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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.