'Duped dads' fight back in paternity cases

The St. Louis Post Disgrace ^ | 04/10/2007 | Matt Franck

[free_for_now]

Government mandated child support should not exist. Since the choice of whether to bring a child into the world is no longer at conception, but it is now a women’s prerogative to kill it with no say from the father, I say the father should choose whether to support it or not.

Or maybe neither of them should get to choose.

[stompk]

“LOL I’ve seen those Maury shows where some fat hog is screaming at some poor guy, “You my baby-daddy! You my baby-daddy! An’ you gon’ pay up, too!” Only to start screaming and sobbing when the DNA tests show that neither of the two guys they had on the stage were her “baby-daddy”.”

on one show, I believe she was at number 13.

[Chode]

back in the 90's, a guy who's life was ruined by paying support for a kid that wasn't his walked into the welfare office here and murdered the women working there, then killed himself.

[stompk]

“How would you feel about making good old mom pay back every red cent with interest after the child turns 18?”

whistle. applause. cheer.

[montag813]

They should call this form of slavery “Whore Support”.

[HitmanLV]

It’s very clear from your postings that you have no concept of how family law and the family courts operate in the U.S.A. If you did, you’d realize that nearly every state has what is called “No Fault” divorce laws. In essence, it doesn’t matter who did what, what a person’s intent it was, who cheated on who, or who wronged whom the most. None of this comes into play with regard to custody, alimony or division of assets.

I do understand all that, I am a lawyer after all.  Admittedly, not involve din family law.

But your commentary is misplaced.  Everything you say is valid, but has nothing much to do with child support, which is what I was addressing.

Thus, suggesting the the courts should determine a mother’s intent to commit fraud is irrelevant on two levels. One, the fact that the law looks at both parties without regard to who is at fault or more/most at fault. Two, family law is civil court and not criminal court and her intent is irrelevant to the supposed “interest of the child.”

It was the other Freepers who raised fraud, I never did.   I was just responding to their embracing of finding fraud relevant in this case, and noting that fraud necessitates the intent to defraud, which isn't necessarily the case in these situations.  I agree, fault doesn't matter in divorce law, but that insight is best saved to those who raised the issue in the first place, not me. Your commentary isn't wrong, but it's misplaced.

[agarrett]

Stats say that 1/3 of married women have had an affair, and about 1/2 of married men have had affairs - no doubt with some married women. I’ve heard that 10% or so of people’s fathers isn’t the guy listed on the birth certificate, which pretty much jives with that 1/3 and 1/2 figure of marries diddling around.

  For what it's worth, your stats are way off. It's a common enough error, but they're overcounting the people who cheat with multiple partners.

  The best long-term studies show that roughly 20% of married woman, and 30% of married men, ever cheat on a spouse during their lifetime. Sure, I wish the numbers were even lower, but they're not 33 and 50%, either.

Drew Garrett

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

So where do you draw the line. If the child is an infant and isn't really bonded to the duped dad,is he still liable for 18 years of support? Do you make age 1 the cut off or 9 months?

And I disagree with you about the fitness of a Mother - if she cheats on her spouse, then lies about something as crucial to the overall well being of that child as his parentage, she is unfit.

[CA Conservative]

Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't. The law enforces a basic moral conduct built on consensus. That's what the law is. Sometimes, we legally enforce what people should do. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's less than good. I agree with you.

There is a logical fallacy to your argument. You calim that you don't want to see a child lose the relationship he/she has with the only father he/she has ever known. But no law can ever force a someone to have a loving relationship with another person. So if a man finds out the child he thoought was his was fathered by another man, no law can prevent him from choosing to end the contact with the child. The only thing that the law can do is force him to pay money. So the law does not protect the child emotionally at all - it just protects the lying mother financially.

Sorry, they abolished slavery about 150 years agon in this county.

[GourmetDan]

"This should be CRIMINAL."

I agree. Go after the woman with the full power of the state just like you would a 'deadbeat' dad.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Or is it only 'equal rights' when you get something for nothing?

[HitmanLV]

Of course I am not a troll, anyone who knows me on FR over the last several years can tell you that.

[agarrett]

That's right, and I do care [that the child thinks a man is its father]. That's the difference between us, or more accurately one difference between us.

  I'm glad you care what the child thinks. But keep something in mind...

  The child is wrong.

  I do not think it is the business of the government to try to force reality to fit a child's mistaken beliefs. The duped dad is not the biological father, and if he wants nothing more to do with the child, he's not the Dad either. That's reality, there's the facts.

  It is not the government's job to indulge fantasy.

Drew Garrett

[HitmanLV]

Any woman who cheats on her husband and then tries to say the children are his, IS totally dishonest.

What if the thinks her husband is the father, rather than her boyfriend? That might make her dishonest, but not totally dishonest.

[gogeo]

I'm afraid an unintended result of this would be to encourage men to never, ever marry, and to leave a woman who falls pregnant in order to avoid establishing a relationship with the child. There are few enough men these days interested in marrying and starting a family anyway, why threaten financial destruction to the ones who actually do?

We're getting there, aren't we? Establish a system that rewards irresponsibility and punishes responsibility...and what will happen?

I'm amazed that those who claim to speak for the best interests of the child can't see this. Short term "benefit" at the cost of long term suicide.

[durasell]

If the father doesn’t cough up the money then the gubmind gets to pay in many cases.

[Ayal Rosenthal]

Why oh why should someone who is not a person’s biological father pay child support for any reason outside of generosity? Because he has a “bond”? What if he doesn’t like that kid? It should be a personal choice, not a court mandated choice.

[HitmanLV]

I'm afraid an unintended result of this would be to encourage men to never, ever marry, and to leave a woman who falls pregnant in order to avoid establishing a relationship with the child

Only an unusually weak male who expects to encounter this situation. Truly, men never really know who the father of their child is for sure, never stopped them before.

[Glenn]

I love it when men of small raisins whine about this.

Do you rather enjoy being beaten around yours?

[cherry]

"His bill would allow men to bring forward DNA evidence at any time to prove they are not obligated to pay child support."

I imagine then that a woman could bring forth AT ANY TIME DNA evidence that proves some joker owes her tons of money for their kids even if 20 yrs has passed.....

men will rue the day that their sperm is the sole factor in being a father.....

It works both ways......

some women may find this a convenient way to rid themselves of custody battles with non-father fathers.....

be careful what you wish for....

[GourmetDan]

"When confronted with options where the child takes the hit, or the adult male, I think the males hould rightfully take the hit."

Well, there's your problem.

You left 'adult female' out of the equation.

Obviously, that's where any 'hit' should be taken.