Would like both men and women's opinion on the following situation.

Regardless of what the mother said, unless she signed a document that she wanted nothing from him and the father signed off his rights to the child, he is legally obligated to support that child. However, unless he is a danger to the child in some way, he should not be forced to pay child support without gaining other parental rights, like visitation at the very least. What she's doing is a bit cruel and shady, but the father should have stepped up a long time ago regardless. Because both of them were so irresponsible as parents (her telling him to get lost when she needed his support, him not stepping up and seeing to his rights), they will both suffer the consequences now. I imagine family court is going to have a field day with both of them.

Did she give the child his last name and put him on the birth certificate? As far as the state law I have no idea but I do think if the guy does the testing and proves he is the dad and if he has nothing to do with the child I would think that he can sign his rights away. I would just leave it to the courts though.

As long as he didn't legally relinquish his parental rights, she can go after him for support - most judges won't allow him to do this unless she is married and there is another man in her life that will take financial responsibility for the child. If she receives any kind of public assistance for the child - they will go after the father to pay back whatever she receives. She can't, however, say that she doesn't want him in their lives and keep him from seeing the child. Even though child support and visitation aren't connected - she can't deny him visitation if he doesn't pay support - as along as he has not relinquished his parental rights, he has a right to have contact with the child. If the father never gives up his rights, she can go after him at any point for child support, and once the child reaches the age of majority, the child can go after the father for back support.

Having worked in the legal field for a few years it basically goes by state law. If his name is on the birth certificate and she can prove that during those 3 years that she pursued him for child support she can have a small percentage, but restitution will have to be proven. The court looks at the previous records and if there aren't any then they will interview witnesses and even family members to gain a better understanding of the events that led to her filing for child support. If she does suceed in getting child support then the fathers rights are activated and he'll get to see his child and build a relationship with him/her.

Well, if the biological father acknowledge his child in the birth certificate the mother has the right to get support from the father regardless the mother says that she will not be needing the support from the father. Here in the philippines child law is very strong, legitimate and illegitimate has the same rights cause they are protecting the rights of the child.

Hi.In my opinion, we should consider the child's needs.Even though the baby's mom is a bit selfish(using her extra money for a tatoo) and his father is irresponsible man(for just letting his baby for about 3 years).The child needs support from his parents.Its in the law so the child can claim support from his father.In the case of the mother,she must not be trust with the money(she might use it for another tatoo).If I were the baby's father, I can fight for the custody of the baby or better yet talk to the mother and make things go right..just an opinion..

I think that since she said that in the past she should NOT be going after him for support from 3 years back or for in the future. She's made her choice and needs to take a bit more responsibility for her actions. The courts might see this differently.

I find it ridiculous that she's going to sue for back child support as well as for future payments when she clearly said that she didn't want the guy in her life. If you're responsible enough to be a parent, you should be responsible enough to make sure your child has food before getting a tattoo. That said, the first poster is correct, unless she has something in writing that they both signed agreeing to something, the guy will most likely end up paying for child support. I find that absolutely heinous at it's clearly not totally his decision to get pregnant/have children.

I think despite the girl's sentiments 3 years ago she still deserves support from the baby's father so if they took to court then she's be paid her due. It's like when a child decides never to take a bath again. You still force him to bathe right? I think it's the same situation here. As with spending the extra money on tattoos, she's eventually run our of space to tattoo which will mean proving a better life for the baby. It may hinder getting the child support money though but the court can put stipulations on that. :)

First of all this is the liability of the Father to do what ever is necessary to brought up well the children he fathered. Secondly what the local law says. Have they been legally married or the child born out of spot relation and get away. Un till these situations are not depicted no opinion can be formed. In general and in social the father can be sued in the court for bearing the past expenditure and future expenses.

well even being a girl i would say that she is wrong on her part!! she shouldn have spoken to him like that 3 years ago!! as the baby dad, he has got rights to stay with his baby!!! when she said that she doesn want him in his life then why does she expect him to pay the child support??? she should have thought it 3 years back before saying such things!!!!!!

I agree with youngsweetheart..He should have from the beginning took care of his responsibilities knowing that was his child no matter what she said. About the back child support I believe he will be made to pay it because her saying she didn't want him to give her anything is just hear say. And that's the way the court is going to see it. I hope everything turns out good for the sake of the child.

if she 3 yearsr back decided to go on her own so now why she is wanting the man's support?

He should still support the child. However, he should also be involved with the child's life unless he is a horrible influence (which should be decided by the court, not the mother).

I think there has to be a balance in these situations. Yes the father is obliged to provide for the child's needs, but he deserves the rights of access to the child and to be able to build a relationship with that child. It is not sufficient to state that he did not support the child after he was told not to. I want to hear that he repeatedly offered support and has done background legal work to try to gain access to the child. I think a court should look at the situation and say if he has done all these things consistently and repeatedly exhausting all possibilities, then he is not obliged to pay anything. If, on the other hand, he shrugged and said 'fair enough', then he should be made to pay back child support. What I am saying is that the obligation is on both sides. Of course she has acted manipulatively and selfishly it seems from your evidence, but we don't know how the father reacted. There is an obvious trade-off that I can see here, that the mother can't expect support if she is not prepared to allow the father to take a full role in the upbringing of the child. Also the father should not offer financial support alone, but also love and guidance and security. BOTH these adults are hugely obliged to this child, I want to see them BOTH doing their utmost and putting the child first. (I am a Daddy, and my child is my priority and my responsibility)

i think in this case you can't deviate her from what she wants. whatever way she is behaving, may be intentional. may be she does not want to spend her own money for the kid,. or may be now she is in idea that it is needed.

If at the time when she got along with that man anything written that she does not need anything nor any child support later from the man, then her own time will be wasted if she still want to go to court. Strange behaviour by the girl that she refusing from her own words. It is proved that world is so mean nowadays and it has become very hard now to trust anyone. Even your own blood turns his back on you and you get surprised what has happened!

yes but that also means daddy has a right to get to know his child an if need to be court will allow the dad vists the child should know his grandparents an dad an the famly on dads side

I think that she should definitely not receive child support at all. She spends her extra money and this should be proven in court, if not I wish it would be as she does not seem to be financially prepared to take care of the children. As far as mentally ready to do so, a study of the home would have to be done I assume. So no, I don't think she should get any child support.

well first of all, she need to stop spending her money on dumb things, and if she goes after the dad for support, he should have been paying in the beginning. but once he starts paying then he has and always had the right to see his child.