Debate: Can a Betrayed Husband walk away from his wife's affair child?

[Scott Thomas]

This is a spin-off from another thread.

 

Situation: A man discovers that his wife had an affair years ago, hid it from him and pretended that nothing really happened.

 

The timeline of the affair matches the estimated conception period of their child. The man gets suspicious and decides to verify the paternity of the child in question. As it turns out, the child isn't his; the child is the biological offspring of the cheating wife and her affair partner.

 

In the other thread, some posters thought that he is fee to walk away. Others thought that this seems very materialistic and selfish.

 

I invite posters to post their opinions. I hope we all agree that it is completely wrong for a woman to cheat, get pregnant, hide the affair and then pass of the child as her betrayed husband's.

 

The questions that concern me are:

 

*Is it right/wrong if the betrayed husband decides that he does not want to spend his hard earned money on the affair child?

 

*Should this child inherit the husband's assets, including but not limited to family wealth, an inherited title (eg Duke/Count in Europe)?

(Please remember that under law, an inherited title can only be passed down to the eldest biological heir).

 

*Should the husband stop loving this child?

 

*Should the paternal grandparents be informed that the child in question is not the husbands and therefore not their biological grandchild.

 

*Should the husband be forced to invest his money and love in the affair child if he doesn't want to?

 

*Can the husband walk away from the child's life?

 

*Would you call the husband 'selfish, materialistic, immoral and callous' is he decides to walk away?

 

Remember, the time the husband and child have been misled, bonded and loved each other may also impact the husband's decision.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a controversial topic but I look forward to a spirited debate. Please refrain from personally targeting any poster and respect each other's right to post; we may not agree with each other's opinion but we should respect the right of each individual to form his/her own opinion.

[GorillaTheater]

It would be a horrible spot to be in, that's for sure. If there's a betrayal worse than infidelity, it's having another man's child passed off as yours. It's primal, the rage and frustration, and sheer violation, a man has to feel in these circumstances.

 

My heart goes out to both the man and the child in this situation. In the husband's shoes, I suspect I would feel further raped if I had to pay child support. In one way, it's like servitude to the wife's affair partner (if he's not paying for his own kid). I might be able to overcome those feelings, and I may not.

 

So I guess I'd understand whatever legal decision the husband made.

[harrybrown]

I think you should consider the innocent child. The child did nothing to deserve telling the world, grandparents, etc that the child is not the BH child.

 

It is very cruel to the child, especially a young child. I do feel for the BH, but I think the child needs come first.

[janedoe67]

Can a man turn away (legally, financially, emotionally) from a child that does not share his DNA? Of course he can.

 

Should he? That depends on who you ask I guess....and whether a child's worth is all about genetics or something more.

 

I admit to being biased; I don't share DNA with either of my parents.

[bentleychic]

I honestly don't think that anyone would have the right to tell him what he should or should not do nor feel. Yes, the child is an innocent and I'm sure it would be horrid for him/her, too, but I cannot even imagine being put in that situation myself. I would never assume to know what the best course of action would be.

 

I actually have an acquaintance who temporarily separated from her husband. During that separation, she had an A and a child was conceived from it. She and the husband reconciled (and he knew she was pregnant). The husband took the child on as his own, putting his name on the birth certificate (which you legally have to do in my state if you are married when a child is born, anyway). He raised him as his own. They are now divorced and he is NOW trying to disown this child so that he no longer has to pay child support or have visitation with him. THAT is pretty crappy, IMO and I'm not in agreement with that at all since this child has known him as dad since birth due to HIM knowingly and willingly taking on that role from day 1. I think the kid is 10 or so now.

[jlola]

I love all children, but I would have to say it depends on the person. If a person is emotionally strong enough to see this child everyday and separate the child from the situation, I think they should try.

 

But some people are not emotionally built for that sort of betrayal and the reminder everyday would eat them up.

 

I have a half sister from my father's affair with MOW. My mother who is an extraordinary loving person had a difficult time seeing her as she is the spitting image of my father,while we ironically all look like my mother. I never blamed my mother. I think it was a stab to her heart every time she looks at my half sister and remembers what was happening 3 doors down. Whatever burden the person can bear. It is up to them.There is no right or wrong answer.

 

It is so different from an adoption situation where there is no history triggers.

Edited October 8, 2013 by jlola

[lollipopspot]

How old is this child supposed to be?

 

If someone has raised a child as their own for awhile, and there is nothing seriously wrong with the child (that makes them very difficult in some way), I'd find it pretty sad if that person "stopped loving" the child because they found out they weren't biologically related.

