The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by Kibalchich
Rubbish. He loved the kids as his own. They will have formed attachments with him, he will have cared for them, loved them. To then dump them for something that is not their fault is the mark of a scumbag.


Not at all. He showed how willing he was as a dad to care for them. It's not his fault that his wife turned out to be a whore and he was lied to for 16 years.

You're using the children as emotionsal tools as to why the father still has to be obligate his duties to them. The father is logically absolutely correct. He took care of the children on the terms that they were his. He has found out that they aren't. So therefore the terms of his obligations have been broken and hence he has no obligations to them.
Going to sue all my form-teachers as soon as I leave secondary school. Can't wait to get past Uni's first year "Mommy/Daddy" scheme! They can't just leave me emotionally distraught...:rolleyes:
Reply 62
Original post by Kibalchich
They are his to all intents and purposes. Think about it from the kids pov.


Really? Dont you think the kids will think of him differently when mum tells them his not their "real dad" ? What about the emotional well being of the man and his civils right, why should the state descide whether another peson has to play a role in a childs life based on the fact they once shared an "emotional connection"
Reply 63
Original post by Kibalchich
Emotional attachment does have a biological basis


What? I'm not talking about neurology or how the brain operates. The basis of his legal and financial responsibility should stem from his biological attachment to those children. If that wasn't the case, we would be financially responsible for any person we grow attached at some point or another in our life.

He has a moral responsibility to those kids.


No he doesn't, that solely belongs with their biological father. He may keep in contact out of his own volition but in no should he be forced to compensate something that isn't his.
Reply 64
Original post by Ultimate1
Not at all. He showed how willing he was as a dad to care for them. It's not his fault that his wife turned out to be a whore and he was lied to for 16 years.

You're using the children as emotionsal tools as to why the father still has to be obligate his duties to them. The father is logically absolutely correct. He took care of the children on the terms that they were his. He has found out that they aren't. So therefore the terms of his obligations have been broken and hence he has no obligations to them.


Yes, being a dad is about emotions. Its emotional. I'm guessing you're not a parent.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
I'm surprised that (at the point I'm writing this), this post has got 26 neg reps and no pos reps. What The Duck has said is right as other posters have said. I am guessing the negs are because he said cheating isn't a crime, and its true. You can pass moral judgement on a cheat but its not a criminal offence.
He's probably been negged as he said "And he was happy to admit that they were his children before the tests", it wasn't really an admission, it was just faith. As Ultimate said, they guy is effectively being punished for being a decent person. The way he could have avoided all this was not to be happy and not to "admit" the kids were his. Had he flat out denied they were his, refused to sign a birth certificate, and forced a paternity test at birth, justice would have been served. Sounds like a nice system which helps form healthy relationships when a child is born. I don't think anyone is suggesting cheating is a crime.
Reply 66
Original post by 2ndClass
What? I'm not talking about neurology or how the brain operates.


Well you should be. This should be about the wellbeing of the kids. To them, he is their dad.

Original post by 2ndClass
The basis of his legal and financial responsibility should stem from his biological attachment to those children.


Those kids will be biologically attached to him.

Original post by 2ndClass
If that wasn't the case, we would be financially responsible for any person we grow attached at some point or another in our life.


No. Attachment in kids forms the basis of our later mental health and emotional resilience. Adult attachments are not the same, although they do depend in large part on our attachment experiences in infancy. Go read about Bowlby and attachment, Ainsworth and the strange situation experiment etc

Original post by 2ndClass
No he doesn't, that solely belongs with their biological father. He may keep in contact out of his own volition but in no should he be forced to compensate something that isn't his.


He is their father to all intents and purposes.
Reply 67
Original post by Kibalchich
Yes, being a dad is about emotions. Its emotional. I'm guessing you're not a parent.


Logic prevails over emotion. Always.

Anyway it's the mum's fault and I'm sure the children will see it that way when they grow up. Hopefully they learn of her stupidity and undignified behaviour.
Reply 68
Original post by akash11
Really? Dont you think the kids will think of him differently when mum tells them his not their "real dad" ? What about the emotional well being of the man and his civils right, why should the state descide whether another peson has to play a role in a childs life based on the fact they once shared an "emotional connection"


The kids will see him a little differently, yes. But do you think that emotional attachment will be entirely destroyed? Really?
Reply 69
Original post by Ultimate1
Logic prevails over emotion. Always.

I was right, you're not a parent.
Reply 70
Read that an estimated 10-30 percent of "fathers" are raising children that aren't theirs.

Jesus Christ that is a disgrace.

I think it's time for mandatory DNA tests at this rate in the very near future.
Reply 71
Original post by Ultimate1
Read that an estimated 10-30 percent of "fathers" are raising children that aren't theirs.

Jesus Christ that is a disgrace.

I think it's time for mandatory DNA tests at this rate in the very near future.


jesus H christ :facepalm:
Reply 72
Original post by Kibalchich
I was right, you're not a parent.

And neither do I intend on ever being one with the current laws which are clearly biased towards men.
Reply 73
Original post by Ultimate1
And neither do I intend on ever being one with the current laws which are clearly biased towards men.


With that attitude, I doubt you'll get the chance.
Reply 74
Original post by Kibalchich
With that attitude, I doubt you'll get the chance.

:confused:
Original post by Ultimate1
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.


Yeah and it wouldn't just be the woman facing the consequences, it would be the children. They're the only ones I actually feel sorry for, in all honesty.
At the end of the day- yeah, it sucks for him. I feel for the guy. But it shouldn't be about him. The youngest child is nine, been part of these children's lives for all their life and feels like a father to them even if he isn't biologically. Fight for custody my friend.
Original post by Ultimate1
Read that an estimated 10-30 percent of "fathers" are raising children that aren't theirs.

Jesus Christ that is a disgrace.

I think it's time for mandatory DNA tests at this rate in the very near future.


Relationships are supposed to be about trust and love. Yes, that is a huge percentage- but less than half of the people in the world. What about the other 70% who are honest and loving towards their partners. That wouldn't be fair- and personally, if anyone ever asked me- they would have a pair of Size 8s up their hine.
Reply 78
Original post by belligerent ghoul
Yeah and it wouldn't just be the woman facing the consequences, it would be the children. They're the only ones I actually feel sorry for, in all honesty.


To be honest if she can't pay for the children, considering her actions, and if the father doesn't want the childreb they should be taken by her.
Reply 79
I just feel sorry for the children.

I have extreme sympathy for the man as well who has to pay for children he did not father but in all honesty, the children are going to be hit the hardest if he did not pay.

It's all well and good to be talking 'logically' and 'hypothetically' on this thread, but life is not as black and white as it appears to be./

Quick Reply

Latest