Posted on 12/09/2002 9:04:51 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
DETROIT (AP) -- A package of bills sitting in a state Senate committee could free men from paying child support for children they did not father.
The proposals also would penalize a mother who deceives a man into believing he is the biological father of her child.
Traverse City dentist Damon Adams is pushing legislators to vote the bills -- passed last year by the state House -- into law.
Shortly after the end of his 25-year marriage, DNA tests proved Adams was not the father of the fourth child born to he and his wife.
"It was the worst feeling I've ever had to go through in my life," he told the Detroit Free Press for a Monday story.
Adams presented the DNA evidence to a judge, but was told to continue paying child support, which amounts to more than $18,000 a year.
He said the proposed legislation is in the best interest of children, who have a right to know their medical history.
"When something like this happens, the best way to heal is for the truth to come out," he said.
But Amy Zaagman, chief of staff for the chair of the state Senate Committee on Families, Mental Health and Human Services, said the bills -- which would allow men to keep parenting time with children -- raise serious questions.
"Here's someone who had a relationship with the child, established some responsibility for the child ... yet now he doesn't want to be responsible any more but wants parenting time?" she asked. "How does that benefit the child?"
Zaagman said committee Chairwoman Sen. Beverly Hammerstrom, R-Temperance, does not oppose the bills' concept, but has legal concerns.
For example, when a man who is not married signs paternity papers, he waives his right to a DNA test. If the man has any doubts, he should raise them before signing, not years later, Zaagman said.
John Ruff, 29, of Grand Rapids, said he believed his ex-girlfriend when she told him she was pregnant with his child more than eight years ago. So he signed the paternity papers, started paying child support and scheduled visitations.
Ruff requested a DNA test only after hearing rumors that the child was not his. Like Adams, Ruff presented evidence that he was not the father to a judge. He also was told to continue paying child support.
"I hate to say it, but the whole part where I went wrong was the part where I tried to stand up and be a man and take responsibility for what I thought was my daughter," said Ruff, who added that he has not seen the child since 1998.
"I should have been a jerk and tried to protest what (my ex-girlfriend) was saying."
Meri Anne Stowe, chairwoman of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, said she can sympathize with men in such situations, but is more concerned about the children involved.
"We don't want to illegitimize a whole class of children, and we don't want to impoverish a whole class of children," Stowe said. "We have to look at the greater good."
The whole reason why this "Paternity Fraud" issue has become a national movement, is that men in this situation DID get lawyers, DID put up with substantial legal nuisance, DID have the facts on their side, AND YET the courts, unconscionably, ruled against them.
Be interested in a case of such a thing happening.
They are legion. Do a websearch for "paternity fraud" and find out for yourself.
The mother, never mind how guilty individually, is not to be punished because she is a member of a higher ranking group.
Children, as a group, trump all other groups except the aged and those of the favored race.
The rights of an innocent father cannot count because, by definition, he cannot be innocent.
Emotional concerns are another matter and can never really be addressed by law. It is a personal moral decision each adult needs to make. Certainly, a woman who has lied both to a man and her child/children about who the biological father is has already done serious emotional damage to both the duped man and her own children. That duped man should have the right to decide for himself whether he wants to continue a relationship with those children (if a bond has been established). You cannot force people to love other people.
that's testosterone, boys will be boys
re: contempt for women?
they have contempt for LIARS! women who "pick" someone to be daddy
and women like you who defend the LYING women
Why are any of us here? Why did members of the DC Chapter just go stand in the freezing cold to Freep Al Gore at a book signing? Why did Jeff Head involve himself in the problems of some Klamath farmers?
Why would you think that someone must have a personal stake in the outcome in order to protest injustice? What kind of world would we live in if everyone followed your apparent algorithm of ignoring all bad things until they have a personal, immediate, impact?
Whatever happened to standing up for truth, for its own sake? When was "normalcy" defined as watching horrible injustice take place, and doing nothing about it? Perhaps in your world, nothing matters unless it affects you personally, but thank God there are others who do not share your views.
If noone's already suggested it, here's one:
Give the support-paying non-biological dad the option of full custody of the child. He as already bonded with the child, and the child should be taken away from the defrauding mother for the his/her benefit. The defrauding mom should have to pay child support to the father.
The reason for that, is that I have personally witnessed supposedly "qualified" women change into the "courtesan-prostitute" you describe, once made aware of their power when aligned with the Court system.
I dont think it is possible to know one's true nature ahead of time. Every marriage is a crap-shoot, and while some get lucky, most do not.
Things were not always as they are today, so we have to ask ourselves what changed. I submit that what has changed are the legal system for women in America, and women's attitude towards men, with influence from the Feminists.
50 years ago, Men were a respected commodity, for which women sought fairly and earnestly. Nowadays, Men's MONEY is the only thing that is respected, and sought for many women, and they make no secret of this.
When the State colludes with women through their legal licences (marriage and birth certificates) to lay claim to a man's money without benefit of due process, or adherence to LAW, then men must avoid having their names on those licences which allow such behaviour to take place.
I respect your opinion, and welcome your response.
Actually, you will find no such thing, and you merely made up another strawman.
While I admit to sexual activity, the truth regarding "prowess" is in the eye of the beholder, for whom I choose not to speak for, and have not ANYWHERE on FR.
It is the activity itself that you cant stand, so you have made this personal. You are digging quite a hole for yourself, dear.
I am now going to step back and watch as you self-destruct. Why should I get in the way?
That last part isn't true. May be for some but not all. You should make that point. If you believe it.
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.