 

That doesn't say much for that person's ability to love, does it?

[2sure]

In the US, if a mans name is on the birth certificate , The child was born during a marriage, and the paternity was not questioned...the non bio Dad, even after proving he is not the father, is still legally responsible for the child, including financially supporting the child.

 

I think that most men who have become emotionally invested in a child, their own or not, a child that called him Daddy...would not be able to walk away.

 

I can see a man divorcing his wife for this, but continuining to love and treat his son or daughter as the father he always had been.

 

For a parent that was not as emotionally invested in who they thought up til this point was their own child...he was going to walk eventually anyway.

[2sure]

Oh, I totally agree it is being duped in every possible way and that any man would be horrified and initially want to walk. But most men, after you've been someone's Daddy...the bond is too strong.

 

As far as the laws, they are based only on what is best for the child. Not the parental rights.

[lollipopspot]

You know those people you hear about every once in awhile who steal another person's baby so they can raise it - they just want to raise a child so badly - anybody's child.

 

I might rather be raised by one of those criminal loons than by someone whose only reason to "love" me is believing we have DNA, and if after years of raising me they found we weren't related somehow, would just walk out and stop loving me.

[Scott Thomas]

Oh, I totally agree it is being duped in every possible way and that any man would be horrified and initially want to walk. But most men, after you've been someone's Daddy...the bond is too strong.

 

As far as the laws, they are based only on what is best for the child. Not the parental rights.

 

My sympathies would lie with the BH and the child.

Karma: The BH and the child (both) kick out the WW and refuse to talk/see her again.

 

Laws depend on the country and vary.

Last month, there was an article in the Guardian: A court in Paris ruled that the BH had no obligation to support a 11 year old boy born from his wife's affair.

I've heard of cases in New York where the BH had to pay child support because the child's paternity was discovered three years after the BH and WW divorced.

[2sure]

You know those people you hear about every once in awhile who steal another person's baby so they can raise it - they just want to raise a child so badly - anybody's child.

 

I might rather be raised by one of those criminal loons than by someone whose only reason to "love" me is believing we have DNA, and if after years of raising me they found we weren't related somehow, would just walk out and stop loving me.

 

That is such a heartbreaking scenerio. But someone's reality I'm sure. I can't imagine how that child, even as adult might feel.

 

On the other hand, we may all know someone who may suspect that one of their children us not theirs...but don't even want to find out because , as far as their concerned that's their child. No changing it.

[jlola]

You know those people you hear about every once in awhile who steal another person's baby so they can raise it - they just want to raise a child so badly - anybody's child.

 

I might rather be raised by one of those criminal loons than by someone whose only reason to "love" me is believing we have DNA, and if after years of raising me they found we weren't related somehow, would just walk out and stop loving me.

 

I don't think anyone would or could walk away and stop loving. They may have a lot of love in their heart , but the reminder may be too much to bear. I would think especially if the child was spitting image of the OM. I think most would divorce and still love the child.

 

It is very different from an adoption relationship where you do not share DNA, or if the woman had a child from a previous relationship. This sort of betrayal can lead one to severe depression.

[2sure]

My sympathies would lie with the BH and the child.

Karma: The BH and the child (both) kick out the WW and refuse to talk/see her again.

 

Laws depend on the country and vary.

Last month, there was an article in the Guardian: A court in Paris ruled that the BH had no obligation to support a 11 year old boy born from his wife's affair.

I've heard of cases in New York where the BH had to pay child support because the child's paternity was discovered three years after the BH and WW divorced.

 

 

Yes, in the states the courts put the needs of the child before the parental rights.

And it isn't for ethical purposes as much as it seems. It is to protect tax payers from supporting fatherless children. It's easier .

[lollipopspot]

My sympathies would lie with the BH and the child.

Karma: The BH and the child (both) kick out the WW and refuse to talk/see her again.

 

Unless there is other abuse by the WW, that would not be the normal or healthy thing for the child, to completely reject its parent.

[Scott Thomas]

You know those people you hear about every once in awhile who steal another person's baby so they can raise it - they just want to raise a child so badly - anybody's child.

 

I might rather be raised by one of those criminal loons than by someone whose only reason to "love" me is believing we have DNA, and if after years of raising me they found we weren't related somehow, would just walk out and stop loving me.

 

Completely up to you. This also applies to the BH who discovers that he's been tricked.

 

Btw. You prefer being raised by these loons than by a BH who walks away if your true paternity is discovered.

