2015-12-28 at 12:55 AM UTC
Okay, a friend of mine is being super retarded on this topic. He is under the impression that simply moving in with a woman who has a child will result in him having to pay child support if she files for it against him even though there is another man on the birth certificate as the father. He claims 'that is the risk of moving in with a woman with a child'. Its so fucking stupidly retarded. You dont pay child support for a kid that isnt yours just because you live with a woman with a child. He claims that 'this happens all the time' shit like this has never happened, the only thing close Ive heard about is a married couple where the woman cheats, the husband signs the birth certificate and finds out later the child isnt his. That does happen, but we are cover a woman with a child who jas another man listed as the father on the bieth certificate- simply living together, even acting as a father to this child will not result in court ordered financial obligation to the man living with the woman, the father on the birth certificate will be the one obligated until that kid is 18. Also where the fuck dis my friend get this piece of retarded nonsense? Is there some bogus bullshit out there I am missing or is this simple nigger wivetales? Shit if this was the case howmany niggers would be paying child support for kids that arent theirs? A fuckton. Itd be a inner city epidemic. Nigger fathers would be knocking out other niggers, dragging them over to their babymommas house, keep them roofied for a week and file for child support to get their ass off the hook and babymommas would be man hunting for a guy with lots of money to kidnap and do this to. Helpme explain how fucking wrong this is tomy friend, please.
2015-12-28 at 2:08 AM UTC
Yeah, that's kinda dumb.
De facto marriage is a thing in much of the western world, which is what your friend may be thinking of. It only applies in certain states in the US and with limitations even then, if he's living in florida then yeah, nothing to worry about. In the UK and NZ it can be significant though. When I was in NZ I remember it was kind of a big deal because if you claimed common residence for N years in a row (I think it was 5) you were defacto married and could be liable for alimony on the breakup and stuff. I don't think child support was ever part of it (unless a kid was biologically related or born during the defacto marriage) but alimony was a real concern for some people.
2015-12-28 at 3:05 AM UTC
based on what youve said this dude is so retarded your advice isnt worth wasting your time giving him. it should be as simple as saying what you already told him and if he chooses not to believe you he can google it or consult an attorney. no one is liable for child support unless 1. they are biologically proven to be the father or are on the birth certificate and do not object to such or 2. they sign adoption papers THEN go before a judge that validates them
2015-12-29 at 1:13 AM UTC
Lanny, yeah, its like common law marriage (not a thing in Florida, but was in Maryland where I grew up). Different states set different time periods, in Maryland I believe it was 7 years, though I may be wrong. It also requires the woman to use the guys last name I believe, or something like that. Common law marriage isnt even recognized by states that dont have it themselves, such as Florida. Anyway, its just retarded. I dont even like the idea of the state dealing with marriage anyway, its religious thing and separation of church and state and all that jazz.
