'Duped dads' fight back in paternity cases

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

[jimt]

Step up and be a man!

I think you mean "Bend over and smile !"

[fr_freak]

Its a matter of justice and fundamental fairness. The only exception a court could make is if the man had an on-going parental relationship with the child since I am of the view love and the child's welfare should override mere biology.

Monetary responsibility for a child has absolutely nothing to do with the emotional ties. In today's family courts, a woman can dissolve all contact with the man and refuse to let him see his own children, yet have the courts force him to pay her money for the children. That is bad enough, but allowing the woman to refuse to let him see the child while forcing him to pay for it when the child is not even his is heinous. That, however, is exactly the system that is in place now.

The issue of breaking the parental bond is deceitful misdirection; if the designated father is allowed to see the child then he will be paying for much of the child's care already. The legal designation as father only comes into play when the "father" no longer has contact with the child or has only minimal contact, usually due to divorce or other such separation, in which case the so-called parental bond is already broken, probably by the mother. In the case where a man finds out that his wife's child is not his, a divorce will most likely occur and, once again, money is now the only issue as it is unlikely the man will have access to the child any longer.

[HitmanLV]

You keep insisting a man who is demonstrably not the biological father, must continue to act that role, once he finds out that is false, for the child's sake.

Sometimes, yes.  But not always.

Not having children yourself, you “believe” this is in the best interests of the child.
It is not.

My having or not having children isn't material. 

Ask any adult who discovers they were not the biological child of their parents, how it feels to be lied too.

Ask an adult who was raised knowing they were adopted who their real parents are.

Ask an adult raised by a loving stepparent,which role model they will use in raising their own children.

Ask the adult raised by a devoted single mother or father, how that worked out for them.

Ask an adult raised by loving, honest and decent extended family members or foster parents, how that all worked out in the end.

All great questions, and I have had some of these discussions with some people in these categories over my life, but haven't covered each example.

While you may tell yourself that you care about the wellbeing of the child, you seem not to grasp that childhood is temporary and for many adults who were not reared in the ideal conditions of a loving, married, sober and stable household, childhood is the condition they had to survive to become functioning adults.

I disagree here - I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly.  the childhood need not be perfect and I never suggested it should be. 

Children survive the death of their parents.
They also survive under conditions of abuse many can not even imagine.
What hurts them most is not that the adults in their lives might betray them, but that other adults would excuse the betrayal, and pretend it does not matter.

And yes, the betrayal I am addressing is for the father figure suddenly 'checking out' of the life of a child who looks to him as 'daddy.'  I'm not excusing this betrayal - indeed, it's other Freepers who passionately seem to think it's the father figure's prerogative to check out of the life of a child.  I think the law is right to undermine that strategy.

You claim a man who finds out he is not the father of a child should continue to pretend he is “for the child's sake”.

Now look closely - I never said that.  This is a fiction you created.  I just said he should remain a part of the child's life who looks upon him as a parent.  As for the pretending, I offered no suggestion nor insight into that.

I say, for the child’s future adult life, he should not.

And maybe I agree with you - I don't like pretenses either.  But I do think it's desirable that he continue to be part of the child's life.  That doesn't inexorably mean the 'pretending' you suggested. 

But I am merely a single mother, actively involved in raising a child to adulthood.

Good luck to you and God bless. 

[arthurus]

Databanks.

[HitmanLV]

Oh, then that makes it okay for you to be a socialist Xlinton-child-worship troll then.

I am none of the above, regardless of your best efforts to try to fit things into neat, self serving categories in order to make things make sense for you.

[HitmanLV]

Sometimes, yes.

[facedown]

...a court can't make a man a good parent. It can use the force of law to make him a passable one, though,...

Man, I've seen everything now.

Y'all lawyers are nuts.

[HitmanLV]

Not too nuts, but nuts enough. ;-)

[fr_freak]

Maybe he was a sucky husband. I know in Planet Freeper, we like to keep things very simple, but in reality when a spouse strays, it’s often because of deficiencies in both spouses.

You have got to be kidding me. I would very much like you to point out to me which human being on this planet is not "deficient" in some way. A vow is a vow. You don't get to piss on it just because you discover that your chosen mate is not perfect.

As for the duped father maintaining a relationship with the child - I would agree that it is the right thing to do if the child recognizes and depends on you as daddy. However, my recognition of a moral responsibility is a world of difference away from believing that we should allow the government to abet fraud at the point of a gun. The choice must be the duped father's and noone else's.