You didn't mention anything about the WW. Would you prefer being raised by her? Would you prefer being raised by a lying, cheating and immoral wife than by the innocent BH?

[lollipopspot]

Completely up to you. This also applies to the BH who discovers that he's been tricked.

 

Btw. You prefer being raised by these loons than by a BH who walks away if your true paternity is discovered.

You didn't mention anything about the WW. Would you prefer being raised by her? Would you prefer being raised by a lying, cheating and immoral wife than by the innocent BH?

 

You wrote above questioning whether the BH should "stop loving" his child. To not be loved is probably the most damaging thing for a child, other than not getting basic needs met. If someone can stop LOVING you, after years, because of realizing that you don't share a biological link, that's an issue. Love is suspect, if it can turn on and off so easily with that revelation. Maybe you didn't mean to write it like that?

[underwater2010]

This is a spin-off from another thread.

 

Situation: A man discovers that his wife had an affair years ago, hid it from him and pretended that nothing really happened.

 

I will answer as A and B. A being 1-3 yrs down the line. B 4 yrs +.

 

The timeline of the affair matches the estimated conception period of their child. The man gets suspicious and decides to verify the paternity of the child in question. As it turns out, the child isn't his; the child is the biological offspring of the cheating wife and her affair partner.

 

In the other thread, some posters thought that he is fee to walk away. Others thought that this seems very materialistic and selfish.

 

I invite posters to post their opinions. I hope we all agree that it is completely wrong for a woman to cheat, get pregnant, hide the affair and then pass of the child as her betrayed husband's.

 

The questions that concern me are:

 

*Is it right/wrong if the betrayed husband decides that he does not want to spend his hard earned money on the affair child?

 

A. No I really don't think so. It is not his biological child and there for not his responsibility.

 

B. Emotions being involved, I would hope that he bonded to the child and would want to continue to be involved. If that is the case then the right thing would be to make sure this child is taken care of including monetarily.

 

*Should this child inherit the husband's assets, including but not limited to family wealth, an inherited title (eg Duke/Count in Europe)?

(Please remember that under law, an inherited title can only be passed down to the eldest biological heir).

 

A. No again it is not his biological child.

 

B. If they are bonded and fathering is a verb not a noun to this man then yes the child so inherit.

 

*Should the husband stop loving this child?

 

A and B I would hope not in both cases.

 

*Should the paternal grandparents be informed that the child in question is not the husbands and therefore not their biological grandchild.

 

A and B If he is walking away then yes they should be informed. They can then make a choice as to whether or not they want to continue the relationship. But it at least it would explain why the husband is choosing to walk away.

 

*Should the husband be forced to invest his money and love in the affair child if he doesn't want to?

 

A and B No he shouldn't. I think that once paternity is determined then the biological father should foot the bill for present, future and past.

 

*Can the husband walk away from the child's life?

 

A and B If he wants to then it is his choice. I would hope that he bonded with the child, but I could totally understand how the child would bring anger and hurt. Not the child fault but it would.

 

*Would you call the husband 'selfish, materialistic, immoral and callous' is he decides to walk away?

 

No I wouldn't because no one knows what they would do until they are in the situation.

 

Remember, the time the husband and child have been misled, bonded and loved each other may also impact the husband's decision.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a controversial topic but I look forward to a spirited debate. Please refrain from personally targeting any poster and respect each other's right to post; we may not agree with each other's opinion but we should respect the right of each individual to form his/her own opinion.

 

See bolded.

[Scott Thomas]

Yes, in the states the courts put the needs of the child before the parental rights.

And it isn't for ethical purposes as much as it seems. It is to protect tax payers from supporting fatherless children. It's easier .

 

Not necessarily, to the best of my knowledge, a man had two years after the divorce to prove that the child is not his. If he does prove this, he does not have to pay alimony.

I've looked this up and came across:

 

1. Langston vs Locklear, No 117 September Term 1999, Maryland Court of Appeals.

 

2. USA vs Gloria Teneuvial Ward, No. DC, NO. 97-CR-122-001

The WW was convicted and spent 15 months in prison.

 

Go on paternityfraud.com and see the cases won against paternity fraud specifically in the US.

 

I thought the justice system was supposed to ensure justice, regardless of economic effects.

 

As Martin Luther King would say:

 

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

[GorillaTheater]

This thread isn't about the woman. It is about a man abandoning his child after a decade for "loving" his child.

