilty.

Giving a woman children, in this day and age, is like giving her the key to your last dime and then some and all she has to do is feel vaguely annoyed, unfulfilled or have a bad day and your life is over.

Live, love, laugh, share, reach out, comfort, and care.. but from a safe legal distance, guys.

Kinda pathetic, ain't it?

/amicable divorce
//many, many moons ago
///just calling the game as it unfolds

Unfortunately, this guy is very correct. However I wouldn't say all woment are Biatches and vindictive. Some start out wonderful and once the flames start to die down and their life isn't quite the "Happily ever after" storyline they've been fed for years, many decide "I'm worth more than this and deserve better!". They may not even want a "nasty" divorce until their lawyers step in and say: "You want a divorce? OK, you're entitled to this, this, this, this, your soon to be ex-husband has little say, oh and to make things better (for your safety) we'll put a protection order out on your husband so he can't do harm to you or get any of his stuff. That way, once the divorce proceedings take place, it will be near impossible to get any of his stuff back. You want half? I can get you more!!!! Oh you have children and he makes more money than you?? CHA-CHING!!!!"

My ex-wife saw what evil biatches her brother and father's ex-wives were durring their divorce and SWORE if we ever got divorced, she'd never do anything like that to me! That is, until she spoke with her lawyer (a former divorce judge).

I lost EVERYTHING in my divorce with the acception of most my clothes and my old college books. Due to child support, I was living like a bum and nearly starved to death. My children still don't see a dime of that money, but she goes on exotic vacations and buys herself a brand new SUV every year. My children don't even get an allowance for being her maid since they were 6 and 2. Their clothes come from me or the grandparents. Its absurd.

Oh and by the way, she left me for one of my friends and made more money than I did. The court didn't care about that. Wouldn't even hear my arguments, just took the demands her and her lawyer wrote up and that was it.

Any attempts at me trying for more parental rights or fighing some of the crap she does (using my children as pawns, arbitrally suspending my visitation at will for no reason, etc) results in me losing more money, time and parental rights so it's a lost cause to fight her in court.

I love my children more than anything, however if I found out they weren't mine and I was still obligated to give my ex almost a $1000.00 spending spree money evey month, you'd probably see my face in the news!

Take it from me guys, DO NOT MARRY, and DO NOT HAVE KIDS. If you want children, adopt!

OniNeko: I noticed you're hiring. I don't believe I'd make a good henchman or minion, I have too strong of a mind. However, I'd be glad to get to work if it means I can work up the ranks.

Dibs on the "mad scientist" role in his cabal.

serpent_sky: Tea_Tempest_pot: I agree with you that the mother should not be receiving the benefit of the payments. That's why I suggested a trust fund that she couldn't access. Where I disagree is that a man is entitled to provide (or not) for children based on his whim. What you feel like doing and what you're responsible for are two different things. It sucks, but as has been pointed out, he put himself in their lives as their father during their development. Unlike puppies, you don't get to take them to the pound and dump them off when they're not little and cute any more.

The problem is, he most likely *wouldn't* have done that if he had known, at the time, that his wife was cheating on him [even if it was only once] and there was a chance the kids weren't his. She lied, and kept up the lie, and he believed in the bonds of his marriage and that they were his. It's not like he knew she was screwing around and said, "I don't care, I will take responsibility no matter who these kids' biological father is" -- he just believed, as most husbands would, that he was the only person sleeping with his wife.

The fact that she let him take this responsibility, and the fact that she did this to him in the first place, is sickening and wrong. He deserves *something* -- perhaps, when the kids turn 18, the woman should be forced to reimburse him for all the money he sent her, post-divorce? That would certainly even the playing field, without hurting the kids [now adults] [adults he could give every penny she sent to him, for say college, if he was so inclined] and at the same time, hold the woman accountable for her actions.

How's that for a solution? I fail to see why he should have to pay for these kids that aren't his, while she just walks off, happy-scrappy, without having to pay back the money she received fraudulently.

That's a perfect solution! The problem is, that's justice, something that doesn't exist for a man in divorce court.

Wodan11: OniNeko: /The more I consider it, the more I think I'll stay unmarried my entire life.
You act like that will somehow protect you. Only 100% abstinence has a hope of doing that. How's that hand lotion going?


How I wish that were true. She'll go have sloppy sex with some asshole, then put your name on the birth certificate. Wait, it gets better! She'll put an old or false contact address for you on the paperwork.
The states sends a form to the wrong address, telling you to show up at some office if you plan to contest, otherwise a default judgment is filed.
You never get said letter, and miss the window to contest.
You end up paying for 18 years.

