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?

[tallhappy]

Please explain why a childs life is automatically MORE important than the life of a grown man.

Interesting how you add "life" to this.

The answer is, if you don't know, then you wouldn't understand an answer.

If you were a grown man you'd never ask a question like this.

[tallhappy]

The new father has adopted, the cuckold does not have any visitation rights, and has not seen the child in years. In law and in fact, the child is no longer his!

That was not in the article.

That scenario would indeed be another issue.

[Bush2000]

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

While I agree that this man has effectively incurred an emotional obligation to this child, your complacency would essentially alleviate the scofflaw father from any responsibility whatsoever. That is paternity run amok. And you know that it simply isn't right, decent, or fair. I don't know which is worse: Doing nothing to right a wrong -- or bringing the culpable party to justice.

The fact of the matter is that he's entitled to compensation for being cuckolded by his wife. Frankly, I think the best course of action would be for him to find out who the father is and sue his ass for back child support. Unfortunately, we live in a society in which judges primarily side with females in most divorce/custody/paternity suits. The man is relegated to sperm donor and indentured servant. And if even those role are shown to be undeserved, courts would prefer to look the other way -- not in the interests of the child -- but rather in the interests of getting somebody to pay, even if it's not the right man. Pathetic.

[Bush2000]

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

I don't think that most people on this thread are talking about abandoning anybody. We're simply saying that, if the court recognizes the right of a third party -- the genetic father -- to step into this child's life at any time with little regard for the rights of the father who raised him (there are ample precedents of birth parents asserting rights over adoptive parents), then those birth parents incur liability for failure to live up to their obligations. It's my contention that, quite aside from the child's well-being, the right of the cuckolded husband to be compensated for raising someone else's child is fundamental.

[tallhappy]

Case not closed. If you are not the biological parent, the kid is not yours.

Then I guess he's a kidnapper, or else what's he doing with the kid.

Why don't you tell millions of adopted children that their Moms and Dads aren't really their Moms and Dads.

Your view is consistent with a purely animalistic or biological view of the world.

But, if this is your way, why does a child ever have to be any man's? The women gestate and give birth. No reason for the man to be there or have any responsibility in this view.

So, go all the way with it why don't you.

[ColdSteelTalon]

If the child does not belong to the father then the man has no responsibility period. This is one of the reasons why I advocate the death penalty for adultery. If you want to screw around then get a divorce first.

[tallhappy]

Re 243.

You seem to advocate the liberal abyss of lawsuit lawsuit lawsuit....

Let the government sort it all out....

[tallhappy]

we're simply saying that, if the court recognizes the right of a third party -- the genetic father -- to step into this child's life at any time with little regard for the rights of the father who raised him (there are ample precedents of birth parents asserting rights over adoptive parents),

Which is horrible.

This country has gone mad. This is the liberal view foisted on on in the last thirty years and so many here are going along with it.

They think we are animals, so blood, tribe, ethnicity etc... are all important.

[Bush2000]

You seem to advocate the liberal abyss of lawsuit lawsuit lawsuit.... Let the government sort it all out....

Get real. Do you honestly expect the genetic father to step forward and pay his child support willingly? Puh-lease. Now who's living in a dream world? The courts exist to mediate civil disputes.

[Bush2000]

Which is horrible. This country has gone mad. This is the liberal view foisted on on in the last thirty years and so many here are going along with it. They think we are animals, so blood, tribe, ethnicity etc... are all important.

On the one hand, you're saying that the father of record (not the genetic father) has responsibility to raise the child. And, on the other, you're saying that the genetic father shouldn't have any rights. I can't agree with either sentiment. Asserting the right of parenthood by virtue of genetic relation isn't a new or a liberal notion. It's more true to our tradition than what you propose -- which would essentially restructure parenthood based solely on feewings.

[Bush2000]

This is one of the reasons why I advocate the death penalty for adultery. If you want to screw around then get a divorce first.

Grrrrrrreat. A thinly veiled assertion that, if your spouse screws around, you have the right to kill them, right? Sheez, dude, you may be pissed. But that's just over the top. Let her go.

[DugwayDuke]

"That's a mighty convenient solution, isn't it? -- for men, that is. Why not make it the man's responsibility to have her sign the paper. After all, he's the one who wants to avoid being held responsible."

Won't work, wouldn't be legal. In effect, the woman would be signing away something that belonged to the child. You see, the law holds that the money is not paid to the woman but to the child and one cannot give away what does not belong to you.

[WarEagle]

So to be fair, if I'm married and have an fling with some other women, the offspring should be the responsibility of my wife? It should be legally hers because she is married to me?

Fairness has nothing to do with it. We're talking law here, and the law (in this state) is if a married woman bears a child the law presumes the child is her husband's, and he bears financial responsibility for it.

[Paulie]

"If not, that is a perfect illustration of the distinction between a "moral" law and a "Legal" one."

Many years ago a trial lawyer enlightened me to the fact that "it's not a court of justice - it's a court of law".

[BuddhaBoy]

I didnt run away, you loser. It was Saturday night, and unlike people like you, I had a DATE.

Get over it, your nonsense was already discredited here.

[Enterprise]

"Please think about it."

I did. Now you do the same.

[babygene]

"Fairness has nothing to do with it. We're talking law here"

Yea, you've got it. That's the whole problem!

One would expect laws to be based on justice, which infers fairness. Unfortunately, thats not the case when one deals with family court.

[babygene]

"it's not a court of justice - it's a court of law"

Wonder why it's called the Justice Department and not the law department?

[tallhappy]

I'll tell you. Genetic father is a meaningless term.

The father is the man who takes responsibility for and raises a child.

Where one half of the child's complement of chromosomes came from is beside the point.

Progenitor is the better term you are looking for. Or in another scenario, adoptive father.

Genetic father is redundent except in cases where it is qualified, such as adoptive father.

Progenitors are not fathers, so the term is misleading.

[tallhappy]

The thing about your position is there is nothing to think about. We all have that visceral knee-jerk reaction.

It is the view and understanding one would have if they never moved beyond a junior high mind set, never began to grow up see what it is to be an adult, see what it is to be a husband and father.