Replies

This is a very important topic, and not one with easy answers. I speak from the perspective of a former Family Court Judge who has dealt with these issues many times. It seems to me that a number of folks here are falling into the liberal trap of identifying children as burdens or commodities, chattels to be dealt with according to some form of contract law. They are not. They are human beings who are innocent of any of the wrong-doing of their parents. There is much to be said for the non-biological bond between "parent" and child, no matter how much was induced by fraud. Should the child be punished? What sort of man is it who turns his back on a child who has come to know him as dad? What SHOULD the law be? I don't know. But morally, any of us who are capable of being a parent to such a child should do so, no matter the sacrifice. That's what we are here for.

Frankly, I am shocked by what you wrote.

You as a judge, are someone that I would expect to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; which state that we are all created EQUAL.

That means that regardless of circumstances, the LAW is the final arbitrator, independent of sentiment.

You ask "Should the child be punished?", but I ask you should the MAN be punished? It appears that you are suggesting the the man is somehow LESS equal under the law then the child. That is emotional and reactionary, rather than reasoned thinking. I dont mean to attack you personally, please dont take it that way, but in a Free Society, we cannot start endorsing the law favoring one party over another, or we turn the Constitution on its head.

The constitution also respects the right to pursue happiness, as defined by the person seeking such, it is not for us to say or judge the relative merits of that search except if it should impinge on the rights of another.

We have not legally established a childs right to support by anyone NOT their parent, so a strict interpretation of the law, would suggest that all efforts be made to put this child in finacial contact with their biological parent, and allow the victim of a CRIME to be allowed to choose their financial future one way or the other.

Tell me why that is wrong?

It seems to me that a number of folks here are falling into the liberal trap of identifying children as burdens or commodities, chattels to be dealt with according to some form of contract law. They are not.

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?

What sort of man is it who turns his back on a child who has come to know him as dad?

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.