Posted on 11/29/2002 7:08:00 AM PST by Balto_Boy
On Friday, Nebraska's highest court ruled that a man whose ex-wife may have lied to him about being the father of their child cannot sue the woman for fraud and emotional distress. Why not?
IN ANY other realm of the law this would be a classic case of fraud. Robert Day had already been divorced from his wife for six years when he realized he was out of town when she conceived. A DNA test proved with 100 percent certainty that Adam wasn't his. Well Robert Day alleged that mom lied about her due date to fool him.
He had paid child support, medical expenses and even half of his wife's employment-related daycare costs after their divorce. She's since remarried. The court cited a number of psychological studies about the importance of parents bonding with children and held "In effect Robert is saying he's not my son. I want my money back" and that the lawsuit "Has the effect of saying I wish you'd never been born to a child."
No, it says "You lied to me, I want my money back," and the lawsuit has the effect of saying "I wish you hadn't lied and now hope you'll go after the real father for the money you snookered me from me." Look, these cases are difficult and different. If the result would be that the child would suddenly go hungry or lose his home, those special circumstances should matter, but that should be the exception.
The court's opinion focuses solely on public policy. How is it good public policy to encourage a philandering woman to lie? Why shouldn't she at least have to seek out the real father to make him pay?
Yeah, they're out there alright: 5ft 2in tall, 350lbs, drop dead ugly.
I guess we can't have everything.
Maybe you have comprehension issues?
Case not closed. If you are not the biological parent, the kid is not yours.
Since that's when child support begins, maybe the man should be required to sign the birth certificate or a DNA test gets done on all the possibilities.
You are absolutely correct. Does anybody need to wonder why families are going down the tubes? Too much is stacked against men. Only a fool would get married today. Later in life is even worse, especially if you have tangible assets, which a divorce will liquidate.
That is exactly what happens now. No man has to sign the birth certificate, even though he will be pressured to do so, if he shows up at the hospital. If the man refuses, there is nothing a woman can do, other than sue the man for support claiming parentage.
It is when the man doesnt know about the court date, and doesnt show up, that the woman recieves a default judgement against him, and then he is screwed. He must go to court and demand paternity tests. Only when they come back negative is he off the hook.
The point is; Fraud-committing mothers and Courts dont want paternity proven, they want it implied so that it can be assigned without delay. (for-the-children) Men should demand paternity tests ALWAYS no matter the harm it might do to the relationship. Better to spare relationships by making DNA tests mandatory. Courts and legislators are against this, because it will open a pandora's box that they would rather keep closed.
The "Child & Mother Thought-Police" here on this forum will get you for that. LOL!
Slightly uncomfortable for a few years? Go back on your meds, lady
We need to do it for the children - hillary clinton
Name me another contract that can be voided by either party without consent, without fault, and without damages.
It is in effect a manifesto, the death warrant for the Divine Right of Kings, and a declaration that Judeo-Christian principles of equity and fair play had supplanted them. Combined with the Declaration of Independence, these two documents, second only to the Bible, ordained Novus Ordo Seclorum, a "New Order of Nature."
It doesn't get much more social than that.
"This Court has held that once a State posits a judicially enforceable right of children to support from their natural fathers, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State from denying that same right to illegitimate children. Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)."
Says you. All the girls I meet seem to fall into one of three catagories. Party girls that just want to have fun, career girls who aren't much interested in marriage let alone kids, or girls who are butt ugly. BTW, what is a straight edge girl?
these are two phenotypes which converge at age 32-35, with the cry, "Hello, men! I'm ready!!!.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.