Pxtl: Kelbesque: There is no problem with the system here. The kids are his. He raised them. He is their father. Relationships are built on interaction, not DNA. They kids have imprinted on him as their father, he imprinted on them as his children. That interaction, six years of primary care-giving is not retractable by any amount of DNA testing or revelation.

Fine.

Now what punishment does the woman get for lying to her husband about the parentage of the children that were supposedly his? And what punishment does she get for (possibly) depriving another man of a relationship with his biological children?

Or are men supposed to just suck that up?

Yeah, I figured.

Funny how you assume a response from me before I get to respond. It's almost like you don't have a valid point.

Oh, wait...

Child support is money owed to support children. Repayment on that is tantamount to saying the money shouldn't be owed, which you've conceded above. Loss of custody can't be determined on this basis, because custody isn't a reward; kids aren't candy or money.

She hasn't committed a jailable offense. In particular, the "fraud" discussion has been done over and the article's characterization of what she did does not fit the legal definition of fraud in any American jursidiction, I doubt Canada is any more strict.

I see where you're going, but sorry, your conclusion is off. There's no legal remedy entitlement here. What she did is not a punishable offense, and his responsibility to his children is not dictated by whether or not it is. The two issues are legally and philosophically decoupled from each other, even though one led to the other. His relationship with his children was what it was, regardless of the fact that his wife is a liar and a cheater.

Why not just force her into a discovery to get the person's name she was sleeping with...(I would think the dad would have to have an idea of who it was) & have them tested.

Then the guy could sue the biological father to reccoup the $ and any future $ he is forced to pay.

Madbassist1:

Wow and neither one of them showed any interest in custody of their biological child? What farking low-lifes! It sounds like your daughter is lucky to have a real father.

This is sad, but it's how it's been for years. The system doesn't care if your wife is a cheating whore & the kids aren't yours. Meanwhile, some jackass that was balls deep in your wife gets to skate his personal responsibilty as a father.

serpent_sky: How's that for a solution? I fail to see why he should have to pay for these kids that aren't his, while she just walks off, happy-scrappy, without having to pay back the money she received fraudulently.

You're overcomplicating things. Just make her crime (failing to disclose the possibility that your husband's kids aren't his when they aren't) a felony with mandatory jail time. She clearly wronged him severely, it's provable, so why isn't it illegal?

So follow what happens: she failed to disclose. She goes to prison. Husband then gets custody of the children, since mommy obviously can't parent from the prison. When she gets out of the clink, they go back to the family court... with a felony on her record, and the kids living in his house, so he is going into the court as the de-facto custodial parent.

Judges defend their approach to family court as "upholding the status quo" - the kids should stay in the home they're already in. Well, in that case, they'd be in the putative father's home.

So, thanks to the jail time, the custody (and child support) is reversed and the mother has felt the sting of a real deterrent, and is not paying child support to the father.

You know when I'll give a shiat about The Movement®?

About an hour and a half after Oprah, Gloria Steinem and a few other multi-millionaire feministas fly into a tizzy about empowering THIS woman and get out their checkbooks for some rice paddies.



Showing up with a va joo joo and going "you have to gimmie things!" isn't quite the sort of position that brings about either personal responsibility or social honesty. Let alone empowerment.

Kelbesque: I see where you're going, but sorry, your conclusion is off. There's no legal remedy entitlement here.

Funny, it seems that you're the one jumping to conclusions, not me. I never said the father doesn't have any responsibilities to his deceptively adopted children. I said that the wife has committed a grievous attack her husband, which is something that should be illegal and punished.

You disagree because of "the law". "the law" is perfectly capable of being wrong. There was a time that raping your wife was legal - people defended it as a private matter. That was wrong.

Letting a woman off the hook for lying to a man about the paternity of his children is similarly wrong.

Find the farker (Farker?) who knocked her up and go after him. Shouldn't be that difficult unless this chick is a complete and utter ho-bag.

/meh, dude's farked

so... a woman farks someone, spurts his child out, then lies to another man and forces that other man to pay. When the lie is uncovered, it means nothing, the other man still has to pay, the cheating lying woman is not held accountable at all. She even gets to keep the kids.

jesus christ with peanut butter, this is pure undiluted crazy.

a lying cheating woman can arbitrarily choose who will be paying, who will raise the kids.

and now you dumbasses talk about "if he cared for the kids!" ? if anyone actually cared for the kids' upbringing they wouldn't leave them with that woman! How, exactly, is paying a liar and cheater to raise kids(*), "caring for the kids" ?

