Men are routinely screwed over in paternity suits. Nothing new.
But you need to come up with better examples than these two losers for anyone to care.
Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.
Doesn’t even require un-zipping these days.
MI is messed up and completely lazy in any friend of the court situation unless its a huge payoff.
In a lot of places a woman can name a man on the BC as the father with whom she has never had sex and the guy won’t know until the state comes after him; usually after the time for him to rebut the BC that he doesn’t know about in the first place. You could keep it zipped and still get screwed, so to speak.
***Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.***
AMEN!
“Men are routinely screwed over in paternity suits. Nothing new.
But you need to come up with better examples than these two losers for anyone to care.
Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.”
And you have never made a mistake in your entire life?
Even if “They should have kept their pants zipped up” this is completely wrong. These men are getting screwed by the state and these lying skanks.
“Men are routinely screwed over in paternity suits. Nothing new.
But you need to come up with better examples than these two losers for anyone to care.
Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.”
Maybe I am missing something, but I didn’t see anything in the story that indicated the second man ever had sex with the woman involved. Maybe he did, but that information is not contained in the story. And it wouldn’t be the first time a woman named a man she never slept with as the putative father.
Not necessarily.
One could do what the OldPossum did many moons ago: get a vasectomy. About a week or so after the operation one takes a test and there is then proof that paternity is not possible.
On the other hand, if you want to stay "sperm active" and invite such trouble, well, that's another option.