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?

[Publius6961]

Hey... you want to raise other people's kids?
You want to "adopt" against your will?
Have at it.

Just don't go moralizing about how everyone else should likewise be an idiot.
This "for the chilrun" argument is stale... stale...

[Clara Lou]

Right-- you "suspect." That's why you called him "sucker."

[FITZ]

Tallhappy sounds curiosly Christian to me

Tallhappy does ---but all the same women like this one who would sleep around even when married aren't honest types who are going to use the child support on the child, women like this aren't good mothers, there should be some better kind of laws.

[babygene]

Don't pick on Clara Lou, she's the focal point for all Christian thought.

[Publius6961]

Thank you.
You have my respect and admiration.

It's astounding why most women who argue "equality" would have brain fade when it comes to an obvious injustice.
Couldn't be fear of personal responsibility, could it?

[Centurion2000]

It's not something to return if you find out you've got the wrong one by mistake.

Want to bet on that ?

[Publius6961]

OK you convinced me.
Fraud and injustice is perfectly OK under certain circumstances.

Now will you go away?
The home may miss you any minute now and force you to resume your medication.

[Clara Lou]

The view of women of America seems to be that if a woman has a baby, then she is ENTITLED to economic support. And she doesn't care who gets the bill, the real father, Society via welfare, or some poor guy she can dupe into believing that it's HIS.
What a silly remark. To which "women of America" are attributing this point of view? How many of us do you know to have that point of view? Think about it. Your comment is offensive.

[Bush2000]

What a creep this guy is. Nice way to treat your kid. And stupid as a block of wood to boot.

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

[gitmo]

Men will soon be burning their jock straps.

Yuch!

[Enterprise]

I don't wish to pick on anyone to be honest. My view is that the law is skewed unfairly in favor of women regarding child support. The responsibility should be shared equally by both the mother and father - period. Men should not have to be forced to pay support for children that they don't father. Obviously the courts disagree with me on this point.

[mikenola]

FINALLY, somebody says what I've been thinking for years.

I don't read your view as an indictment of women in general, as some seems to believe, but its more a statement of the LEGAL climate in this country which is a natural outgrowth of 30 years of PC feminism. While I wouldn't go as far to say men shouldn't get married, you could certainly say it is (yet another) disincentive towards traditional families.

[BuddhaBoy]

Save your breath, mr happy aint listening. He and the Clara Lou thought police are not interested in opinions not their own.

[gitmo]

To be fair, this scenario has been the most common by far, until women's liberation freed women to behave as sexually immoral as men.

Now exactly how did that work before???

[Enterprise]

"The women of America applaud your point of view and fervently hope that you have actually put it into practice in your own life."

And that comment of your was also offensive. But I forgot that you are the chief spokeswhatever for the "women of America."

[babygene]

What is Christian about being taken advantage of - or condoning it as in the case of Tallhappy.

This boy was conceived illegitimately. It was not the fault of the husband. Any hurt that this child feels as a result can be laid at the feet of the wife and her stud.

Children being hurt by the acts of their parents is not new, unfortunately, but in this case the husband and the child are victims.

Are Christians supposed to volunteer to be the victim? I don’t think so…

[Clara Lou]

Mikenola,
Your comment #72 is measured, reasonable, and logical, unlike the comments by BB-- which carry a certain amount of venom. I do believe he must be the "sucker" babygene mentioned in an earlier post.

[BuddhaBoy]

You are correct.

Unfortunetely, there are those who see every thing through their own morality filter, assuming that anything not from their book of rules should be silenced.

Any intelligent person can see what I was saying, but alas, we are not all intelligent.

It is a radical position so suggest men avoid marriage, but we are in a radical culture regarding Courts, Women, Marriage and Children. No one should participate in an event that is biased against him, or promises to threaten the rest of his life, at the whim of another.

More important than avoiding marriage, is the avoidance of children, in or out of marriage. This is the real danger for men in our current society. A man can always leave a less than optimal marriage situation(watch the harpi's go nuts over that), but when children enter into the mix, a man's life is no longer his own from the perspective of the Court's who will determine his right to work, his right to see his offspring, and his right to prosper, should the mother say anything derogatory against him in a court of law.

[BuddhaBoy]

Still silly, I see. Dont blame me for your inability to see beyond your zealotry.

[winodog]

All the people who are saying this is right need to walk in a mans shoes who is in this situation.
Many times the woman leaves the man, divorce or if not married,just ups and leaves, maybe moving in with another man.
Or if married fills for divorce and then has the other man move in. This alone is devastating to the man. He has (in some situations) woke up one day to find the only woman he has ever loved has left him and his children have been taken away.
He gets every other weekend to see his kids.He is probaly in lots of trouble, for the first time in his life,moneywise.
He might have to get a studio apartment and has no money to do anything with his kids and his kids quickly tire of not being able to be with their close friends on the weekend.
Mom starts playing games with his visitation rights as well.
A few years later he is picking up his son and the new daddy meets him at the door, gives his "son a kiss and hug goodbye and old dad looks and goes holy shit, they look just alike!
So now you have a devestated father who has lost the woman he loves, his child or children are slowly being taken out of his life and he realizes the son or daughter isnt even his.
What if he wasnt married, didnt really have any rights and mom and new dad say little johnny is not your son and since he is just two or three years old we think it is a good idea for you to stay away.
So should old dad keep fighting for little visitation he has or should he put the child in Gods hands and walk away.
Remember he is already devastated, may have turned to drinking as the only fix that helps him.
Should a man keep fighting for the little visitation he has, keep paying 1/3 to 1/4 or more of his money?
They are too many scenarios for a man not to be able to withdraw and stop paying for a child that is not his.
It is wrong for man to be forced to pay for a child that is not his.
This is a new age and we have to be able to adapt.
This is probaly one of the reasons muslims have the strict laws they have about a womans infidelity ( I am not saying it is right) just that they realize how important it is "for the children" not to have to question who their real dad is.
A woman does not have to worry about this.
Maybe the solution is to have all childrens DNA tested at birth.
This might help for medical reasons as well.after all the bottom line is this is for the children so since men and women cant stop sleeping around this is a solution that will avoid many problems in the future.