Replies

"If you have a rule that allows the father to say 'not my sperm I want out,' you also have to allow the mother the same thing and the [biological father] to do the same thing. It's not just about the man who isn't the father who has rights here," she said. "You can't have one rule for one set of people and one rule for others."

Hello! Where in the world is she coming from? The entire problem now exists because of the fact that there is one rule for one set of people and one rule for others.

One African American victim of paternity fraud recently appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but wasn't granted certiorari probably because there's not yet a split among jurisdictions. He has responded by creating a website to raise awareness:

http://www.paternityfraud.com/

Supporters of paternity identification bills point to a 1999 study by the American Association of Blood Banks that found that in 30 percent of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine paternity, the man tested was not the biological father.

I presume this doesn't mean that 30% of all children were fathered by someone other than the husband. I presume one only does DNA testing in situations where one already suspects hanky-panky, so naturally the rate of DNA matches with the milkman are much higher there.

My problem with the paternity fraud movement is that it wants to ignore (or do away with) the legal realities of marriage.

In fact legal marriage, not bio-paternity should determine what legal rights (support) a child is entitled to.

I am however, all for ending child support for illegitimate children. I would not require men, biologically related or not to support children born out of wedlock. Of course, I would also not allow them any parental rights either.

Men who want parenting rights will have to marry to get them. AND women who want to be single moms should do it on their own, without demanding financial support from her "sperm donor"

And men and women, adults responsible for thier own behavior, can just quit whining about fairness and live with the consequences of their choices.

Restoring the power and the benefits of marriage would go a long way to restoring social and family health in America. I would also end no-fault divorce as long as minor children are in the home and weight any settlement in a "faulted" divorce in favor of the aggreived party.

(not that I expect to be made Queen of the Universe, or anything, but the more "fixes" the gov't, the courts and the liberal social advocates try to apply to our dying culture, the worse they make it.)

"There's no such thing as a legal parent except through the state....."

And that statement speaks volumes about the government sanctioned divorce/support industry. It's not about "the children." It never has been and never will be. Children are a tool that these sick parasites use for their own agenda. That agenda is about two things...money and control.

The people who created this system were very successful at their work because they realized that the REAL power of the government is in the judiciary. If somehow all of the divorce and custody laws were changed this year, it wouldn't make one bit of difference if the judges choose to ignore the law. I believe it was Stalin who said "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." In this case, it doesn't matter what laws are on the book if judges choose to disregard and ignore the law.

Three years ago, McCarthy found out he was not the biological father of his then-15-year-old daughter.

That's sad and all that, but he shouldn't have waited 12 years to find out. After a certain amount of time, there's no way to undo whats been done. Now if he found out when the kid was only a few years old, then it makes sense to get out of paying, but by the time the kid was 12, too many bonds have been formed.