Child Support Gold-Diggers

The Reality Check ^ | April 5, 2006 | Carey Roberts

[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.”

[ga medic]

I disagree with Roe v Wade. I do not believe that either should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. My point is that it takes two to create a child and two are generally necessary to do a good job of raising a child. It a child is conceived, it should be the responsibility of both parents.

Although it might seem unfair that the father has no rights to determine whether the child is born, IMO this isn't as inequitable as you think. If the woman did not want the child and the man insisted that she have it, he can not assume the duty of carrying the child or giving birth to it, she must do this. If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, I believe that he should be responsible for helping to support the child. If he does not want a child, the time to decide this would be prior to conception. Abstinence and condoms are both options to him at this point.

[Don Joe]

Although it might seem unfair that the father has no rights to determine whether the child is born, IMO this isn't as inequitable as you think. If the woman did not want the child and the man insisted that she have it, he can not assume the duty of carrying the child or giving birth to it, she must do this. If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, I believe that he should be responsible for helping to support the child. If he does not want a child, the time to decide this would be prior to conception. Abstinence and condoms are both options to him at this point. [amphasis added]

Wow, where to begin... this is SO illogical, disjointed, out outright BIASED, clearly driven by feminist propaganda.

First off, "If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, I believe that he should be responsible for helping to support the child" -- WHY?

Why should SHE have an inalienable right to "choice", while HE has NO rights, only OBLIGATIONS?

There is no rational answer. Please don't reiterate the feminist talking points again, we've heard them all.

Then, there's this gem: " If he does not want a child, the time to decide this would be prior to conception."

Again, you ONLY apply that rule to the MAN, and not the WOMAN. Why? Because... well, there IS no "because", other than "just because" -- "just because" it's a feminist talking point.

Are WOMEN incapable of saying NO? Are women incapable of using birth control? Are WOMEN incapable of keeping their knees together?

You say, "Abstinence and condoms are both options to him at this point" -- but they're NOT available to HER too????

Good Lord, take a look at yourself. You sound like an NOW spinmistress!

I'll close with your first knee-slapper: You say that, "it might seem unfair that the father has no rights."

LOL!

It MIGHT "seem" unfair! LMAO! It "seems" unfair because it IS unfair!

It is beyond "unfair". So far beyond it as to boggle the mind.

You need to take a good look at the crap you're spewing. It is obscene.

[ga medic]

I never said that the man should be solely responsible for the child. Both the mother and father created the child and both should share in support. They both have the choice to abstain and both have a choice to use birth control. They should not have a choice about accepting responsibility for the child and supporting the child. I am not a feminist by any stretch. Women share in the responsibility just like men. Neither should be allowed to avoid this responsibility.

[Pessimist]

You're so right.

The PR campaign against "deadbeat dads" is nothing more than anti male, pro socialist propaganda.

Any man will become a "deadbeat" when you penalize him beyond his means to pay.

The extent and degree of suffering by divorced dads in this country is epidemic, yet all society does is blame the victim.

[jagusafr]

You don't file an answer, the attorney for the other parent puts on proof (or not) and recites a certain amount in child support, the judge signs it, and it's enforceable after 30 days. Only applies to the first $6K of your monthly income.

[cajungirl]

DNA testing can rule out false charges.

[Niuhuru]

It's because of these witches that innocent women pay the price for these actions of the real monsters.

[jbishop30]

I can relate. My husband has a child by a nutcase who swore she was on birth control and did the old I'll trick you into marrying me routine, however, didn't work. Now she sucks us dry for every penny we have. Meanwhile she wont let his daughter have any pictures of her family on our side. She is just a revengeful blood sucker but unfortunately it is the kid who ends up paying in the end.

[jbishop30]

You should be glad you get that. Birth control works wonders. It's people like you that make people sick.

[jbishop30]

What ever happened to women supporting their children as well. ZGet a Job and help out.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"She is just a revengeful blood sucker but unfortunately it is the kid who ends up paying in the end."

Nice of you to dig up this post from last APRIL to vent, Troll...

Yeesh. Did it EVER occur to YOU to put the CHILD first and do whatever it takes?

Welcome to FR, by the way. Not.

[cinives]

Hahaha- since I've been the only one supporting this kid, financially and emotionally, since age 3, I have had a job. You obviously think latting one person walk away with no responsibility is fine.

Take your BS elsewhere. The father is just as responsible as the mother for support, plain and simple.

[Doohickey]

Did you even read the article? It's about women lying about who the father is to get child support.

[Doohickey]

I have a very common name. Four times now, the County of Los Angeles has attempted to garnish my wages, ruin my credit and put a lien on my house. Why? Because somebody with my name owes child support. Think about that. The government can reach into my life and pronounce me guilty and start extracting money direct from my employer simply on the basis of my name. And I've never even visited Los Angeles.

Best of all, I have no legal recourse. All of the bloodsuckers in Southern California I've spoken with say I can't sue. It costs me $2500 a pop to get these default judgements fixed.

[Doohickey]

There's a government angle to this too. In California at least (I don't live there, but they keep coming after me), if a woman goes on the dole, the state gets to collect the child support payments. So, there's a financial incentive for the state to get women to make up some name as the child's father.

[Malacoda]

Seriously. "Hey baby -- don't worry, I can't get pregnant," ranks right up there with "Hey baby, I'll pull out."

[hosepipe]

This happened to one of my sons.. I watched it with amazement..

[thinking]

How come, it is always the male that has to fund the child...how come, the women is never required to fund the child, in other words how come, the court, does not stipulate the amount of child support both the women, and the man, are required to provide....and how come, there is no accounting of the money spent, I would think a yearly audit would be a minimum required....