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, I suggest that men should freeze their semen and get vasectomies, to insure that it is only effective when and with whom they intend it to be.
Anything else is a crap shoot.
Truth!
A number of years ago my husband and I got papers in the mail stating that we had defaulted on a car loan. It turned out that there was another couple in town who shared our names (They were Edward and Diana, we are Edwin and Dianna, same last name). It was fairly easy to clear up and didn't bother me much.
But only because I was certain it WOULD be cleared up before it caused me any personal grief. You can't make that assumption here. What a nightmare.
At first it was disheartening to think that there is such enthusiasm for denying a child who turns out, through no fault of his own, not to share the ersatz papa's DNA.
Uh, no, it's not that men are enthusiastic about denying a stranger's child, it's that the men themselves, and their REAL children if any, are being denied their RIGHTFUL support from the man's hard-won income.
Once it's been established that a man is not biologically related to a child, his MORAL (as opposed to 'legal') obligation to that child is no more or less than that of any other random stranger's child. If he choses to adopt the strange child, or to give money for it as an act of freewill charity, he is free to do so... but the non-bio child or its slutty mother has no moral claim on the man.
Why is this incomprehensible to you?
How would you react if, for instance, a lesbian named you the "father" of a child and used the 'legal' system to rob you of half your income? Admittedly, that's a farfetched possibility, but false paternity accusations against men are NOT farfetched, they are common. However, perhaps the only way I can get you to understand the fundamental justice issue here, is to paint such a farfetched scenario that would place you in the position of the men you mock. What is your answer? How would you feel about being deprived of half your income (or more), for a child that couldn't possibly be yours?
What is your counterargument? I'm waiting.
that you've made NO attempt to address
Tell Mamzelle. She didn't believe me when I told her it was possible.
Thank God it's never happened to me, but the fact that it could, is quite chilling.
Notice the transfer of responsibility from those who did the deed to create another set of victims. Thank heavens for DNA testing.
You are correct, of course, MHT. But I always learned it this other way: for example, "A child born to him" (would therefore also be "to him and his wife"). Another example, third person: "The administration has given us</> students no alternative" (as opposed to "we." Remove "students" and you'd see "we" would be wrong "the administration has given we no alternative"). I was taught to complete a sentence with/without the word(s) in question.
Often, with these women, the biological father is not the best choice for Father responsibilities. The real father is probably great eye candy and great in the sack but he is also probably a dead beat. The selected father wears glasses, has a bit of pot belly, dresses geeky, is responsible and makes $200k/yr.
There is also to be considered the bond between "father" and child, which might actually be better (just entertain this notion for a moment) *maintained* than rejected with anger. A friend that's been a friend for years might just be worth holding on to, even between adult and child. Both "father" and child may end up very hurt, and if you can come up with an effective way to punish the offending woman, I'd be happy to entertain it. But few come to mind. Giving custody to the father entirely has been suggested, an idea I like, but is unlikely to fly in the present climate.
Discontinuing support is reasonable, and probably essential in court, but this thread is animated by animus, not a hunger for simple justice. (Which is why I keep coming back to the rationale.) And just how far does the recompense go? Back to birth? Shall we calculate all the Huggies purchased, when there might be a few baby's hugs enjoyed as well? The spectacle of rejecting children publicly is MOST distressing. "You're not mine, and I want it all back." Crueler than being orphaned, and it doesn't exactly signify that the cruelty is truly the woman's fault. The point is, the child can be spared that cruelty at will. In the Merchant of Venice, Shylock said, "A deal's a deal, I want my pound of flesh." When the money is in the "father's" pocket, what else will he have besides bitterness?
The last energetic argument I had with Buddha on this subject involved an Australian case concerning a father suing for return of Christmas gifts and McDonald's outings. When I logged on to FR, I saw BB's first thread and thought, "What, again?" but decided to Let it Be. Even when I encountered his plans to start a new site called "Dontmarryher.com". Then another thread! Curiosity beckoned. Just what inspires such energy?
Then why can't we take the money from your paycheck? You are as related to the child as the guy being forced to pay for it is.
That's even WORSE. I honestly feel that wives who do this, should be executed. They've stolen a man's whole life, theirs should taken.
There is also to be considered the bond between "father" and child, which might actually be better (just entertain this notion for a moment) *maintained* than rejected with anger.
That, of necessity, must be a free-will decision. You can force child support payments, but you can't force visitation on a man who's so angry that all he can see is the adulterer's eyes when he looks at the kid.
Possibly some men might wish to continue interacting with, and even supporting, the child, but I maintain that they're not OBLIGATED to, as the "relationship" began in fraud. Forcing them will only intensify their hatred.
Discontinuing support is reasonable, and probably essential in court
So what's your argument with us, then? Courts are NOT in fact discontinuing support.
but this thread is animated by animus, not a hunger for simple justice.
Contextually, these are not separable issues. When simple justice has been repeatedly denied, animus towards the perpetrators and willing beneficiaries is inevitable.
And just how far does the recompense go? Back to birth
That's not far enough. Many men, myself included, work a LOT harder at educational and economic advancement, than we otherwise would, for the sole purpose of financing a family... our own family, not the milk-man's family. In my own case, my personal needs are simple and could be satisfied by manual labor -- I drove myself through hell to get a Ph.D. in chemistry so I could afford a family. (Surely you don't think that men work so darned hard, because they like their jobs! Most men HATE their jobs. Mine is at least tolerable, and I'm luckier than most.)
If I found out that I'd been cuckolded, I would feel very strongly that a TOTAL restitution was in order -- not just the cost of raising the babies, but the cost of being married to her, and the cost of the education and preparation that I put myself through to afford it all. Plus, substantial damages, in light of the fact that at my age, I have much less chance of attracting a desireable, breeding-age woman and starting over.
If I faced that situation, I would argue that both the mother and the bio-father ought to be paying me.... for the rest of their lives, if necessary. Otherwise, execute them for adultery and hand over all their property to me.
The spectacle of rejecting children publicly is MOST distressing. "You're not mine, and I want it all back." Crueler than being orphaned, and it doesn't exactly signify that the cruelty is truly the woman's fault.
But it absolutely, positively, undeniably IS the woman's fault. Women can 100% prevent this sort of thing. If you don't want your children to suffer it, make d@%# sure that your HUSBAND is the actual father.
Once again I come back to the example of a MAN convicted of fraud (eg, a Wall Street raider) -- nobody sheds a tear over the fact that HIS children will suffer as a result of his well deserved punishment. If you commit a fraud, your family won't be deliberately punished, but they WILL, unavoidably, suffer. And that's a darned good reason not to commit crimes.
When the money is in the "father's" pocket, what else will he have besides bitterness?
He will have the economic ability to afford to remarry and have HIS OWN kids. Call it genetic fairness, Darwinian justice, whatever. (Most likely, he'll include a DNA clause in the prenup next time around, though!)
... another thread! Curiosity beckoned. Just what inspires such energy?
Buddhaboy has a true, unadulterated passion for justice!
"Him" is objective case, which is used following a preposition. For example, "Give it to me" ("me" is objective)--and, obviously, "Give it to I" would cause heads to turn!
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.