Man finds out he's not the father of 3 children. Yup you guess what happens next...

An even better option would be to let the woman get the support she needs. Stop all benefits she can receive and give her the bare minimum. Then tell her to get funds herself for the mess she created herself. It's amazing how courts don't let women face the consequences for their actions.

Here's a novel idea, how about their actual father? She's clearly didn't just meet him once since there are 3 kids. I know its a massive ask for her to actually remember his name, find him and all these other inconveniences, but I can't help feeling parents paying for their kids may be fairer than people who aren't their parents being forced via legal means to pay for someone else's kids.

The problem there, as other have said, is she won't be the only one facing the consequences of her actions. The children, who have done nothing wrong, will have to grow up with little money and no father. She should have to find the actual father and the two of them can pay for the little mess they created. The actual father is just a much to blame, he's got involved, ruined a relationship and then done a runner. He can pay to ensure his kids don't grow up to be delinquents. He should have to pay some kind of compensation IMO too, he owes the other guys years worth of payments.

And why should he be the one taking care of kids that are not his?

You don't think he should even be getting a refund from the mother for the years of deceit?

But why should he have to pay? He might not even have known she was pregnant. She might not even have known he was the father. (or them - there could be 3 of them after all, doesn't say anything about them having the same dad).

Neither of them should be forced to pay imo, neither of them 'chose' to be the father, the biological father(s) might not even be aware the children exist. It would be unfair on him/them too.

She might have lied to them too, the fault (from the situation described, obviously maybe the biological father(s) might have been more involved, have fault on them too etc, but idk details so can't judge) is all on her.

I said I wasn't arguing whether the whole thing was right or wrong, just that OP saying the money was a "reward for the woman" was wrong.

Perhaps because he has kids? They are biologically his, if someone has to pay he should be first, and last, in line. Even if he had known she was pregnant he'd still have had to pay. I can't even see how there is an argument here, you are equating a biological father and a guy who for all intents and purposes is a random man. He chose to be a father when he had sex without taking proper precautions, that's when he made his commitment. 3 times.

Cheating isn't a crime. And he was happy to admit that they were his children before the tests.

You'd think after all those years he might actually love the children who are innocent in the matter and feel like a parent and want to support them. Is it ok that his concern for them instantaneously disappeared when he found out that his sperm was not involved? One of them is his but it seems like his financial and ego centred concerns trump any child centred approach. They sound as bad as each other to me.

It wrong. They aren't his children and he should have no more legal commitment to pay for them than anyone else.

As for the people saying he should just love them anyway, in much the same way women who are raped often can't bear to keep their kids, just saying love them is pretty easy when they aren't a constant reminder of a something traumatic and hurtful. Its hard to move on from a painful event when you have a reminder staring you in the face everyday.

The problem with this is the guy who is the actual father is getting away with it. He's not caring or paying for his kids, so in lieu of that they have just turned and bent the nearest guy over a barrel. What should be happening is that guy is getting taken to court and sued for back payments, and the guy being released from commitments he didn't make.

Perhaps because he has kids? They are biologically his, if someone has to pay he should be first, and last, in line. Even if he had known she was pregnant he'd still have had to pay. I can't even see how there is an argument here, you are equating a biological father and a guy who for all intents and purposes is a random man. He chose to be a father when he had sex without taking proper precautions, that's when he made his commitment. 3 times.

Perhaps because he has kids? They are biologically his, if someone has to pay he should be first, and last, in line. Even if he had known she was pregnant he'd still have had to pay. I can't even see how there is an argument here, you are equating a biological father and a guy who for all intents and purposes is a random man. He chose to be a father when he had sex without taking proper precautions, that's when he made his commitment. 3 times.

I didn't say it should come from him...Did you even read the whole of my ****ing post?

Here, I'll pick it out for you:
"What should happen is that the man should be able to opt out of paying child support as he falsely believed they were his children."

Try reading the whole thing next time, okay?

Edit: If you're referring to "because the focus here is on the needs of the children: they're gonna need money for upkeep and it needs to come from somewhere, and they clearly think the 'best' " then that is not MY opinion i.e I think it should come from him, that's what I feel the SYSTEM believes. Hence the "they think is 'best'". I even quoted 'best' to show my disdain.

But, like I said, I don't see how he can not have developed a bond with his children and WANT to provide towards their upkeep; they're still his family even if they aren't blood. Perhaps not such a ridiculous chunk out of his budget; he should pay what he wants to pay.

Don't think we know enough about this story to say what "should" have happened. For all you know, the wife lied about her relationship to the man, had a one night stand with the real father in which a condom was used so the father thought nothing more of it. Would you still pursue the real father for back payments when he would have had no idea that he had to make payments in the first place?

How do you know the same guy is the father to all three of the children? Does it say it in the article?

We don't know what 'precautions' were taken. She might have lied to them and said she was on the pill. Like, we know she's a ****ty person because she cheated, what's to say she didn't lie to these men too? Obviously if he/they knew about and condoned (or at least didn't protest) the pregnancy, that's a different matter; of course they should pay. But if she tricked them like she did the guy in the article, then no.

I'd like to point out I've not even claimed anywhere that that man SHOULD pay child support. If you look at my original post, I actually said "What should happen is that the man should be able to opt out of paying child support as he falsely believed they were his children."

The thing that me and you differ on is that I just don't think 'having sex' should be a committment to parenthood, but you appear to, but I think this is sort of a separate issue and I'm not entirely sure why we're debating it lol.

(I mean if she was pregnant and he wanted her to get an abortion, but she said no shouldn't he have been able to "opt out" of parenthood? if the woman can (through abortion, adoption)? I think it's weird than women get the choice but men just get stuck with whatever women choose.)

Women who do this are utter scum. Feel so sorry for the guy. Ladies you try to pull this **** with a man, I have no sympathy for whatever consequences you'd face thereafter.

Have you heard of sperm bandits? Saw a documentary years ago that women were having PROTECTED sex with men then recovering the condom often freezing it then impregnating themselves and years later the man gets a child support bill and is forced to pay!