*: note that i do not even care about who is the, biological or otherwise, "real" father.

Madbassist1: Kelbesque: Just out of curiousity, how would this situation play out for you?

Woman messes around with a dude, gets pregnant, has a kid. She then leads the father to believe the kid is his. She later divorces the moran and marries the guy shes been doing the entire time...So her ex-husband has to pay child support to the ex wife who is living (with the kid) with the REAL father of the child?

What say you, crusading one?

Poor kid. Seriously though, your definition of "real" father needs some work. Biological is not equatable to actual in terms of social interactions. Also, your scenario needs more information. How old is this kid? Three? Five? Ten? Sixteen?

P.S. My daughter lives with me. I am the primary caregiver (and your definition of that is wrong)[citation needed].

I receive child support, but I just give it back to her. I dont need her money. place my pride over being better able to provide for my family.

FTFY

I sued for custody and she never showed up to ANY of the hearings...NONE until the judgement was rendered and then she showed up late. She still got 'shared' custody rather than the type most dads get when they go for it. Don't say the system isnt biased toward femailes, I know for a fact it is.

/yeah I have my kid
//No way did I sign that birth certificate, though.

Your single, anecdotal experience, or indeed, the combined forces of all of the aggregate anecdotal experiences is not tantamount to properly-collected, well-analyzed data on the system. It's a lot more sensational to run stories about how the system is skewed, but the only analysis I've ever seen is from organizations with a vested interest in making it look biased.

I'm sorry you got farked, and good on your for raising your kid. But still, [citations needed]

Couldn't the guy ask the court to make her give up the name of the sperm donor (or maybe he already knows it) and then sue the guy for past and future child support payments?

Child support continues and he gets to bleed the guy who that cheated on his wife.

/win-win

I hope the kids when they grow up leave the mother to rot alone.

i know i would, if i realized she lied and cheated us of our actual father and didn't even let the one who actually paid for us, see us.

she is the most unfit person to be called 'a parent'. fark.

Kelbesque: This case is a man who doesn't want to support his children. Not his biological children, but his children nonetheless.

Actually, if I read the article right, it's a man who didn't want his child support payments increased.

I guess my mom was just weird. My dad didn't pay child support on four of us (although I was from my mother's first marriage, he adopted me, so I suppose he was liable for child support on me, too), and she made do.

And if I were 16 and decided I needed a car and a cell phone and any other accoutrements kids of that age need, Mom would have told me to get a job, not marched off to court to squeeze more fundage out of Dad. (If he'd been paying it in the first place.)

/yes, I'm making assumptions
//this seems to be the right thread to do that, though

FarktheNavy: Couldn't the guy ask the court to make her give up the name of the sperm donor (or maybe he already knows it) and then sue the guy for past and future child support payments?

Child support continues and he gets to bleed the guy who that cheated on his wife.

/win-win

Hey, let "real dad" pay until the kids are grown, then "real dad" get's to pay "the wallet formerly known as dad" child support for the next 16 years.

Hey diddy diddle
Poor widdle wittol

The fact of the matter is that the man had the privilege of being a parent to these kids for 16 years. He was considered their father.

This is not a new precedent, no matter what the newspaper says. It's been in effect for a number of years. If you cohabitate with a woman and her child (yours or otherwise) calls you "Daddy", you are accepting all responsibility that goes along with the privilege.

What I'm curious about is why they felt a need for a paternity test at this late stage of the game? After 16 years, it really doesn't matter - you've raised the child as yours.

Besides, its not like the minimum guideline for child support is particularly high to begin with. The purpose of the payments is to assist in providing, food, shelter and life necessities.

serpent_sky: Who is to say he even wants full custody of kids that aren't his? While it's certainly not their fault, he's still a human being and resentment is a highly possible emotion. Further, throwing their biological mother in jail and uprooting them to move in with their father-who-isn't-their-biological-father probably isn't the best thing for the kids... let them continue to live as they have, and then punish the woman for her fraud by simply forcing her to pay back every penny with the threat of jail, much the way a man is treated when the kids are under the age of 18.

Either he is their father or he isn't. If he is their father, then he should support them and has the right to custody of them. If he isn't their father, then his rights and responsibilities should be terminated immediately and we go with your plan (mommy pays it all back plus interest at or before the time the child turns 18). Now, whether he's the father or not depends on the kids, not the parents - they're the ones who have or haven't bonded with him.

