DNA Paternity Fraud Case To U.S. Supreme Court

Men's News Daily ^ | May 31, 2002 | Jeffery Leving

[MHT]

I think that the paternity case goes further than that because he does not get visitation rights because he is not the "real" father. So, he's the legal father, not the biological one, but not allowed to be the emotional father.

[Free the USA]

Are you really that ignorant? Somehow I don't think so but because you can't offer any type of argument you try every other tack to change the subject.

[Stone Mountain]

It's not improbable. See here's the thing. You're looking at this as though it is like winning the lottery. You pick someone at random who bought a lottery ticket, and think about what the probability is that he will win. Once the drawing is over and someone properly claims the prize, what's the probability that somebody won? What's the probability that that particular person who won, won?

Nope, that's not it. This started because we were talking about a specific case. We heard one story a guy who had a 97% match on his paternity test. He said that meant that if there were 100 people in the room, 2 others could be the father. I pointed out that the probabilities were nowhere near that, and surmised that he probably was the father. To a much greater degree of accuracy than just the 97% that the test offered. Factors such as the fact that he had slept with her at about the time that the baby was conceived, etc, etc. I said that it would not be impossible, but very improbable that he wasn't the father. I stand by that analysis. If I had read 10,000 similar stories, I would believe that there is a good chance that one or more of them might have gotten that bad improbable break, but in considering ANY SINGLE CASE (which is what we are talking about), the probability remains the same. The law of large numbers is only relevent when dealing with a large number of cases; in this case, we are only discussing one person.

There are at least a million strange cases in the US today created by a system that isn't designed to do the right thing. It's designed to do the wrong thing. The rate of cases in which the outcome is wrong (although probably do not seem too "strange") is probably about 80% -- so we have around 40 million people effected by faulty decisions. All of those cases exist right now, both wrong and too strange, with a probability of 1.0; all of them.

Even if this is true, it is irrelevent in discussing the merits of one particular case.

[RogerFGay]

You have a very simple minded idea. The fact that you've repeated it over and over again doesn't make it any more complicated. The answer is no, I disagree with you completely. That's as direct as it gets. Now stop pretending that I'm ignoring your point.

[RogerFGay]

Nope, that's not it. This started because we were talking about a specific case. We heard one story a guy who had a 97% match on his paternity test. He said that meant that if there were 100 people in the room, 2 others could be the father.

You probably didn't grow up in a small town the way he did. She might have screwed three of his cousins and one of them is the father.

[RogerFGay]

Dan Walters: Men gain a rare victory in political gender war as DNA bill passes

Among its other shortcomings of omission and commission, the California Legislature is a very inconsistent purveyor of public policy, constantly enacting legislation that reverses other laws, sometimes even within the same legislative session.

While the syndrome is not a new one, the rapid turnover of legislators mandated by term limits may exacerbate it as it damages institutional memory. New people have new slants on matters of public policy and are not shy about engraving them into law, regardless of how they may conflict with past policies.

Most of the time, this erratic policy-making is merely annoying to those who must interpret and implement the Legislature's emissions, but in certain fields, it has a real human impact. And nowhere is that more evident than in the treacherous minefield of laws and policies affecting relations between men and women.

The Legislature (and the governor) decree whose interests will have primacy as about 100,000 marriages are dissolved in California each year. The allowable grounds for divorce, the levels of child support and alimony, and the rules governing prenuptial agreements are among the pithy matters that the politicians decide, and it's a rapidly evolving policy area.

The election of more women to the Legislature -- itself largely a product of term limits -- and the major influence that women's rights advocates have achieved within the dominant Democratic Party have tilted the political balance in the war between the sexes toward women in recent years.

A landmark domestic relations policy change occurred when the Legislature imposed tougher standards on child support -- so tough, in fact, that it sparked creation of men's rights groups. They complained that divorced dads, even conscientious ones, are being treated like criminals, subject to having their wages seized arbitrarily and having visitation rights ignored.

