The Judge opens by confirming the ask: is this woman requesting that the court order her former boyfriend to pay child support? She says yes, Your Honor, and that he ought to take responsibility. Then comes the follow-up about whose child is in question, and she identifies the child as her own. Is the former boyfriend the biological father? No, she answers, though they were together when she got pregnant. The Judge pauses at that. She adds that they were dating at the time and that she believes he should help raise the child. Did he father the child, the Judge presses. She admits she does not know who the father is. So the Judge puts it back to her: the father is unknown, but the person she wants paying is not? She leans on the fact that he was her boyfriend and that she expected him to be there for her. The Judge draws the line: a boyfriend is not automatically a father. Did the man agree to adopt the child? No. Did he sign anything legally binding that accepted parental responsibility? No, but she thought he would stand by her. Standing by someone and being legally responsible for a child are two entirely different things, the Judge says. You cannot walk into this courtroom and nominate your ex-boyfriend as the father because the biological father is unknown. She asks whether that means he has no responsibility at all. The answer is that a legal basis for that responsibility has to be established. A relationship is not a paternity test, ma'am. She says she needs financial support. The Judge says he understands that, but the court cannot turn her former boyfriend into a father just because the actual father is unknown. She calls it unfair. The Judge answers that what is unfair is expecting someone to pay for a child he did not father, without a legal basis. Court is adjourned.