Posted on 04/05/2006 8:14:34 AM PDT by FreeManDC
Laws that protect the fairer sex from rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment all rest on a simple assumption: women who claim to be victims are almost always telling the truth. Maybe it’s time to revisit that belief.
Three weeks ago the National Center for Men filed a lawsuit on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, who claims his girlfriend repeatedly assured him that she was unable to get pregnant. When she later bore a child, the state of Michigan went after Mr. Dubay for child support.
That’s what people used to call entrapment.
But chivalrous pundits rose to defend the honor of this damsel in distress, dubbing Mr. Dubay a “sexual predator,” “deadbeat dad,” and – horrors! -- a “weasel.” And if you happen to believe that men should be shouldered with the responsibilities and women enjoy all the rights, their criticisms certainly ring true.
Recently That's Life! magazine polled 5,000 women and asked them if they would lie to get pregnant. Two-fifths of the women – 42% to be exact – said “yes,” according to NCM’s Kingsley Morse.
Yikes!
But that was just a hypothetical survey. Women would never stick it to a man they actually knew. Or would they?
Consider the paternity scam. Here’s how it works:
Find any dim-witted man to get you pregnant. Then look up the name of some unsuspecting Joe who’s got a steady job – it doesn’t matter that you never met the poor bloke. Put his name on the baby’s birth certificate.
Now cross your fingers and hope the man is out of town when the sheriff delivers the papers. In California, such default judgments account for 70% of paternity decisions, according to a 2003 study by the Urban Institute.
Or defraud one of your previous boyfriends, assuming he’s a good breadwinner, of course. That’s what happened to Carnell Smith of Georgia, who willingly assumed financial responsibility for a child, shelling out more than $40,000 in child support over an 11-year period. But when the mother went to court to up the payments, Smith requested genetic testing. That’s when he learned, to his great surprise, that he wasn’t the girl’s father.
Stung by the injustice, Mr. Smith founded Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, [http://paternityfraud.com/pf_fight_back.html] a group that works to protect men from being cheated by these modern-day Welfare Queens.
Last year Michael Gilding, sociology professor at Swinburne University in Australia, reviewed studies from around the world, and concluded that 1-3% of children were fathered by someone other than the man who believes he’s the daddy.
Let’s run the math. Four million children are born in the United States each year. Using the mid-range 2% figure, that means 80,000 men become victims of paternity fraud.
Yikes again!
Ready for the next scam?
This one involves false allegations of domestic violence. Each year, one million restraining orders are issued that serve to evict a person – usually a man -- from his own home.
Restraining orders have become so commonplace that family lawyers refer to them as silver bullets, slam-dunks, or simply, “divorce planning.” It has been estimated that one-third of those orders are requested as a legal ploy in the middle of a divorce proceeding. Not only are the orders easy to get, in many states a restraining order automatically bans a father from gaining joint custody of his children. [www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Threat-to-Families.pdf]
So the restraining order granted on the flimsy grounds that he caused “emotional distress” becomes the woman’s meal ticket to many years of child support payments. Prosecutors never go after persons who commit perjury, anyway.
And state welfare agencies don’t get upset either, because the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement reimburses 66% of the costs of states’ child support enforcement activities. Think of it as a bounty payment for deleting daddies.
So let’s see . . . 42% of women admit they would lie to get pregnant. Each year 80,000 non-biological fathers become victims of paternity fraud. And about 300,000 restraining orders are issued in the middle of a divorce.
Assume a father so defrauded finds himself on the hook for $250 a month for each of his children. Over an 18-year period, that comes out to a cushy $54,000, all legally-enforceable, tax-free, and no strings attached.
In the past the American legal system was guided by the rule, “No person shall benefit from their own wrong-doing.” But now, hundreds of thousands of women replace that dictum with the self-indulgent excuse: “Get while the getting is good.”
His first appeal which I didn't post on here he stated he was not living at the address and had not, if that changed during the appeal with the 2nd circuit I'm not sure why.
There should not be a time limit for a man to contest paternity, especially when there is no time limit on women to establish paternity. Also, many men, especially in marriages, do not find out the children they believed were theirs are in fact not their biological children.
Why in those cases should the real bio-father get off the hook from supporting the children they helped to produce?
The man won the case. What is the problem?
You said you don't take the word on non-lawyers, I provide you the writings of the judges to establish the case. I would venture a guess the judges sitting on the 2nd Circuit in California in fact have law degrees. Not being a lawyer though I shouldn't be able to comment on that, right?
The allegation was that the man never saw the girl in his life. The facts of the case are otherwise.
The allegation was that he was served someplace he never lived. The facts of the case are otherwise.
As for the time limit to contest paternity -- talk to the legislature, that's the ones who write the laws, not the judges, not the lawyers.
It seems to me that the rest of society has an interest in things being done in a timely manner, and then being final, over and done with. If you sign an oath of paternity, why should you be able to set it aside later? I don't know anything else you can back out of years later.
There's an old legal maxim, "if you snooze, you lose."
ummm.............what?
I read the article. You obviously didn't.
This is the 2nd time I've explained that you need to keep reading the thread.... I, too, stopped too soon...
I DID read the whole thing......and your point??
You wouldn't be dragging this out if you'd read the entire thread (hint: my other posts), but then again maybe you would. If that's the case, don't bother cause I'm done with you.
Ummm.........think you're confused. Your original reply attacked the poster for basically being a whiner, "male victimization", etc......being totally dismissive of the posted article. I merely pointed out that you didn't know what you were talking about. That's a fact. The article is dead accurate.
Maybe if I explain it again in more detail you'll understand. I admitted that I didn't finish reading the article in an earlier post and also offered an apology to FreeManDC in another.
When you first posted to me, I felt like you had pulled the trigger on me before reading my other posts, just like I pulled the trigger on FreeManDC before reading the entire article. In other words, your post to me was already redundant. That's the only point I was trying to make.
Since corresponding with BlueStateDepression, he opened my eyes to some nightmare laws I find unfathomable that are completly unfair to men. I hope now that we can finally be done with this conversation.
So if a woman has sex with multiple men she gets to pick the one who she wants to be the father regardless of whether he in fact is?
Yes we are. Thank you for the clarification. No hard feelings.
No, just the father of the child. They have tests that can be used to determine paternity.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
So, the triplets were a day old when the judgement was rendered? What a stroke of bad luck!
Dads are usually reduced to being able to be dads (visitation) ONLY four to eight days a month plus some holidays. If the dad wants to discipline an unruly and direspectful boy but the mom thinks dad's punishment is too harsh ... guess who the courts will back-up? I even remember a case where the court forced the dad to apologize to his son, in a case where the son clearly should have been the one doing the penance! What the hell kind of example does that set!!!???!!!
Dad is an empty suit, a paper tiger, a figure whose primary purpose is to provide money while mom is the one who has the real authority. Dads are emasculated.
No wonder so much popular music today is filled with ugly, disrepectful words to desribe women. No wonder the suicide rate of male teens is so high. No wonder young men are becoming anti-marriage. No wonder girls are so promiscuous that large numbers start having sex in their early teens -- they've never had the chance to develop a truly loving and deep relationship with their dads, and so seek that male affection in inappropriate ways. They grow up with horrifically unrealistic expectations of men, and boys grow up confused and beaten-down as to expectations society has of them as fathers and men.
Great post. All true.
That same situation plays out all across America...laws really need to change!
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.