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.”
. . .except, of course, the woman will NEVER be penalized.
Case in point, my immediate boss. His wife left him for some other guy while he was working overseas, AND bundled the kids off to live with him.
Now her sugar daddy has dumped her, and she's on welfare. And, not only is she NOW suing for alimony and custody and child support, but the local state welfare department is funding her continual appeals, despite losing at the final custody hearing and 3 appeals since. . .
Yep, a real biological father is being the responsible one, raising his daughters. . .and he's STILL being driven into the ground over it, as she has free legal help, whereas he has to keep paying for lawyers, airfare, etc. . .
It is not fair to make a man pay before he has a chance to dispute paternity. It is unfortunate that this happens and the men should be compensated for their expenses. I just find it hard to believe that some men are required to pay 18 years of child support to a woman they never met and for a child who isn't theirs.
Note to self…
Before placing one of your body parts inside an orifice of another person, make sure that person is a good person.
Choose wisely.
Well demkicker you go on and refuse the truth all you want to, that will never change the reality. Come on down to Illinois and have a good hard look. Come talk to my brother, he will be happy to explain what happened to him.
An innocent man will not have his paycheck garnished but what you seem to miss is that he has to prove his innocence because after a woman names him( and nothing else) he is GUILTY until such time as he proves his innocence. Ignore that if you like...but that IS how it IS as it stands here today!
How long do you think it takes to get the court to order a DNA test once he asks for it? How long do you think it takes to get the results? Do you honestly think they charge no support to paychecks till this is all complete?
If you do all I can do is LAUGH because you are dismissing first hand accounts of it HAPPENING right here and now.
You are right I haven't heard of it. Yes, I agree there are dishonest people out there who will take advantage of anyone if it suits their purposes. These women would fit that category. Men need to be cautious about where they leave their "donations". If there is a doubt about the character of their partner, I would suggest they refrain from any sexual activity...or take appropriate precautions.
To #64 - You can't win against ignorance and denial, but I applaud you for trying.
I agree. Pay the money. Then file a civil suit against the woman for twice the amount.
Skinn_dogg is right. I over-reacted and was out of line in my first comment to you, FreeManDC. I am sorry and hope you will accept my apology.
It can be said that all women are prostitutes. Some just have a longer-term payment plan.
Then you need to do the research and not just "assume" that Justice in this country is served.
Or you can choose to go around with blinders on to the fact that family courts rape (figuratively) men Financially just because some bimbo said he had sex with her. It happens and far too often because the courts only give a damn about one thing.
MONEY
Are there some dead beat Dads?.. of course..
But not all are.. just as there are some Gold Digger MoMs..
You even have some Gold Digger Drones, like John Kerry..
Democrat Party the party of parasites.. of many different kinds..
I agree..............a husband hunter is usually found outside the main gates at military bases....they are women who will do anything to get married, and military people have steady incomes.....i met quite a few of them in my time in the military, but had enough common sense to stay away from them....some of my buddies were not so smart.........
Paying the mother is a necessity of the situation. Paying a 2 year old or a 4 year old or even a teenager would be unwise. I am not saying that women are always good about using the money for the welfare of the child. My personal experience proves that that is not the case. It is sad that children get caught in the middle.
I still believe the best course of action is for the man to use protection or refrain. In cases of divorce, I believe the legal system is inadequate and unfair in regards to child support and child custody.
"And now men are the whiners about how unfair life is, that they got caught with their pants down."
Well, IF it's his kid, then there's no big objection to the payment.
However, as this article states, a significant number of payors are not in fact the father; and courts have consistently refused to change the court order after the payor proves the kids are not his. Once on the hook, always on the hook.
Also, the husband of a mother is presumed the father in most places. The paternity test isn't even done; if Mom was having an affair (even with the guy she's divorcing the payor to live with) the husband pays. Does guy1 paying for the kid mom and guy2 made while mom and guy2 live together make sense?
In addition, normally a father is permitted visitation at least, and in a sane world would get custody some of the time. However, again as this article states, the mere allegation of abuse will result in a restraining order which will result in no visitation and no custody. About 30% of cases allege abuse.
Quite frequently this also results in the guy losing other rights, such as 2nd Amendment rights, simply because of an allegation. Nobody wants women to be beaten but maybe something a little more than "she said it, that settles it" ought to carry the day, hmm?
Do you believe there's something unique about the mother that she ought to receive custody almost invariably? About 95% of cases result in the mother having custody. Don't we agree that raising kids takes both a mother and father? Then don't defend those that make spurious allegations knowing it won't be questioned and it cuts Dad out of the child's life.
Then people post about marriage rates dropping and men dodging relationships and wonder why. "Why" is because kids are being used as a weapon to 'get' men.
(On the flip side, there are massive number of cases where Dad really is Dad and goes through ridiculous gyrations to avoid paying for his true obligations. In fact, that's how this whole thing started; people got tired of having to (as the taxpayer) pay for Mom's welfare for the kid while Dad skips off. There are lots of situations where neither one of these weasels had any business having kids.)
Classy.
I know of a specific case where the mother's actions were so egregiously fraudulent that the judge ordered her to submit receipts for her child's upkeep in order to get reimbursed. No money for anything that's not obviously for the kid, only so much of an allowance for rent and utilities.
But that's the rare exception.
No matter how it is done, the mother decides how the money is spent, not the minor child.
There IS a reason why sex should be reserved for the marriage bed. We sow what we reap. Pay the child's support and keep his pants zipped.
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.