Fraud on this magnitude deserves jail time. Taking a third of a persons paycheck for a couple decades should be illegal (OK, so the IRS does it, and that should be illegal too.)
Ohh, the bitches from NOW will be screaming about this one...lol
I read of a case a few years ago where a guy found he wasn
t the real father of a kid. The judge ruled that since he had assumed responsibility for the first say 15 years, he was still responsible.
This is as far as it will ever go. The courts will never go after women for family court related fraud. Will never happen.
* * *
Here, not only defendant but also B.E.C., the mother of the child, concealed the true facts of D.C.'s parentage from plaintiff. The duplicity was enhanced by defendant's agreement to serve as godfather for the child. When he moved from the state soon after the child's birth, concealment of the child's parentage was furthered. We must also recognize that plaintiff and B.E.C. divorced when D.C. was ten years old. Although plaintiff maintained a relationship with D.C., he did not live with the child. Plaintiff did not live proximate to the child's mother, particularly after he moved to Florida and had limited contact with her. These circumstances singly and cumulatively enhanced the ability of B.E.C. and defendant to conceal the parentage of D.C. Moreover, even after D.C.'s mother disclosed his parentage and D.C. met with defendant, the ruse was furthered for another three years.
* * *
Our Heart Balm Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23-1 to -7, abolished causes of action for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, and breach of contract to marry. The Legislature declared that it "shall be liberally construed to effectuate the objects and purposes thereof and the public policy of the state as hereby declared." N.J.S.A. 2A:23-6; Magierowski v. Buckley, 39 N.J. Super. 534, 547-58 (App. Div. 1956). Although plaintiff argues that he is not seeking to recover for interference with his marital relationship, but for the emotional pain he endured upon learning that the true paternity of his child was hidden from him, the underlying conduct is the same. His claim as asserted is, in essence, a claim that another man slept with his wife behind his back. Although he alleges that adultery is not the basis for his cause of action, that does not seem to be the case at all.
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6130-02.opn.html
I think paternity fraud is terrible. However, this case smells like the "Dad" wanted to hurt the kid more than anything else.
I entirely disagree. A marriage is a contract with a sexual component. It limits your "absolute right to have sex together" with someone who isn't your spouse and since marriages are granted by the government, entering into one should make who you have sex with the government's business. A spouse that commits adultery may be exposing their partner not simply to extramarital children (which can economic implications on either partner) but also STDs (some incurable) and AIDS. At the very least, adultery is a breech of contract unless your spouse knows about it and consents to it.
Today's DNA tests can blow these female cheaters out of the water but the feminists want to keep a lid on it. They don't care about justice. They care only about what the woman wants and can get via fraud.
How do you go about proving her statement to be a lie?
The Nazis from NOW will surely be displeased.
These are the situations that wind up with the expectant mother getting murdered. It's a solution to 18 years of paying for a fling.