If Bill Gates shows up to my house and raises my kid for two years before pulling all support unexpectedly you can bet that I'd sue him to continue providing that care as well.
This whole argument is about fathering a child that isn't yours, not "unexpectedly" stopping support for no reason. Your logic also implies that anyone involved in a kids life is obligated to financially support them as well. I also don't understand how supporting a kid for 2 years obligates you to support them for the whole 18 years. Again, I'm talking about people who are not the father.
Bill Gates, however, isn't a better husband in this scenario because he isn't involved in the kid's life. This isn't about the dad or the mom, it's about the kid.
What? No where did I bring up the quality of parenting or spousal quality. That also has nothing to do with the biological parents. Again, spending time with the kid has nothing to do with child support.
In the absence of other care, that care shouldn't be allowed to cease simply because mom and dad are fighting. Kids shouldn't be collateral damage the spats between parents.
I agree with you, the problem is lying about an affair and parentage is more than a simple fight. Child support is also awarded when parents separate, which is what I'm primarily talking about. It's not like the husband is sending his wife cash when they're still together. I feel like you're still misunderstanding.
...This is precisely why child support stops when the primary care giver remarries. Someone else has stepped into that role. It's less about the money and more about the care.
If that were true then the courts would require helping care for the child as part of child support. Instead separated parents often fight for custody. It is entirely 100% about the money.
I don't care about who can or cannot lie. I care that the kid is still having the support of two parents. I don't care if it doesn't seem fair that this hurts men more often than women if it means that it is fair for the child. It's far worse to screw over a kid who may or may not be able to understand what's wrong, much less deal with it, than it is to screw over an adult.
See my original post. A women making a bad decision does not entitle her or her child to financially burden random people. Also, the unfortunate fact of life is that it's not fair; it sucks that some kids have meth heads for parents, but you can't just take the kid, point to a random person on the street and dub them the parent. I'm all for social programs which help the unfortunate, but that's entirely different than forcing people.
Remember, in many cases there's no reason to believe that the custodial parent is getting free anything.
There's also no reason not to. In a system extremely prone to abuse, why wouldn't I expect abuse?
Stop trying to turn child support into a spousal support or alimony. The only thing child support is trying to do is ensure that the child is still getting support from two adults, one of whom is definitely the parent and the other is also the parent with a 96% degree of certainty.
Again, you seem to be under the opinion that random people need to be responsible for paying for random kids. I understand what child support is for and I'm absolutely for it when appropriately applied. Sure a child deserves two parents, but it's an imperfect world.
Besides, if she leaves you for the real father in anything resembling common law marriage you can get that change of status to adjust or eliminate your child support.
And what if she decides to just live with him forever instead of marrying him? Again, extremely susceptible to abuse.
Basically, craft a law that ensures that the kid still receives two parent's worth of support that is more fair and I will back that.
There is no way to measure "two parents worth of support". Refer to my solution in my previous post.
Until then the system we have now works for the common good, even if there are a handful of outliers that might be deemed unfair.
The common good isn't fucking over innocent husbands with whore wives.
Look, all I'm saying is that men who didn't father a child shouldn't be forced to support that child, regardless of what is deemed fair. It's the women's responsibility to disclose the parentage to the actual father at birth. If she fails to do this and has a man unknowingly raise a kid that isn't his, then she is doing a disservice to the child. Her lie by omission doesn't burden the father with continuing support once he finds out the truth. If said women wants to avoid a situation like the one I've been describing then she can be upfront with everyone once the child is born and name the biological father on the birth certificate. She doesn't get to lie, trap the husband and then benefit from it by leaving him.