 

The thread this was spun off from may have include that fact, but this one doesn't. Obviously no man worth his salt is going to stop loving a child he's raised that long, but it's an entirely different scenario if, say, the child hasn't been born yet. In that case, the choice to walk is relatively easy.

[lollipopspot]

I'd say since the WW did something that, if found out, could cause even severe mental anquish to the child, could be considered abuse.

 

Yeah, I said other than this event. However, while this may cause a child to resent their parent, it would not be normal or healthy for a younger child to completely cut off from their parent for that. It's an adult affair. They still know their mother as mother and father as father. They're dependent on the care and love they have come to expect (if it's been given) from their parents, that's what is primary for them.

[Confusion_Reigns]

Well, of course the dad could walk away, at any time really and for whatever reason, really. All's a crap shoot.

 

In this particular situation, I'd suspect that the "Dad" the one's who's been their for the child since day one wouldn't or couldn't just walk away from their child. Love for a child is about more than money....what would you do for your child?

 

I know a man who this happened to and he is raising this lil girl as his own. Everyone knows what happened, he's not with the bio mom anymore (for lots of reason other than infidelity) and everyone's happy. The lil girl (who's now not a child anymore) is a very happy, smart, loving young lady. The bio mom is still messed up, but she's trying to get herself better. The dad is remarried to a wonderful woman...and the lil girl still loves her bio mom.

 

I also know a lady who was broken up with her bf and got pregnant by another man...well, she got back together with her bf and he said he didn't want to know who the bio daddy was. That that baby was his no matter what and he would/is raising him like his very own son. She couldn't go that route and had the paternity tested, and yup it's the other guys baby. Well, lo and behold, the other guy is THRILLED to be a daddy and is stepping up for his son...the bf isn't thrilled but understood why the mom had to do the paternity testing...

[serial muse]

Not necessarily, to the best of my knowledge, a man had two years after the divorce to prove that the child is not his. If he does prove this, he does not have to pay alimony.

I've looked this up and came across:

 

1. Langston vs Locklear, No 117 September Term 1999, Maryland Court of Appeals.

 

2. USA vs Gloria Teneuvial Ward, No. DC, NO. 97-CR-122-001

The WW was convicted and spent 15 months in prison.

 

Go on paternityfraud.com and see the cases won against paternity fraud specifically in the US.

 

I thought the justice system was supposed to ensure justice, regardless of economic effects.

 

As Martin Luther King would say:

 

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

 

You asked in the OP whether a man should be "forced" to pay for a child not his...looking at it from this justice system standpoint, I guess I might argue for a kind of statute of limitations. I would certainly hope that, once the child has been in the man's life for some period of time (here you mention two years, for example; others have said four years) then a father-child bond would exist and the child would, for all intents and purposes, consider that man his/her father. It's heartbreaking to think that a person would be able to just walk away after that long. I mean, I understand the awful deception and the feeling of betrayal on the guy's part, directed at the woman. But at some point (and I don't know how one would define that exactly), I do think the bond becomes/should become a factor. It doesn't seem like it should be a black-and-white situation to me (as soon as the kid is proven not to be his, he's outta there like a ghost).

[lollipopspot]

I think a case could/should be made that by tricking a man into thinking children were his causes harm to the children, and the man who loves a child who isn't even his is the better parent for said child.

 

It would be impossible to decide who would be the better parent based on that one fact alone. Is the dad an alcoholic? Has he had his own affairs? Does he gamble all the money away? Does he keep everyone on eggshells because he yells and hits things when things don't go his way? Any number of things.

 

It may be a crappy thing, but there might be a lot of other crappy things going on in that house.

[serial muse]

I honestly don't think that anyone would have the right to tell him what he should or should not do nor feel. Yes, the child is an innocent and I'm sure it would be horrid for him/her, too, but I cannot even imagine being put in that situation myself. I would never assume to know what the best course of action would be.

 

I actually have an acquaintance who temporarily separated from her husband. During that separation, she had an A and a child was conceived from it. She and the husband reconciled (and he knew she was pregnant). The husband took the child on as his own, putting his name on the birth certificate (which you legally have to do in my state if you are married when a child is born, anyway). He raised him as his own. They are now divorced and he is NOW trying to disown this child so that he no longer has to pay child support or have visitation with him. THAT is pretty crappy, IMO and I'm not in agreement with that at all since this child has known him as dad since birth due to HIM knowingly and willingly taking on that role from day 1. I think the kid is 10 or so now.

 

Wow - OK, this is an awful, really nasty, situation. That poor, poor kid.