Why men should be able to sue women who lie about who's the daddy

JWR ^ | Nov. 27 , 2002 / 22 Kislev, 5763 | Dan Abrams

[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?

[agarrett]

This wouldn't work. Two people cannot conspire to take away the rights of a third (the newborn). The child is entitled to financial support.

  You know, I've heard this before - on these boards - and still don't quite get it. How exactly is the child "entitled" to support?

  Now, let me interject first. I believe that any decent parents provide everything they can for their children (short of spoiling - lets not go into an argument of how much is too much...) I hate seeing deprived children, and give money to charities that help them - also right as far as I can tell.

  But this idea that there is a "right" to support bothers me. Let's just look at a few specifics for a moment. First off, do all children possess this right to support? Thus, can a government agency come in and start examining your home, to be sure you're spending enough on your children, even absent any reports of abuse? Can children exercise this right, and demand support in a specific form, or access to your bank accounts? If not, then who gets to exercise that right on their behalf - the government? Assuming you answered "No, it's his parents, stupid," then I'd have to ask about which parent gets to exercise that right if there is a dispute. Can one parent do whatever they want if it's for that child? Etc.

  Going further, here. If children have a right to support, and their parents are poor, on whom does the obligation fall? Are we as a society obligated to provide this support, and to what level? If this is a right, why should even well-off parents be the ones obligated to provide it? Can they simply expect the government to give them the money for their child? Why or why not?

  At what age does this "right" end, and why?

  Basically, if I haven't made my point, children do not have a "right" to support - at least, not in a legal sense.

Drew Garrett

[BuddhaBoy]

Well said.

[IronJack]

Most Jr High school students can see the distinction between the social contract and a social agenda.

Then let me talk to a junior high student.

Do you think a "contract" could exist without an "agenda?" And aren't you butressing your flimsy criticism on a semantic quibble?

Or is yours simply a case of drug-induced presbyopia?

[Publius6961]

Do you think a "contract" could exist without an "agenda?" And aren't you butressing your flimsy criticism on a semantic quibble?

Semantic quible?

LOL. You're not an attorney are you?
Wonderful... it's not activism now; it's a semantic quibble.

If you're familiar with presbyopia, that explains a lot.

Thank you for playing grownup, your attendance is appreciated.

Ciao

[beavus]

"it is CRAZY for a man to marry and have children under our current legal conditions in America"

Presumably there are women of character who would make good partners regardless of laws that would allow them to rob their husbands blind.

If you know a good litmus test, please tell me.

[Morrigan]

To those of you attacking me earlier, I think you were misunderstanding me. Perhaps it is my fault for not making myself clear enough. I tend to be emotional when discussing children, because they are something I feel strongly about. I apologize if any of my heated posts offended anyone.

Two points I am trying to make here:

One: Men should not be financially responsible for children that are not biologically theirs.

Two: When a woman lies about the paternity of her children, the ones that ultimately suffer the most are the children.

People should do what is in the best interests of their children, even if it means they will go without. That is not called facism, it is called good parenting. Only biological parents need shoulder this kind of responsibility.

I hope that clears things up. And to the other questions: no, I am not a man, a feminazi, or gasp! Hillary Clinton. As far as medication goes, I am not on any now, but if I am going to post on FR with some of the people that post here, maybe I should be!

[Dark Knight]

I'm still back on why a person who lied about who the father of a child is, is entitled to be the trustee (note the word trust is the root) of the child's trust fund. A person that has commmitted fraud in naming the father, and the father can be easily proven or not, is in charge of the funds to support the child? That's not debatable, it's unconscionable!

I had the wonderful experience of having my brother's son on my knees on Thanksgiving, asking me 4 year old questions, and watching Monsters Inc. Yes, if something happened to my brother or his wife, I would do everything in my power to help both of his and her sons. If the wife were to use my brother as a cuckhold (and I know beyond reasonable certainty this is not the case) I would not have the same relationship with them. That is strickly the choice of the wife. If it were my sister I would have a totally different problem to think of, but that did not happen on Turkey day.

Let the docs fill out the birth certificate, mothers are easy, married fathers are a simple test. The results may be hard to explain, but we can know who the real father is. Let's make believe is silly, and archaic.

DK

[BuddhaBoy]

When a woman lies about the paternity of her children, the ones that ultimately suffer the most are the children.

You cant make that claim.

No one can keep score about suffering. You dont know how a man might feel to one day have a child, and the next day have a cheating spouse and NOT have a child.

No one is denying that children suffer, but to place the interests of a child over those of anyone else IS FASCISM, like it or not.

People are people, regardless of age. Being young, cute and impressionable does NOT make one more important. As long as you espouse such thinking, you will always be in sync with Hillary. Like it or not.

[mafree]

Wife may not know who is the daddy herself, especially if she screws both of them close to the same time. Of course, if she knew and lied then it is fraud.

From a woman who hates to see either women or men cheat on their spouses.

[BuddhaBoy]

I'm still back on why a person who lied about who the father of a child is, is entitled to be the trustee (note the word trust is the root) of the child's trust fund. A person that has commmitted fraud in naming the father, and the father can be easily proven or not, is in charge of the funds to support the child? That's not debatable, it's unconscionable!

There are some here who would excuse fraud (for the children) no matter how vile and ugly, and no matter who suffers.

We can easily prove parentage in society, and it is very interesting to me how many women are against using technology to prove parentage PRIOR to a father being legally determined.

I wonder why, ladies?

[babygene]

Your OK.

I honestly didn't know from your screen name what sex you were. I apoligize for using Rush L's feminazi word.

Your views, after all of the emotions (on both sides) settled down, are not much different from mine or many others on this thread.

[Morrigan]

Buddhaboy: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Babygene: I want to thank you for your comments. So far you have been the only one that has tried to understand where I am coming from:)

[babygene]

"Of course, if she knew and lied then it is fraud."

Even if she knew there was a possibility and did not tell him, it is fraud...

[BuddhaBoy]

Fair enough.

[mafree]

I can't disagree with that- adultery is a serious breach of the marriage contract no matter what or who results from it. In my municipality (maybe the whole state), adultery is still a felony but you can bet it's not enforced or else I'd be visiting quite a few of my friends in jail. Either that, or a lot more zippers would stay zipped.

[babygene]

Don't embarase me. I'm a tough person.

In your last post you said:

"Two points I am trying to make here:

One: Men should not be financially responsible for children that are not biologically theirs.

Two: When a woman lies about the paternity of her children, the ones that ultimately suffer the most are the children.

People should do what is in the best interests of their children, even if it means they will go without. That is not called facism, it is called good parenting. Only biological parents need shoulder this kind of responsibility."

I, and I would guess most others would agree with this.

One could still quibble over "who suffers the most, the fasther or the child", and I don't know that there is an answer to that. In my view they both do in most cases.

You ended by saying "Only biological parents need shoulder this kind of responsibility". I don't see why this wouldn't satisfy BuddhaBoy. It certinaly suggests to me that you are reasonable.

[Mamzelle]

re:Save it, I am talking to men. I dont expect a female to understand. You typically personalize a general statement, in order to deflect. Post to others, dont waste my time. )))

LOL! You the same boy I heard boasting about having great sex with women he hates?