SS, i was reading in Time magazine an article about that situation. Get this, the mom died, the biological father got custody, and the other dad had to pay child support still because he had divorced the mom prior to her death.

as far as this case, i would be surprised to find that he didn't leave his estate to the children anyhow. it would appear he had no other children and the point is moot except that the one lady is trying to not have to pay so much herself.

Nuts!!!

whether he left the estate to these kids or not really doesn't matter; if, like any other guy "found" to be legally responsible for a child, he is responsible for child support in quasi-contract law (equity/fairness), the state will make his estate pay the obligation.

right, but Ron if you read the article it really is about the older lesbian not wanting to pay, more so then his unwillingness to pay.

i read the article, x. the point about quasi-contract law was that the bio father effectively held himself out as a caregiver as well; he has become such a part of the childrens' lives that he effectively became a legal parent as well as a biological one. check out the first thing i posted in this thread, x.

i understand that aspect of it, but the court ruled that he should pay based on the fact that he had been helping, if he was involved but didn't pay would they have found differently? And does anybody need to receive child support from two sources? do they let older lesbian off? The child support system in this country is the most ridiculous thing in the world. You have people paying as much in child support per month as I make annually and somehow its justified?

You also have people paying $85 a month and there is no way you can raise a child on that..........it's based on income, not the reality of raising a child. Ridiculous. I agree with you - the system sucks.

I agree. At the high end of the income scale it's like extortion -- a set percentage even if that's far in excess of what it takes to raise the child. At the low end of the income scale, women are getting little or nothing.

first, i didn't see the case so i don't know exactly what the court decided. but yes, if his involvment in their lives was not of a financial nature, he probably wouldn't have to pay child support.

Two thoughts:

The older broad that go this started: Disgusting...you wanted these kids, or agreed to have them, quit trying to weasel out of your obligation as a parent. Very tacky and self-centered.

To the dead guy: Sounds like you played daddy from the start, by having a very personal helping hand in the insemination alone, and then playing daddy along the way...voluntarily. He made this bed himself. I can see where he committed himself financially from the start. I still think this is profiterring on the unfit mommy's part, but it may be reasonable.

If the dead guy or his estate never intended to be financially responsible in the first place, this should have been sealed and blessed with a lawyer and contracts in the first place. Since it wasn't, you can only follow the financially and emotional history that the parties have set forth. Hence the ruling at their feet now.

Amen, bbsgrant!

I got the impression from the article that one of the reasons they are doing this is to attempt to collect social security survivor benefits for the kids. The social security system sure doesn't need that kind of drain.