But either way, the mother has committed a grievous crime. It would be a crime even if he wasn't paying support - if they were still married and he'd been raising some other guy's offspring for a decade, it would still be a crime. Even if that crime isn't on the books.

The obvious and correct solution is that in no assumption of paternity should ever be legally enforceable without the father's knowledge of the genetic relationship to the child.

This means no birth certificate should be valid without DNA testing of both parents.

Problem solved.

DNRTFA, but, if this guy was lied to by his wife....fark that....he shouldn't have to pay.

/dont have nor do I want children
//should I ever get knocked up (highly unlikely....yay birth control), I'm demanding a paternity test
/that way there is no doubt
//will pay for myself if I have to
/women like this make the rest of us look bad
//thankfully I have 2 dogs!

Pxtl: serpent_sky: Who is to say he even wants full custody of kids that aren't his? While it's certainly not their fault, he's still a human being and resentment is a highly possible emotion. Further, throwing their biological mother in jail and uprooting them to move in with their father-who-isn't-their-biological-father probably isn't the best thing for the kids... let them continue to live as they have, and then punish the woman for her fraud by simply forcing her to pay back every penny with the threat of jail, much the way a man is treated when the kids are under the age of 18.

Either he is their father or he isn't. If he is their father, then he should support them and has the right to custody of them. If he isn't their father, then his rights and responsibilities should be terminated immediately and we go with your plan (mommy pays it all back plus interest at or before the time the child turns 18). Now, whether he's the father or not depends on the kids, not the parents - they're the ones who have or haven't bonded with him.

But either way, the mother has committed a grievous crime. It would be a crime even if he wasn't paying support - if they were still married and he'd been raising some other guy's offspring for a decade, it would still be a crime. Even if that crime isn't on the books.

You folks are talking like you're familiar with Canadian law. Are you? Infidelity is not a punishable crime here. The mother committed no fraud under Canadian law. There's really nothing to argue.

So can you sue her to reveal the real father, and then sue him for an amount equivilent to the support paid and still to be paid?

And you will wake up with about three happy meals worth of cash in your pocket, wrinkled clothes and the vague feeling that you got used.

Screw you. You don't know me.

/fighting back tears

Pxtl: Kelbesque: I see where you're going, but sorry, your conclusion is off. There's no legal remedy entitlement here.

Funny, it seems that you're the one jumping to conclusions, not me. I never said the father doesn't have any responsibilities to his deceptively adopted children. I said that the wife has committed a grievous attack her husband, which is something that should be illegal and punished.

I never claimed that you said anything of the sort. You'll notice that I even noted that you agreed on that point. What I did note is that it is not an issue of consideration when determining whether what she did is a punishable offense.

You disagree because of "the law". "the law" is perfectly capable of being wrong. There was a time that raping your wife was legal - people defended it as a private matter. That was wrong.

Letting a woman off the hook for lying to a man about the paternity of his children is similarly wrong.

I do not disagree strictly because of the law. I don't think there's an appropriate legal remedy. You suggest jail time in another comment above, but I don't agree that that is appropriate to the offense. What she did was morally wrong, but like many moral wrongs is not legally punishable because there is not an appropriate remedy.

But hey, it should be a small matter to get the old white guys in Congress to help move the situation along. They don't want to be saddled with kids that aren't theirs either, you know?

Why don't the courts just go all the way, castrate him, and send his balls to this fraudster whore?

ReverendJasen: zamboni: Hey, let "real dad" pay until the kids are grown, then "real dad" get's to pay "the wallet formerly known as dad" child support for the next 16 years.

I have to admit, it would be funny if dad #1 sued the birth father for child support. Although I'm sure he'd lose.

The problem is that, by taking the parental role, marriage-daddy effectively "adopted" the kid away from bio-daddy, even though he didn't know about it.

Really, kids need stability more than anything else. They need the person they *think of* as dad to stay being dad.

Now, my problem is that the mother is a lying, cheating scumbucket, and has no business raising kids. She should be in prison for that shiat.

Honestly, I think the best for all involved is to move the kids to live with marriage-dad. Sure, he's not their biological father, but if he was close enough to being dad for him to pay child-support, then he is close enough to being dad to raise the kids.

bluehubcap: You folks are talking like you're familiar with Canadian law. Are you? Infidelity is not a punishable crime here. The mother committed no fraud under Canadian law. There's really nothing to argue.

I don't give a fark about the infidelity - it's the deception about the parentage of the children that's the problem. If she'd secretly gone to the sperm-bank, I'd feel the same.

