We are an immediate loan specialist in Eastlake, and we are quicker and more advantageous than run of the mill retail facade banks since we're based on the web and are open constantly. No compelling reason to sit tight for "ordinary business hours" or invest energy flying out to the store — our short application can be finished in not more than minutes. You can even apply from a cell phone while you're in a hurry!
We can loan up to $500 to Eastlake occupants, in view of qualifying elements. On the off chance that endorsed, your credit will be expected on your next payday that falls in the vicinity of 10 and 31 days after you get your advance. Nitty gritty data with respect to expenses and reimbursement is accessible on our Rates and Terms page. As you consider whether an advance is proper for your prompt needs, you ought to likewise investigate other subsidizing alternatives. A payday credit is a genuine budgetary duty, and not an answer for long haul issues. Getting from a companion of relative may be a superior alternative.
Did you know, at least in the state of MA...if a father agrees to sign the birth cert, then he is responsible for child support until the child is 24 even if he decides to have a DNA test done after the fact, and is NOT the real father! AND, he can not be taken off the birth certifate, and relieved of these obligations unless the REAL bio father steps up and chooses to have the issue resolved in court. Otherwise, non dad is stuck paying for non baby, no holds barred!
Here are the details: , m we were together for 2 years, living. terrible relationship. broke up, mutual. Both were seeing other people. Got back together after about 3 months. A short while later, IM pregnant. We both didnt ask or divulge who if anyone we were with. The timing, i didnt think, made sense for it to be guy I was seeing when we werent together. Broke up again during pregnancy for good. I was prepared to be a single mom. He chose to sign the birth cert, and I agreed as I thought he was the father. After months of him not paying, I decided to take him to court for child support (she was 8 mos old). At this time, he decided to take a home DNA test, came back he is not the father. I am having him taken off her Birth Cert. However, the paternity division of the local courthouse has read me the previous statement on requiring the bio dad to step up, and non bio dad paying til the child is 24 years old, if she goes to college.
Yes, there are many laws that make little sense and have little basis in rational thought. The one you refer to would appear to be one of them on the surface, but it is actually grounded in sound principle. I’ll try to elaborate, but I warn that I am not always succinct. The following should hopefully elaborate in detail, but I’ll summarize afterward. With issues of children, specifically custody, rearing and maintenance (CS) there are several (unofficial) cardinal laws that most of society accepts, the first of which are: 1. the needs of the children are paramount – these needs trump EVERYTHING 2. children are innocent parties to disputes, and 3. resources afforded children should not be diminished easily For natural parents, the legal assumption is that both parents are equally responsible for the rearing and maintenance of their children. This responsibility is an obligation of the natural parent, and as such it cannot be renounced or removed without consequence. Even in dispute, this responsibility remains in effect; though its execution may not always appear ‘equal’. Now, how does this affect the non-biological/step/assumed parent who signs onto the birth certificate? Simple, up to the point that document was signed onto the NB/S/AP held no obligation. Even in the event of marriage (after the fact) to the biological parent, the NB/S/AP does not automatically assume legal parental responsibility. It is the designation on the document that is the binding instrument in this case; and generally, it is then that the aforementioned rules apply to the NB/S/AP. The law assumes that the person signing does so in good faith and full knowledge of this; after all, caveat emptor, it is the signer’s duty to know what they are getting into. The confusion comes in because the NB/S/AP may view them self as doing a ‘favor’ on behalf of the biological parent or the child. Perhaps they view the act as a symbolic commitment, but in actuality, they are assuming the role and obligatory responsibilities of the BP. A birth certificate is a legal document. So why is the NB/S/AP be expected to pay child support? Again, simple, once the NB/S/AP knowingly or unknowingly assumes parental responsibility it becomes their obligation (not right) to fulfill. Referencing card. law 3 above, a person imbued with this responsibility, biological or not, cannot abdicate it without consequence. Mediocre summary To put this in perspective consider this analogy (advance apologies for the ensuing comparison): Your friend buys a car on credit, and you shortly after buy it from them. A year later you don’t want the car or can’t afford the payment, and decide to give it back to your friend. At the start, you had two options: 1. assume the