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?

[Eaker]

Was I addressing you?

If you think your wife is a slut, then I feel for you.

You're a true idiot.

No, you were giving unrealistic and condescending advice on an internet forum. You were addressing everyone here. Anyone here can respond to you as they see fit. I addressed a specific point of yours and you replied with an insulting response.

This may be the wrong forum for you. If it makes you feel better to call me names rather than defending your post so be it but more is certainly expected.

Stay safe; stay armed.

[inquest]

The Court will most always bend over backwards for a pregnant woman.

One of the lesser known legacies of Roe vs. Wade. SCOTUS still granted "Roe" standing to sue for an injunction against enforcement of the law, even though she was no longer pregnant. It really goes to show that despite the fulminations of fanatical feminism, its ideology invariably results in an ethos that treats women as helpless children. It's really quite fascinating to watch.

[usconservative]

That might work too. The man who doesn't want to support a child that might result, should present the woman with the paper and have her sign it before they conceive that child stating he will not be financially responsible for it.

Better yet, any man or woman that doesn't want to support a child for one night of "fun" might be better advised to either keep their pants zipped up or make sure they use damn' good birth control.

When you play, eventually you pay.

Personal responsibility. Catch it.

[inquest]

Yeah, what he said! ;)

[usconservative]

these are two phenotypes which converge at age 32-35, with the cry, "Hello, men! I'm ready!!!.

You forgot to mention their biological clocks clanging away in the background as they cried "hello men! I'm ready..."

I'm so glad I got married when I did. God help me if I were single today. I don't think I'd ever get married based on the women I've come across. "Women" these days seem to want it all when THEY want it, on THEIR timetables. Hurry up and have a career. Hurry up and have a family. Hurry up and get a divorce, and take the guy for all he's worth, including half his retirement at age 65.

Thank the Good Lord I didn't marry a woman like that. :-) Good women were tough enough to find when I was dating and got married at age 23 (I just turned 40 a few days ago.) From everything I hear from my divorced friends, and people who work for me (most of which are near 30 years old) it's HELL out there for singles!

When my wife and I got married, we agreed it was for life. (But then, each of us has a hiding spot for each others bodies if one of us don't think we can make it that long ........ /humor)

[RGSpincich]

Gray Davis strikes again.

http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=2572

4. AB 2240, introduced by Assembly Member Roderick Wright.

This bill was vetoed by the governor on September 27, 2002. Although concerned about "paternity fraud," the governor felt that the requirement of personal service was too high a standard and would result in fewer paternity judgments and child support orders being entered. He also felt that the requirement of having the mother sign a "paternity questionnaire" would prevent compliance with federal law. As there will likely be future attempts at a similar bill, we include the summary of the vetoed bill, as follows:

Titled the Paternity Justice Act of 2002," this bill would require any person or a local child support agency, if initiating an action to establish paternity, to make specified allegations in a verified complaint. It would also require service of the complaint by personal delivery. Prior to filing the complaint, the mother must fill out a paternity questionnaire.

The bill sets forth procedures for certain persons to be able to set aside a default judgment establishing paternity after the expiration of the period of time in which a party may generally move to set aside a default judgment, although this would not apply if the child is presumed to be a child of a marriage pursuant to Family Code Section 7540. In a motion to vacate a judgment for paternity, if certain conditions are met, and if requested by authorized persons, it would require court-ordered genetic testing. It also sets forth findings by the Legislature as to the validity of DNA testing.

The bill would permit a previously established father, or another specified person, who is found not to be the biological father of a child, who proves that another man is the biological father to bring a civil action against the biological father for damages. This would not apply to any adoption or paternity case relating to a child conceived by artificial insemnination.

[BuddhaBoy]

From everything I hear from my divorced friends, and people who work for me (most of which are near 30 years old) it's HELL out there for singles!

No, it's hell for single women.

For single men with anything going for them, its like being a shark alone with a school of albacore.

Women are trying to hook up with such ferver that men dont have to do much besides bathe, and have a job. One of my best friends is a plastic surgeon, and he tells me that breast implant surgeries are up tremendously this year, and not just for young women. They are looking for every advantage(for men who go for that, I guess)

If men are having problems getting women these days, they might consider changing their brand of soap.

[BuddhaBoy]

It would also require service of the complaint by personal delivery.

There is the rub right there, damn it.

They dont want the man that they intend to screw over to be notified in time to do something about it.

the governor felt that the requirement of personal service was too high a standard and would result in fewer paternity judgments and child support orders being entered.

Unbelievable. He is actually admitting that if they will be able to screw over FEWER men if they do the checking, and that its a BAD thing. They want men to pay REGARDLESS of paternity, and they dont give a rats ass who the real father is.

Thank you for the very enlightening post.

[babygene]

"No, it's hell for single women."

Your right about that.

I have a beautiful 35 year-old niece that lives on the east coast. She is lively, fun-loving, blond, slim, Irish, intelligent, educated, and a practicing Christian (Catholic). She is self-sufficient and owns her own modest home. She has never married nor had a child.

She has more going for her than 95% of the girls out there, from 20 to 40.

She has recently come to the realization that the biological clock is running out for her to ever raise a family. You would think that she would have no trouble.

Au contraire…

Due to the legal climate today, as soon as they find out that she is intrested in getting married and having children, they dump her and move on. It's sad, because she is a very ethical person and would probably make a great wife and mother.

[wardaddy]

My view has nothing to do with law, simply my own personal moral creed by which I've lived.

[tallhappy]

This man has every right to be outraged.

Of course.

The fair thing to do is to make the mother and biological father reimburse him with interest for his financial support.

Fair? To whom?

Please think about it. We are not talking about a pair of shoes.

A child is not an inanimate object.

The only person involved to whom fairness is merited is the innocent bystander, the child.

[tallhappy]

Hey... you want to raise other people's kids?

Many people do and will.

There's a thing called being an adult human being.

Your present the liberal position.

If you raise a child, it is yours. You can't change that no matter what the genetics are or are not.

It is not for the children it is for a child. A real person and the only one whose interest is on any merit in these sad cases.

You need to re-evaluate your understanding of what it is to be human, to be conservative and to be a responsible adult (among other things).

You know I am right as well.

[DBtoo]

Have you told the ladies here yet about all the milk you get for free?

[tallhappy]

Fraud and injustice is perfectly OK under certain circumstances.

These ar such silly comments. It simply shows your lack of any real experience knowledge or wisdom.

But, OK. Who committed the fraud?

Not the baby. Not the kid. But you are punishing him for something he did not do.

You are the one advocating injustice.

[tallhappy]

Regardless of whether you think he's a creep, it isn't "his kid".

Then he's a kidnapper, ain't he?

If you take responsiblity for a child, raise him, he is your kid no matter what the genes.

This is just another perfect example of liberalism gone wild. He was fooled -- it's not his fault he's a victim.

Liberals are never responsible for their actions or decisions (or stupidity).

Your comment is the obvious gut reaction of a male. That's mine too.

But, we are not animals, we are human and there is more to us than simply passing on our chromosomes to the next generation.

[tallhappy]

Want to bet on that ?

Yeah, how much?

If you raised a child for, say, eight years, thinking it as your own genetically. Then found it wasn't yours genetically. You would what?

You, as the father, as a man, would abandon and reject your son of eight years?

[tallhappy]

Save your breath, mr happy aint listening.

I'm listening and observing very well.

Someday maybe you will grow up and be able to participate in the big boy games.

But I doubt it. Your cowardice is very high.

Bullys like you are always cowards who run away.