[HitmanLV]

Sure, I’ll Freepmail you about it!

[FierceDraka]

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

montag813 wins the thread!

[CA Conservative]

Not at all, I was just making it clear that your statement was patently wrong - courts often decide custody matters when both parties seek custody.

Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and wasn't even implied in the context of my statement. As I said, it was a complete non-sequiter. Either you were just looking for somethng to argue about, or you couldn't adequately refute the point so you changed the subject.

It can use the force of law to make him a passable one, though, something you can't seem to absorb.

If money is all you think it takes to make someone a "passable" parent, you really have some screwed up ideas.

Let's face it, your arguments about preserving the "relationship" are all a farce. Hopefully, if a man has developed a relationship with a child, he will not want to end it because he learns he is not the biological father. But if he does, no court can prevent it, and to try to require him to continue such a relationship will ultimately be harmful to the child. You know this, I'm sure.

This is all about one thing - money. You think somone should be required to support the child, and since the real father is not available, the duped husband will have to do. This is not for the emotional well-being of the child - any child would be better off with a loving step-father or no father at all than to have a man who has come to resent or even hate the child and the mother in their life.

Your problem is 1)you are an attorney, so you think the law can fix social issues; and 2) you are young and naive enough (emotionally if not chronologically) to think you know something about life. Your post are full of pseudo-compassion, but no real understanding.

As one poster previously said, if you really feel that it is better for an adult to "take the hit", as you put it, you should volutarily take on the responsibility of supporting some of these children. If the husband no longer wishes to be associated with them, you have just as much of a relationship; maybe more, since you "love the children", and obviously the husband doesn't.

[FierceDraka]

Only an unusually weak male who expects to encounter this situation.

Blah blah frakking blah!

I'm sorry, I don't take child rearing advice from virgins. Why don't you go upstairs from your basement lair and ask your mom about it?

[HitmanLV]

Well, I will reread your posts and mine and try to be clearer. I do think you were wrong in saying that the court only decides one thing in these matters, since clearly it decides other issues (custody being one of them, which is why I used it as an example). If that was misplaced, I’m sorry, but I think you have a poor understanding of what courts do in these situations and why they do it.

I will reevaluate it and see if I can be clearer and more on point, if I think I wasn’t. I will say that I am happy that the conventional wisdom of FR as I have read this afternoon isn’t the way it’s done, though the law changes from time to time. ‘The best interests of the child’ standard is better than the best interests of the poor guy standard, even if it brings up to sometimes unjust decisions.

But I am glad that the FR view on this issue is in the minority, and doesn’t look to ever become the standard.

[FierceDraka]

A few years later, she meets a mature man who wants to marry her. That man raises said illegitimate child for years. Marriage doesn’t work out. What then? There was no “fraud” — no “deceit”. Woman was upfront w/ man about true paternity of the child, but that man finacially supported child, anyway. I believe courts phrase that as “implied paternity”.

True story:

A friend of mine married a woman, and adopted her son - legally.. Went through the whole rigamarole of adopting her son as a symbol of his committment to her.

Fast forward a few years.

SURPRISE! My buddy's wife suddenly decides she's a lesbian, shacks up with another woman, and files for divorce.

And guess what! My pal now has to pay support!

No fraud, no deceit, as you said. But my friend still has to sell the house he worked hard for, file for bankruptcy! Yay! Justice has been done!

Hasn't it??

(Sure, there was some other stuff that was going on, but I'm just using this as an illustration.)

[HitmanLV]

I’m neither a virgin, nor living in my mom’s basement, nor am I giving out parenting advice. I’m giving my thoughts on how the law should handle these situations.

You’re not only wrong, you’re very wrong. But lately, that appears to be FR for you.

[FierceDraka]

Better snatch her up!

Huh-huh. You said "snatch"

[Texas_shutterbug]

When you decide to adopt a child, it's for keeps. He said "this is my child forever," not "this is my child until we divorce."

Adopted kids are NOT second class citizens.

[FierceDraka]

Socialist Troll.

Man, that is one of the most insulting things you can call anyone here on FR.

LOL Well done!

[Tx Angel]

Ask him if he despises the child or the mother. I’ll bet he loves his child.

But I agree that some women are simply scum. How does one not know the father of their child? Or just wake up one day and think “Oh, I’m a lesbian”.