In 1996, the men won one, after a fashion, when the Legislature passed and then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed legislation declaring alimony to be temporary support aimed at making recipients become self-supporting "within a reasonable period of time." And it would allow their alimony to be terminated if they failed to move toward self-support. Women's rights groups didn't like it, saying it could allow ex-spouses -- women overwhelmingly -- to be hauled into court and threatened with cutoff of their support payments if they didn't return to school or get jobs.

The groups that opposed the new alimony law tried to have it repealed, but could not win as long as Wilson remained governor.

"The only collection of women who oppose this bill are second wives," then-Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl said as she urged a repeal.

In 1999, after Gray Davis succeeded Wilson as governor and Democrats had achieved larger legislative majorities, Kuehl and other women's rights champions in the Legislature pushed through a repeal, which Davis signed.

Last year, Davis and other Democrats delivered another victory to the distaff side of the gender war when they enacted a Kuehl-carried bill that would void any prenuptial agreements unless the spouses were represented by attorneys or waived that right.

The measure was sparked by a state Supreme Court decision upholding the prenuptial agreement signed by the former wife of baseball star Barry Bonds, even though she was not represented by an attorney.

The men won a rare skirmish in the state Assembly on Tuesday when it voted 51-3 to make it easier for men to challenge child-support orders when DNA tests prove that they are not the biological fathers of the children involved.

The measure is backed by men's rights groups, and advocates, including its author, Assemblyman Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, said it was a matter of fundamental fairness, likening it to DNA tests that free wrongly convicted prisoners. But critics said it would plunge more children into poverty, and Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said it would resurrect the "age-old double standard."

The Wright bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, and even if it clears that hurdle, an uncertain fate in Davis' hands. He's quite aware that he needs female voters to win re-election.

[Free the USA]

For someone who has made this his cause: posting several related articles a day, creating a web-site and writing and having articles published on the subject; it seems you could offer something besides I disagree with you. Your resorting to calling an idea simple-minded because of your a complete inability to counter the point says a little something about its validity.

[RogerFGay]

Oh stop. Your argument has no substance and it's not improving it by trying to pick on me.

[RogerFGay]

BTW: Change your pseudo-name. The name "Free the USA" is not appropriate for someone who wants to subjugate and oppress everyone in the country (except yourself I take it).

[Stone Mountain]

You probably didn't grow up in a small town the way he did. She might have screwed three of his cousins and one of them is the father.

This is a completely different argument. How does this apply to the law of large numbers you were quoting before? Or have you given up on that point and moved on to a new one?

[RogerFGay]

I'm on exactly the same point. You used the wrong model and your analysis is incomplete. His weird story could be true, The probabily that it is true is not necessarily as low as the impossible probability that you assigned to it. Whether it's true or not depends on facts, circumstances, and since this is after the fact -- just depends on whether it's true or not. Right now the probability in fact is either absolutely definite (1) or absoluletly not (0); the DNA test result cannot tell you which.

[Free the USA]

Just because you are completely incapable of formulating an argument as to why you should be allowed to unilaterally withdraw from commitments that you voluntarily entered into with a totally innocent individual; is no excuse for resorting to name calling and personal attacks.

[rymansdad]

I agree with the issues at hand very much. I have been trying to get a dna test with the state of Mo. for over 10 years. Please advise me on what is next.....
thank you.

[RogerFGay]

I don't think any US citizen should ever have to care whether you have little sympathy for a man who hasn't had a DNA test on your schedule. The fact is that a man is either the father or not. The case in favor of court ordered child support is weak to begin with. Moving from there to forcing men to continue paying after they have proven they are not fathers is absolutely conclusive evidence that the system has lost its way. And we know exactly how it lost it's way. It isn't for the children, or for taxpayers. The state is stealing money from whoever they can, because federal funding is doled out in proportion to "collections."

[SheaWC]

Yes there was a contract. A contract of marriage. To honor, obey cherish and to stay faithful. My contract stated that I remain loyal to my wife and she to me. That I should do these things because I was swearing before god that I would. That was null and void once she betrayed that said contract and ios liable for damages by the state and by God.