Posted on 03/15/2006 12:10:09 PM PST by Kieri
Dad's suit over child 'frivolous'
The lawsuit against her is foolish, says the Saginaw Township woman whose former boyfriend doesn't want to support their child.
Lauren Wells broke her silence Tuesday to denounce the suit and express her disappointment in Matt Dubay, also of Saginaw Township.
"The direct and indirect disruption caused by this frivolous legal action must end," Wells said in a written statement her Saginaw attorney, Lawrence William "Bill" Smith, released Tuesday.
Wells, 20, who is attending college and works for a wireless phone company, has declined personal interviews.
Wells and Dubay, 25, a computer technician, have an 8-month-old daughter, Elisabeth.
Dubay on Thursday filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Bay City against Wells, who gave birth to a child he did not want. The National Center for Men, a men's rights organization based in Long Island, N.Y., also is filing the lawsuit.
Wells, who gave one brief interview before declining numerous media requests, said she hopes the court quickly dismisses the action.
"I believe life begins at conception and blossoms," she said. "I take responsibility for my acts and will do my best as an adult and mother to protect and provide for our daughter.
Elisabeth is a "vibrant, healthy baby" who is "loved dearly, and although her father has chosen not to participate in her life since conception, Elisabeth deserves financial support from her father," Wells said.
Wells and Dubay must take responsibility for their actions, she said, adding that the ideal of providing a cohesive two-parent home is not possible in this instance.
"My focus is on providing a nurturing home for our baby," Wells said. "I am disappointed that Matt has decided not to participate in Elisabeth's life so far and has instead chosen to contest any responsibility from our consensual actions."
The Saginaw County Friend of the Court has ordered Dubay to pay $500 a month in child support to Wells and their daughter.
Dubay claims that Wells knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that, because of a physical condition, she could not get pregnant.
Saginaw County court files show that Dubay acknowledged paternity Aug. 24.
Dubay has said he doesn't expect the suit to succeed but wants to spark debate. His suit contends that the lack of male reproductive rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents.
The lawsuit already has a nickname -- Roe v. Wade for Men, a take-off on the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.
Women's groups have objected to that comparison, but National Center for Men Director Mel Feit insists it is apt.
"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say." v
Jean Spenner is a staff writer for The Saginaw News. You may reach her at 776-9683.
I sympathize with the mom but legally the dad is correct.
Men have become such crybabies! Suck it up and support YOUR child.
bump
I opened this half-hoping to find the lawsuit I have been waiting for which would turn the abortion debate on it's head. Namely, a Mom intent on an abortion with a Father who was asserting his parental rights over the unborn in order to allow the child to be born so that he could claim sole custody. Instead I find a deadbeat Dad unwilling to take responsibility for his actions. Sheesh.
"I believe life begins at conception and blossoms,"
No doubt she arrived at that belief just after she was informed it was too late to have it yanked.
The point is the inequality:
If he wanted the baby and she didn't, she could abort.
If he doesn't want it and she does, he can't abort.
Does that sound fair?
And on top of it, if he doesn't want the baby and she does, then he has to pay for 18 years? Why aren't they married?
So the woman has all the cards, and the man just has to shut up and pay.
Now after all this, I must say that I am totally against abortion. But I've been saying the same thing for years! I think that the logic of this will reverse Roe v Wade.
ie: how can she single-handedly terminate, yet demand his financial help if she decides to keep the baby.
But in this case it's even worse, first of all they aren't married, (yea I know, so what...), and additionally it looks like she trapped him by telling him that she couldn't conceive! I mean that's like winning the lottery.
Get a rich boyfriend, tell him you're on the pill, oops I'm pregnant, but you're not really what I'm looking for, so just set up a direct deposit please.
I have heard all the same arguments over and over. Bottom line - you father a child, it is your responsibility (I know many people don't like that word) to support your "love child". If you don't like it, do not get a woman pregnant!
I agree. The dad should pay the $500 monthly support.
Then he should turn around and sue that lying #?!%% for $500 x 12 months x 18 years.
The end result.... Nobody wins. Especially the poor child.
But this whole Roe vs. Wade for Men is not about men trying to shirk financial responsibility.
It's about pointing our the sheer hypocrisy that femi-nazi's claim as the have unilateral rights that men do not.
It's about putting and end to the murder known as abortion.
I applaud this woman for making the choice to have her baby and keeping it and wanting to raise it in a healthy enviroment.
On the other hand, women, and especially feminists, have practically begged for this type of reaction from men since they decided to exclude men from any of the decision making processes concerning pregnancy.
Since late-term abortions are legal, your comment is uncalled for.
In other words, she was happy to take him to bed, and now she's happy to take his money, but actually marry the dude? No way.
I agree. Ideally, all persons should be responsible for the children they create.
However, the government does not require this of mothers, who have special post-conception options like abortion. The government should not give preferential rights to some people and only responsibilites to others. Until we can reach the ideal world where all parents must own up to their responsibilities, I think we must have equal treatment under the law.
I'm all for ending abortion. I am not, however, for letting men out of their legal responsibilities because they didn't want a child.
The illogic of abortion strikes again.
Well, it's a "he said, she said" thing about whether or not she actually told him that.
Regardless, he still had choices, like to use a condom, or not have sex in the first place!
If you are screwing someone, you should be absolutely sure you want that person in your life for at least the next 18 years & 9 months.
So, she's pro-life and you're still against her? That's harsh.
Is there any evidence he wants to get married?
Guy has a helluva case. Going to be interesting to see how it pans out, and how much attention the panning gets...
Guys a crybabies?? Wow... ...thats real deep...
a = are
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.