Father pays to rear a girl who, unknown to him, is not his biological daughter. Connecticut Supreme Court rules that he can proceed with a lawsuit demanding that the bio-father pay him half what it cost to rear her.

Psygnosis · 2012-02-03T16:13:10+00:00

"...the idea of repayment raises complicated questions about what’s best for the child caught in the middle..."

How is the cuckolded husband seeking his rightful compensation affect the child in any way? It seems like a tenuous link at best to try to make it seem that men seeking redress are hurting children (i.e. and should not be allowed). Or maybe I'm feeling grouchy this morning.

Bobsutan · 2012-02-03T05:28:30+00:00

As it should be. Plus the mom in jail for fraud.

JeremiahMRA · 2012-02-03T02:41:10+00:00

The bitch should pay.

rtft · 2012-02-03T14:39:11+00:00

The question here is whether the bio father new for certain that this was his daughter or whether he just suspected it. If he knew, he should pay half of the rearing costs as he was part of the fraud. If he didn't ,then the mother should be responsible for all of the costs in my opinion as she was the one who defrauded both men. As this is a case which no longer needs to take the best interest of the child into account as she is an adult, this should be decided on equitability alone.

AyeMatey · 2012-02-03T01:21:08+00:00

First reaction to hearing this is - you're damn straight. I have this idea that fathers get ripped off in child support demands.

But wait - he's suing... another man. I don't think this necessarily supports men's rights or father's rights.

There's no resolution to the original case; the ruling here just says that the man can proceed with his lawsuit.

If the case is decided that the other man owes a debt to the resident father, it's possible (Depending on the details of the case) that men's/father's rights will have lost again. I think it's wrong to establish responsibility for a man, retroactively, for the costs of rearing a child who is now 19 years old. Why is it the MAN's responsibility? Is there any evidence that the biological father knew of the daughter's existence?

I guess all these details will come out in the forthcoming case.

Not knowing the details .... won't stop me from commenting. It seems to me that if the man paid to rear the child, that was his decision. If later he determines the child was not his biological child, that is a matter between him and the child's mother. She has defrauded him; it may be that the other man was involved in a "conspiracy" to defraud him, and maybe not.

Whether there is a financial debt to be repaid depends on the relationship between the resident father and mother. If in fact the father was paying child support to the mother, then he ought to be suing the mother for reimbursement, and damages.

If the father was paying to have the child in his own home, that is his sunk cost. After 19 years I don't believe the genes are what is at issue here. That may be an unpopular opinion here, but there's got to be a statute of limitations.

Comments