And my point about "crime" is not legal, it's ethical. Lying to a man about the parentage of his children shouldn't be legal, and is a crime in every sense except the paper one.

No Such Agency: Well unfortunately, the court can't strip her of custody and give them to this man who isn't their biological father. If courts had that kind of power, there'd be some other thing happening that you all would be up in arms about.

Why not?

If they can make him pay, saying he is the father, he certainly could be the legal guardian then too.

What is in the best interest of the children after all, i doubt living with a con artist would be considered the best.

Let's say a single dad of a small child meets and marries a woman. It doesn't work and they split. Do you think the woman would be required to pay child support?

Take the emotion out of it. It has no bearing on what should be a legal matter. They are not his biological kids. If he has an emotional attachment and chooses to help support the kids, good on him. If not, then it's his right to be a dick without the courts interfering. Being a dick is not a crime.

At the end of the day, from a legal standpoint, the guy should not be held responsible for providing for children that are not his. Period.

Now, if you want to bend the rules here "in the best interest of the child", fine. Force him to pay to help raise the kid, even though the ex-wife lied to him. Then, once the child is an adult, the wife should be liable to repay every cent! She lied to him in a way that resulted in financial loss. That's what we call fraud.

(Personally though, I think the idea of "in the best interest of the child" is a pile of horsecrap. There are thousands of children in Canada living in poverty who's mothers were not dishonest enough to commit fraud on their behalf. We don't seek out people to help out their interests, why should the children of criminals be helped.)

In fact, what a heck of a first life lesson for the two girls. "Well girls, if you feel like you can't quite make it on your own, feel free to lie and cheat to get what you want."

Lovely.

Pxtl: bluehubcap: You folks are talking like you're familiar with Canadian law. Are you? Infidelity is not a punishable crime here. The mother committed no fraud under Canadian law. There's really nothing to argue.

I don't give a fark about the infidelity - it's the deception about the parentage of the children that's the problem. If she'd secretly gone to the sperm-bank, I'd feel the same.

And my point about "crime" is not legal, it's ethical. Lying to a man about the parentage of his children shouldn't be legal, and is a crime in every sense except the paper one.

The result is still the same. No fraud has been committed. He accepted parental rights which means parental responsibility.

I agree that it was immoral of her to be deceptive about the situation...(she may not have known that it was her adulterous affair culminated that created the pregnancy, either). Morality police went out the window when church was separated from state.

Frankly, I pity the kids. Their lives in the news, their father resentful and washing his hands of responsibility just because he's pissed at their mom. What happens to their relationship when the kids turn 18, and dad's no longer financially responsible? (Technically, dad would have to continue paying support of the kids until after they have completed university - including paying for half of the tuition and expenses, if they continue with their education. )

organs in mains: Let's say a single dad of a small child meets and marries a woman. It doesn't work and they split. Do you think the woman would be required to pay child support?

Legally, she probably could be forced to. In our society it's highly unlikely that the father would try and get it.

It all comes down to money, this biatch is trying to squeeze as much out. The law is supposed to be blind, just weighting the facts to determine the right outcome. This is the correct use othe asinine tag. Judges stick by the letter of the law when it comes to labeling a kid a sex offender for life for taking naked pictures of himself. Yet when it comes to this cut and dry case where the dude is not the father, farking ridiculous. Unless the guy wants to pay the support money, he really shouldn't have to.

Kelbesque: If you raise kids for 16 years as your own, and one day you find out they weren't your spawn, do you suddenly stop caring about them? Do they suddenly stop looking at you as the person who raised them and cared for them all that time, and vice versa?

He got lied to, and that sucks. They're still his kids. He raised them. They're always going to feel like he's their dad, and if he suddenly no longer gives a shiat about them because of a shiatty thing their mother did, then he's an asswipe.

The issue of what the child support actually goes to is totally immaterial to this discussion--it's just as reprehensible if it's being misused when the kids are biologically yours as when they're not.

/Sorry kids, I raised you for over a decade and a half, but all those times I said I loved you, it was only because I thought you had half my DNA.
//fark off, farkers.

I disagree.

If you are not biologically related to the kids, you should carry absolutely no legal responsibility unless you have legally adopted them. If you have not adopted the children, then legally they are not yours, and you should not be liable for anything. Now, whether or not you consider them your kids, or you love them, or what not, thats up to the person involved, but legally speaking, you should not be forced to pay anything.

This makes me sick! Hold the biatch somewhat responsible at least! She just gets away with having an affair, producing someone elses kids, and then managed to make the person who is NOT their father pay for them. WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!?