Paternity Fraud: Should it become illegal, for deceived dads' $ake? (my title)

The Washington Post ^ | October 14th, 2002 | Robert E. Pierre

[CobaltBlue]

It really depends on the circumstances, and the particular state laws.

In the case I mentioned, the father signed an acknowledgement of paternity and an acknowledgement that he owed the support, under oath.

Many years later he married a woman who forced him to take a paternity test, and it turned out that the child wasn't his after all. This is a not uncommon situation, for a new woman in a man's life to form the impetus for testing.

The way the law is structured now, he'd be out of luck, as the statutes now say that an administrative order has the same effect as a court order if not appealed, but there is a longer time to appeal.

But at the time this happened, the law did not provide this.

[CobaltBlue]

However, the sample of men getting paternity tests is skewed, I would submit, by men who don't think the kid is theirs, probably for good reasons.

[CobaltBlue]

No, when the government does nothing, that's not government intrusion at all.

I believe in minimal government, not the nanny state.

If you are unfortunate enough to get into a relationship with a woman who cheats on you, that's no reason to make the rest of the country take paternity tests.

[arthurus]

If entrapment defenses shouldn't apply in this scenario, why can they still apply in other ones?

See reply #22.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>No, when the government does nothing, that's not government intrusion at all. I believe in minimal government, not the nanny state. If you are unfortunate enough to get into a relationship with a woman who cheats on you, that's no reason to make the rest of the country take paternity tests.<<<


But in the case of paternity fraud, the government IS doing something...coercing deceived dads into paying twice (first with their broken hearts, then with their wallets even to the detriment of future opportunities to actually have their own kids whom they could support).

[quietolong]

bump

[US-CAPF Director]

The relationship should be voluntary not court mandated. Since I have not heard of many judges willing to enforce visitation or custody time, there is little incentive for a paternity fraud victim to remain under a court order.

The child and the man deserve to know the truth for medical, social, financial and spiritual reasons. Sometimes the duped male wants nothing but freedom to live his life unhindered by the fraud mom.

Sometimes, men want to continue a relationship with the child -- but not under a "pay or go to jail" court order.

Interesting enough, it is the child's mother that stops all access and contact with the child upon proof of non-paternity. In some cases, the mother went to great lengths to avoid getting the child tested including denial of visitation.

A recent contact to my group, the alleged father has asked for and got a court order for paternity test -- the mother refuses to bring the child to the collection facility (three appts). The court has refused to hold mother in contempt then issued a default order of paternity.

I think the best compromise would be to mandate financial support from the biological mother and biological father.

They had their fun, let them have the responsibility.

A good question, would this problem exist if women were ordered to pay child support for another woman's child?

Equal rights
Hmmm ....

[fooman]

Right.

And this proves my point about men being used as call options. Since women have overwhelming power in the courts men lose. Period.

Of course, in this case we have competing interests over the call option. How ironic.

I was out with some colleages last Sat night and the women involved (all chicago mba's) admitted that they harbored the double standard that if they were working, thier husbands had to be working too.

I wanted to point out that they had brazenly established that double standards were ok, but I decided not to start war.

This just porves that men shoudl wisen up.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>A good question, would this problem exist if women were ordered to pay child support for another woman's child?

Equal rights
Hmmm ....<<<


Interesting question!

[Slip18]

"A man's sleeping with a gal friend just once because she got him drunk at some dinner she invited him to while the wife was out of town, and she subsequently caught him during a shamefully weak moment . . ."

Say what?

[End The Hypocrisy]

You don't think it happens?

[BearCub]

If husbands require wives to have paternity tests for all children, it will have a very harmful effect on the good relationships, IMO

The paternity test can be done without mom's knowledge or consent. It only requires samples from baby and alleged dad. The results would only be an issue if dad wasn't dad, in which case there would be larger issues to deal with.

[BearCub]

If you want a test, the court will order it, and if the man is not the father, make the mother pay for it, otherwise, the father pays for it.

No. If the man is not the father, mom pays for the test. If the man is the father, the test costs should be split by mom and dad.

[Mr. K]

What does the law or common sense have to do with paternity cases? The woman gets the children, whoever she picks as her victim pays support.

I am in the middle of a case where my ex wife had NO witnesses on her behalf.

On my side I had the courts own child custody evaluation where the doctor recommended that not only should me (the father) have SOLE custody, but the mother should not even be allowed overnight visitation until she recieved psychiatric care.

Along with 24 witnesses against her...

AND the mother filing FALSE assault charges against me during the trial (later proven to be false, and she was charged). The kids began living with me at that point.

AND her children (from four previous fathers) being taken away from her in the past by CPS for child abuse and neglect...

AND one of my children hospitalized DURING THE TRIAL for neglect, while in her care for a 4 day weekend visitation.

AND documented evidence from the school system that the children had dramaticallly improved in speaking and other abilities after being placed in my care...

END RESULT: New York State Supreme Court Judge John O'Donnell took them away from me and gave SOLE custody back to the mother, forced me to pay her $1,800 a month child support which forced me into bankruptcy thereby destroying over $1 million in investments that would have guaranteed their college education and financial future.

[BearCub]

Having sex with a woman is an offer to support her child.

What a load of bullsh!t. Having sex with a woman is an offer to support a child that results from that sex act. It is not a blanket offer to support the results of any other relationship she engages in.

[RogerFGay]

Articles on paternity fraud are important in dealing with a problem that has profound affects on a large number of people. I felt that Robert E. Pierre's Oct. 14 article, "States Consider Laws Against Paternity Fraud" was informative. Two things however made the article less than totally accurate and objective.

First; State laws that block elimination of child support orders in response to proof that a man is not the father do not have their basis in "500-year-old doctrine in English common law designed to spare children in medieval England from being labeled as illegitimate." As far as I know, that rumor was started by Bill O'Reilly on his show. The origin of the laws that block correcting child support orders is federal regulation of child support for the sake of the child support industry. See;

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay100302.htm

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091802.htm

Second; It is less than objective to refer to those who support the status quo as "children advocates" and those pointing out the obvious absurdity of the law "men with a personal grievance." Although certainly, men who are forced to pay for children who are not theirs are complaining, their complaint is the same as taxpayers who favored child support enforcement. They don't want to pay for someone else's children. The concept is widely supported. And who's in favor of fraud? Most of the people who support the status quo are not children's advocates, but people who profit from child support. They often pretend to be advocating for children to hide their greed and self-interest.

[pyx]

I am female, and a proud feminist

ugh...Thanks for the warning.

[ijcr]

How many people marry their half- sister or half-brother?

How many preventable medical conditions can be pre-empted with knowledge of a true family history?

It's for the children's sake that we need a national law.

[longtermmemmory]

My understanding in California the DNA test would not matter regardless of the result. If the woman cheats and has a child the husband will still be forced to pay.

I would like to see more men go after the mother for fraud.

[End The Hypocrisy]

I guess judges are elected up in New York, and the pro paternity fraud groups are more politically effective, either with get out the vote drives, contributions, or media relations? Either way, your story is VERY sad, and the outcome seems flagrantly unjust.