No, only the biological parents pay for their children.
The Houdinis were childless.
Until they become adults, minors are the responsibility of the parents. This can change with emancipation or marriage.
Depending on the culture one lives in, the question becomes, "what is the definition of marriage?". If the sole purpose of the marriage is progeny, then the marriage is doomed from the start if there are no children. By most cultures's standards, marriage is a contract between two people for the conservation of assets. While this is a rather bald and cold definition, it is a true statement. Children are essentially a byproduct of the contract as a result of a mutually exclusive sexual agreement. Being childless, while heartbreaking, is not the primary reason to be married. In this answerer's opinion, the reason to be married is because one finds mutual respect, joy, and satisfaction between two people and only those two. This condition is called "love" and has nothing to do with progeny. When this condition occurs, it is rare, wonderful, and totally satisfying to the two people concerned. A childless marriage can be a wonderful and fullfilling institution as long as both parties know from the outset that the possibility is there. It is important to explore the possibility during premarital counciling so that both parties understand the implications and can live with them. One's expectations are quite frequently different from the reality of the situation. If the marriage is barren and the couple find the marriage fullfilling, then the classic adoption option is available and resolves the issue of children quite well. Fostering children is another option, as is surrogacy. Yes, a childless marriage is a totally viable relationship.
Not unless the spouse signed the debt paperwork. However, will they chase one spouse to get to the other spouse, yes they will.
Yes, the Giver is married. His wife was sent to live with the Childless Adults.
The biological mother and the biological father. A spouse is not financially responsible for a child born of an affair outside of the marriage unless he/she chooses to take such responsibility. well actually in some states a child of a marriage is a child of the marriage and you will have to go to court and have your husband tested and then it is up to the judge if you can pursue the other man im going through it now in the state of VA
Are you asking if your previous husband ought to be legally responsible for supporting your children by your new husband?
He did not. Wayne married three times, all were childless until their marriage to Wayne.
No. But, the child/children of the deceased may have a claim to assets of their father's estate.
no nobody is responsible
Not if the mother is in the childern's lives. If you married the father then the children cme along too, you are now the step-mother and have to take that responsibility if it is given to you.
As a rule, parents are financially responsible for their biological children only not step children unless those children have been legally adopted by the new spouse. There have been exceptions however. Courts have ruled in favor of the custodial biological parent pertaining to financial support of such children if the marriage was valid for a lengthy time. (The definition of lengthy being left to the court's discretion.) The premise being, the non biological parent voluntarily accepted responsibility for the care of the children in question by entering into the marriage.