payment and send checks to your friend, or 2. finance it yourself by obtaining a separate loan If you chose option 1, you could return the car without issue; you signed nothing, and the car is rightfully your friend’s sole responsibility. But, if you chose option 2, you are on the hook regardless of what you want to do – unless someone else does a similar ‘option 2’; no finance company will let you walk away from your obligation to them, one which you chose to take. This is essentially the choice a NB/S/AP has, and the results to be expected. Now, I am a father, both biological and non-biological. I am currently involved in a heated custody battle for my BC, and proudly pay child support while I fight for my two children. I also have two stepchildren. I am also a member of F4J-US in NC. Please forgive the tone of this part; my feelings are not as hostile as this probably reads. I tried to figure out how to make my point without the finger-in-your-face connotations. In light of your question and my circumstances, the last statement kind of struck me wrong, particularly “…non dad is stuck paying for non baby...” When my fight is over for my BC, I intend to fight for my stepdaughter as well. My stepson is more bonded with grandma where he lives; my stepdaughter however has bonded to me. My wife is irresponsible, and my stepdaughter would prefer and be best served by living with me. I am not legally obligated to either of them, but from day one I accepted it. They are stilled insured through me, and I call them and send them gifts. If a ‘non-dad’ isn’t prepared to take this responsibility he has no business putting his name on the birth certificate of ‘non-baby’, even if he assumes he is the biological father. Any father who takes it upon himself to put his name on the birth certificate has no business subsequently wanting a paternity test to abandon the responsibility they chose; they had the choice to either accept them as their child or not, biological otherwise. In my state, if your name is not on the birth cert. mom has to prove you are the BP, it’s not assumed. Sincerely hope this helps.
First, I am not a registered attorney and am not sure of ohio law. However, I do know of a legal case where a man agreed to pay child support (signing a birth certificate is acknowledging a child) and thus became the putative father of the child Later on he and the mother separated or divorced and he had to pay child support. Now in most states the age of majority is 18 not 24, but I can't speak to the age of majority in MA, but I rather doubt it would be 24. Even if not 18, it would be 21. Perhaps you are thinking of a kid going to college, but unless a person agrees to pay college, most states will not require the person to pay for college. However, I did see one case not too long ago among a wealthy family where he was required to pay for college. I was surprised as when I was divorcing I was told that the courts would not make my husband help pay for college. That was Ohio. So I guess it is going to depend on the state and also depend on the income of the parents and the expectations that might accrue because of the wealth of parents and the standard of living. If you are the "father" you need legal counsel, but I believe you may have waived any rebuttal by signing the birth certificate. You could have had a DNA test at the time. If a man adopts kids, he has obligation of child support as well and no question of that. So you need to check your state for the age of majority and also to check with an attorney to see about the situation, but my personal, not legal, opinion is that the man is responsible until the age of majority. I don't know how it would be affected if the biological father came back unless he "adopted" the children or went to court to straighten it out and more or less took responsibility.
This is why one should never voluntarily assume responsibility for a child without knowing whether or not it is his By taking responsibility for the child, the person discourages the mother from pursuing the natural father and obtaining financial support and a relationship with the natural father for the child.
Don't matter if he was or wasn't the sperm donar of the said child if he signed the certicifcate then he is signing saying he's entrusted to make sure the child is taken care of... But until there 24??? thats odd.. I thought that it was until they were 18 or until they got out of college???
It doesnt matter. dont sign the birth certificate if u aint tha real daddy. thats just common sense. so according to law and records, the name on birth certificate is the REAL dad
That woman should be punished for entrapment and the non dad should be taken off the birth certificate immediately. This is government sponsored fraud, in my opinion.
Wow, talk about stupid laws. It sometimes seems women don't want equal rights, they want to be the only ones with ANY rights at all. Fathers For Justice, indeed!
Well, YOU signed the thing. It's called "voluntary assumption of liability". And the kid shouldn't have to pay the price because you now have second thoughts.
I don't agree with this, but Massachusetts is a stupid state anyway.