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."
No, dear. That is YOUR INTERPRETATION of my comments. I think I remanded you previously for having no sense of humor.
You bear that out today. you, you, you,.........MAN-BASHER.
ROTFLMAO!
Instead of commenting on the article you direct your comment at BB's rationale for posting it. Plainly, the implication was that he was some sort of woman-hater. Certainly, there have been attacks directed at you, but I believe your post was the opening salvo.
As a Conservative, It does no good for you to marginalize yourself here. Just try to be more fair in the future. Have a nice day.
This stuff is happening mostly in married couples, not just singles.
Well, I did read the article and it gave two examples - one married and one not married - so I would say it is happening in both.
As to the post concerning abstinance - it was a very good one. Had the married woman in the example only had sex within the marriage - the situation could not have occurred.
> I personally advise men to avoid marriage at all costs, because it (along with parentage) provide the state with all the nessesary means to enslave him
Do you also advise them to avoid sex at all costs - because you see with sex comes the chance of parentage - and the man is just as responsible as the woman for a child. Granted the woman is the one who is pregant, but the man is responsible, also. So along with 'don't get married' should come 'don't have sex'. Because babies don't come from being married - they come from sex.
You should read more of my posts.
Now that ain't a bad idea and I'm a woman. I know that too many men don't really want custody of kids but decent men that do should get them, especially in instances like this.
Glad you're so amused by this. When you've been cheated on in your marriage, why don't you come back and discuss it then. If anything, you sound a lot like my ex-wife: a reprehensible human being.
If something like that happened to me, I would want custody of the children. Even if one of them were not mine and I'd been duped.
I will confess that with the exception of a few subjects, I have no idea how anyone stands on FR. So forgive me if I did not know anything about your previous posts. Each thread stands on its own. This isn't an insult - I just don't know.
So - do you suggest men refrain from sex also?
I found this out when I was pregnant! My blood type is Rh-. My husband also has Rh- blood. The Dr STILL wanted to give me a rhogam shot. Just in case. It was his policy.
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.