It then went on to the possibility of men being forced to pay child support, because they were chosen out of a phone book. There is no example to support this claim. I don't believe that men are forced to pay 18 years of child support to a woman they never met and for a child that isn't theirs.
OK. You want an example-go read Bernard Goldberg's Bias. In the book, he cites NUMEROUS cases of men forced to pay for children they did not father, on women they often didn't even know. In one case, they were looking for John G Doe, and the court summons went to John H Doe. His GF got it (he was out of town) and she was so mad at the idea of her BF cheating on her that she tore up the summons. She confessed what she did when the default judgment (as the BF was a no show) resulted in ganishment of her BF's wages. The court refused to vacate the judgment. They didn't CARE about the results of the DNA test-"best interests of the child" and all that. You are simply wrong to believe that a negative paternity case will let a man off the hook. Maybe in some states, but not CA and GA . If you don't believe me and the others here trying to tell you, maybe you'll believe Mr Goldberg.
See my post 130