Replies

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.

This article is about the fact that a mother cannot be held liable for fraud when identifying a father. You dismiss the fraud angle because you believe a woman who screws multiple men, but lists one on the birth certificate, is not committing fraud.

Let me ask you this, when a woman doesn’t know which potential father is the daddy, how often do they pick the person who is a drug dealer or unemployed, versus the person who has a steady job? hmmmm, I wonder.

This new law would create a legal/criminal definition of fraud for misidentifying the father. This would allow the mother to be held to account, instead of being financially rewarded for her deceipt. This law would allow the father to seek compensation for his loss.

If someone stole $100, you and I would ignore the loss, would we not? What about if they stole $1,000? or $10,000? or $100,000? or $1,000,000? At what price would you stop “being a man” and desire compensation?