NSW Process for child support when DNA test done without court order

[Kenapela]

Not quite sure what your point is.
Yes it's true that some women deliberately give birth to children because they want to increase their centre link payments & receive child support. It's no secret. That considered, if you want to have a purely physical relationship with someone you need to do everything in your power to not conceive a child. If it's not on, it's not on. If you don't take that precaution you have no right to play the victim.
Something men seem to forget is that they're playing Russian roulette with their wife's health. Getting someone pregnant is one thing. Giving your wife Aids or some other STD is another.
Otherwise intelligent men of all different socioeconomic groups continue to get themselves into this predicament.
Lamenting that it's not fair that men can't demand that a woman have an abortion borders on being ridiculous. Good luck getting that law passed. It would never happen, & for good reason. Even with the fear of an unwanted child & 18 years of child support many men can't manage to keep it in their pants. How would they behave if they could demand abortions at will?

Yep great points of view. The men can't keep it in their pants and let's not forget the women can't keep their legs together. None this is answering my original questions.

 

[rjm]

Yep great points of view. The men can't keep it in their pants and let's not forget the women can't keep their legs together. None this is answering my original questions.

If you hadn't of mentioned how unfair it was that the man could not demand an abortion - you wouldn't have had to hear my response.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

While I agree we're getting a bit off topic, I think it's a pretty valid point that men have no say in what happens to the child - yes the mother has the control because the baby grows inside her, but I think Jennifer makes a valid point that it probably should be considered what kind of life the child will have. I'm certainly NOT saying it's a decision that should be taken lightly, but having a child with a very obviously miserable life is arguably unethical. I'm not sure that having a single mother counts as that necessarily, but in more severe cases like genetic conditions and deformities, I don't agree that it should be 100% the mother's decision without question. I mean, if the mother is acting against the interests of a child once they are born, the state can and will intervene. I'd suggest there may be cases where that maybe should apply to abortions too (very extreme cases). But hey, it's not an opinion that would ever get voted in like rjm said!

 

[rjm]

While I agree we're getting a bit off topic, I think it's a pretty valid point that men have no say in what happens to the child - yes the mother has the control because the baby grows inside her, but I think Jennifer makes a valid point that it probably should be considered what kind of life the child will have. I'm certainly NOT saying it's a decision that should be taken lightly, but having a child with a very obviously miserable life is arguably unethical. I'm not sure that having a single mother counts as that necessarily, but in more severe cases like genetic conditions and deformities, I don't agree that it should be 100% the mother's decision without question. I mean, if the mother is acting against the interests of a child once they are born, the state can and will intervene. I'd suggest there may be cases where that maybe should apply to abortions too (very extreme cases). But hey, it's not an opinion that would ever get voted in like rjm said!

Children born into wealthy, seemingly stable families also have bad lives. Things change, nothing is guaranteed.
The woman in this situation may well be trying to better herself financially & not have the best interests of the child at heart. She could also be a genuine person who was silly enough to have an affair with a married man, & just doesn't believe in aborting an unborn child.
As for your off topic comments Glass - personally I would abort a child who had a severe disability. In saying that though I've met many people with severe disabilities who are grateful that their parents went ahead & had them.
I'm always bemused by women who focus their anger on the other woman when their husband has an affair. News flash - it's your husband who made the commitment to you. Unless of course the other woman is a friend or family member. Justifiably you'd be angry at both of them.

 

[Louise233]

So get a court orderd dna test simple)
Than go from there

Your all adults

 

[lawanswers]

Friendly reminder: Please keep responses to questions on topic. Thank you.

 

[sammy01]

No moralising. Promise.
Look, if the dad sorts a DNA test and it is obvious he is dad, then he pays according to the CSA rules. It is entirely up to him (sure wife is entitled to an opinion) BUT it is up to dad if he wants to pursue a relationship with the child.

The system is fair, or as fair as it can be given it is a system that is entirely dealing with a very complex set of circumstances. The system isn't crook, it is people trying to use / abuse the system that is crook. So let's assume the orginal poster and hubby get over this affair and go on to have a kid or two themselves.... The mother of this child will see her child support decrease because all of a sudden the man has another child or two to support. If the original poster wanted, she could return to work and leave dad at home to raise the kids for the first few years and her income won't be factored into the child support payments for the other child... So hypothetically? have dad take time off work to minimise his child support obligations and as a result the poster goes back to work and misses out on the traditional role of being a stay at home mum?

To the OP Jennifer - Well done. Your first post was mature and non-judgemental. No gender mud slinging one way or the other.... Just giving information and asking for advice. That sort of maturity will help you navigate through this mess.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

In spite of the warning from the moderator (never seen that before.. huh), I will say one thing though Sammy. I don't think it's true to say the system isn't crook. If there are disincentives to do the right thing and incentives to do the wrong thing, I don't see why it couldn't be improved. As that link I provided the other day said, the amount of money a child needs to have a happy life shouldn't depend on the income level of the parents. It should be roughly the same regardless of whether the non-resident parent earns $50k or $250k. And yet if they earn $250k, they pay well above what the child actually needs, and that large payment that the resident parent receives is a strong disincentive for them to allow the other parent more time with the children, because it means a large drop in payments received. The incentives in child support should always be the best interests of the children, and in more cases than not, the best interests of the child is TWO INVOLVED PARENTS, not one hardly seeing the child but paying a lot of money. If you haven't watched the video, have a look and then give me your thoughts? Anyway, off my soap box I go.

 

[Mel125]

In spite of the warning from the moderator (never seen that before.. huh), I will say one thing though Sammy. I don't think it's true to say the system isn't crook. If there are disincentives to do the right thing and incentives to do the wrong thing, I don't see why it couldn't be improved. As that link I provided the other day said, the amount of money a child needs to have a happy life shouldn't depend on the income level of the parents. It should be roughly the same regardless of whether the non-resident parent earns $50k or $250k. And yet if they earn $250k, they pay well above what the child actually needs, and that large payment that the resident parent receives is a strong disincentive for them to allow the other parent more time with the children, because it means a large drop in payments received. The incentives in child support should always be the best interests of the children, and in more cases than not, the best interests of the child is TWO INVOLVED PARENTS, not one hardly seeing the child but paying a lot of money. If you haven't watched the video, have a look and then give me your thoughts? Anyway, off my soap box I go.

 

[rjm]

No mud slinging sammy ? It was the only reason I posted. Miracle child. Applied for CS 3 days after birth. Refused to have an abortion.
Miracle child - impossible.
Applied for CS - in best interests of child.
Refused to have abortion - her right.