Posted on 12/09/2002 7:27:06 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
What I and many others are opposed to is treating children like hostages. Whether that is how the industry you worked in designed it or not, that is what it has become. Since I don't know you personally, I'd have a hard time laying any specific blame at your doorstep for how things are, but I would hope that you couldn't possibly, in any way, think that this system is loaded with bias against fathers from top to bottom.
They are human beings who are innocent of any of the wrong-doing of their parents.
I won't presume to speak for anyone else on FR, but in my view you would be hard pressed to find a father around here who would ever want to blame their children for anything in cases like these. That being said, actions have consequences...it's an immovable law of how the universe works. Some consequences are good, some are neutral, and some are bad. As a former domestic relations court judge, perhaps you can answer this: Why is it that when there is a negative consequence in anything regarding custody of children, the industry almost invarriably will shift as much of that consequence as it can onto the father? Is it because that if the the mother actually has to suffer the consequences for defrauding someone that it would be "unfair" to the child? If so, then you are not doing that child, or society as a whole, any favors. Kids don't stay little forever. At some point, no matter how much anyone tries to shelter them, they will notice what's going on around them. Are you saying that it would be in that childs best interest to see that a woman (his mother, no less!) can lie, commit fraud for financial gain, and know that she will not be required to make restitution or suffer any consequences because she can hide behind a child? Women who do these kind of selfish acts are effectively using their own kids as human shields. What if a mother robbed a bank? No gun, just handed the teller a note that demanded the money in the teller's drawer and gets caught walking out of the bank. Should she not suffer the consequences for theft because if she did, it would punish her kids? Should the father of her children have to pay back the bank because it would punish the kids if he didn't pay for her actions?
Children learn by example. What kind of example are they learning from if they see that their mother can do something as base as paternity fraud and get away with it?
JUST SO HE HAS A JOB AND/OR MONEY,
and then say he is the father, give that on the papers when the child is born!
Are there really some men so foolish [or macho as to want to have it claimed they did this] as to go along with this and PAY?
What did Barnum say?
In some situations, over a period of years the child has bonded with the dad and the relationship is loving. Resolving a mistaken or fraudulent paternity matter in that circumstance is difficult. The truth usually only comes to light because the parents are splitting up and the mother is either looking to hurt her ex or is bargaining for custody. The man doesn't necessarily turn his back on the child as much as he is running for cover after being bombarded with devaststing testimony by his ex. In time the wounds on both sides (father and child)may heal, after the lawyers are gone.
This is one of those topics that, even though it hasn't happened to me, the subject still raises my blood pressure. IMHO, anyone who would let a woman who commits this kind a fraud off with no consequences is almost as bad as the person who committed the fraud. As was mentioned in another post, the policy of allowing this to happen is legally establishing that two wrongs make a right.
Uh, I think Tacis was merely putting in writing what goes through the head of a liberal when considering these issues.
Well, then I hope you either don't sleep around or have gotten things 'fixed' so this won't be an issue for you.
I agree 100% that it is wrong for a woman to force a man to support a child that is not biologically his with certain exceptions. (For example, if the couple has been married for years and the child has thought of the man as 'daddy' essentially all of his/her life and he/she is older than just a toddler.)
It would also be wrong for the guy to 'pretend' to be a dad through visitation while not giving a dime to help the child.
So what consequence should she face for her actions?
What they are also saying is that if they cannot garnish his paycheck, they have no further use for him. Their policy is "pay up and shut up."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.