Comments about ‘Mom can end stepfather's visits’

It only makes sense that if a man sires a child outside of wedlock and has to establish his paternity in order to claim parental rights (among them visitation) that a non-biological parent (eg-stepparent) doesn't have parental rights in regards to children that they have not legally adopted or have been awarded guardianship over. It bothers me that the courts have had the power to determine what is in the best interest of the child and use that interpretation to award visitation rights, etc. While there might be the occasional situation where the parent(s) lack the capacity to make appropriate decisions on behalf of their child (eg-drug addiction or severe mental problems), in most cases the individuals who have reared the child will have an exponentially greater understanding of their specific needs than will a court/judge who has reviewed a file and is acting on the advice of a social worker. While the man in this article will suffer an unexpected consequence of his divorce, similar grief is experienced daily by men who have been unfairly denied access to their children by their exes, supported by a court system that favors the mother.

My only complaint is if you dont have the right of visitation for the child then you should not have the responsibility of child support for the child either.

How is it that the step parent can be made to pay child support for a child they no longer have any legal right to influence or decide for, and especially when they have no right of visitation.

How does this make sense?

The biological parent can accept the money, but not the presence - what a hypocritical bunch of nonsense!

If a step-parent is essentially forced out of the life of a child by the biological parent, then how can the bio-parent accept money in clear conscience?

This is just another example of the law run-a-muck, with rulings made for political reasons, and no "horse sense" what so ever.

If the parent doesn't want the step-parent in the child's life, then they should be willing to accept the consequences of that belief, and the actions taken to support it, i.e. no child support.

This is effectively government extortion - payments made to satisfy an agency that provide no benefit to you, but if you refuse you can be punished for non-compliance. Ugh! What a mess!

Obviously the court doesn't understand the defiition of "parent". & to call this man a "non parent" is most unfortunate to the child he's helped raise. The Jones v Barlow case poses the same kind of loss.
To a child, a marriage doesn't make a parent. Nor does biology.

If a stepfather has real interest in becoming a child's father then there is always the adoption system available. But there is possibility the mother blocked any attempts for him to adopt.

Another point made is true, if a stepfather has no parental rights then he is not bound by any child support laws.

Then what about the daughter? What was her choice in the matter? If she is old enough she can always go visit him and he would not be breaking the law. Or does a divorce and child custody laws say that children cannot visit or associate with non biological parents? Does the father figure have to call the police and file a restraining order on the child he may love?

If this man must pay child support and the courts say he is not the father then why should he pay any child support if one law says he must and another says he doesn't have to?

Child services have a vested financial interest as they get fees from child support payments so they twist the laws for their monetary gains.

I agree with Non Parent? 9:31. The one who is going to pay the most for this ridiculous ruling is the child. A child needs it's father, whether biological or not.

Hey you lawyers in the crowd, does a stepparent really have to pay child support? I was actually in favor of this ruling, but not if stepparents have to pay child support. You can't make someone pay to support a child that they're not allowed to visit.

step-parents have no responsibility to pay child support - that would be the responsibility of the biological parent.

As a step-parent, I am horrified to hear of this ruling. I have expressed to my husband that if anything were to happen to him, I would have NO RIGHTS to his three children that I have been helping raise for the past 6 years and who have been in our home more than half of the time. I am supposed to love them, cherish them, help them and guide them, yet in an instant, I could lose any and all contact with them. There has to be a better way.

sometimes anger makes people lose their abililty to use their brains. this ruling is terrible. that poor man, who spent years becoming her dad in every way except biological. the mom should be ashamed of herself. VERY ashamed. her selfishness is going to cost her child big. her win means nothing in the larger scheme of life. what an idiot!!

Utah courts can and do order step-parents to pay support, they even say you married into that pre-made family thus you are responsible for the childrens support even tho they aren't yours. I've even seen them order the step-parent provide medical coverage after the marriage is over.

Boy, that is one messed-up law.

I feel so sorry for the child, and also the step-father. They will both miss out on so much just because the biological parent wants to hurt her ex.

Hope she's proud of herself.

I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea what the law is, but I would imagine that if the biological parent passed away, the courts wouldn't have the right to withdraw visitation right of the step-parent. That situation is different than this case b/c the biological parent is actually requesting that the step-parent have no visitation rights.

In any event, I believe that a Last Will and Testament by the biological parent could grant future visitation rights to the step-parent in case the biological parent dies. That would solve that problem.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so who knows if what I'm saying is true.

For my 2 cents, have a Pre-nupal agreement drawn up, stating the rights should the marragie go south.
If these we me, I would refuse to pay, and become a dead beat step day. Drop my job and become a day laborer some where many states away.

We all know this doesn't make sense... to pay but not have rights to visitation... etc.

With that said...
WHAT AN EVIL WITCH!

May her child know the truth later in life. This is a huge something and her parental rights should be called into question, as she obviously doesn't have her OWN child's best interest at heart.

I am sick of people using children, their own children as pawns in divorce. Grow up before you reproduce.

God is watching.

This is one of my greatest fears...if I were to pass away, I absolutely know for a fact that my son's biological father would never let my husband see our son again. Ever.

It terrifies me as my husband has been a constant father figure in his life since he was a tiny baby and his biological father has had limited contact and interaction with him.

Will or no will, this latest ruling clearly demonstrates that the biological parent's choice trumps all in these cases in UT.

can anyone help with this?
what about the stepparent rights of a woman married to a man who fathered a child with another woman? he pays child support and gets visitation but since they don't live together (altho married) the child has only met her once as an infant. ( no bonding, only the legal step parent relationship) Could that step parent insist on seeing the child or being a part of daily life?)What is a step parent entitled to?