[Mamzelle]

If you can come up with some way to punish Mommy without punishing Child, please offer it. I can't think of one. I'd like there to be one, but intimacy can be so very complicated and it is doubtful that a man will ever enjoy his day in court. Requiring a man to *continue* paying child support for a child not his is wrong, allowing him to take his "pound of flesh" back from previous years won't hurt anybody but the child.

A few weeks back there was a case of the man suing for recompense, not for support, but for toys given and hamburgers bought.

[BuddhaBoy]

HEY, THERE ARE SIX TRENT LOTT THREADS TODAY!!!

You are needed elsewhere!! Stop them! ROTFLMAO!

[alpowolf]

Mommy should have thought of that before committing the fraud. SHE is the one inflicting the punishment.

You want to discuss morality? What a fine lesson to pass on to a child: how to steal, get away with it, and keep the ill-gotten gains.

[knak]

so just punish all the daddies, (or not daddies?)

[knak]

Requiring a man to *continue* paying child support for a child not his is wrong,

isn't this against everything you have been complaining about in this thread?

[Rytwyng]

If you can come up with some way to punish Mommy without punishing Child, please offer it. I can't think of one

The same logic applies to all crimes. If a man commits a serious crime, and goes to prison, his children suffer the consequences (economic and otherwise) of not having him around.

If a man commits fraud (say, on Wall Street), nobody argues that he should be exempt from punishment if his kids would suffer while he's in jail. The universal reaction is, that's sad, but he should've thought of that before he committed the crime. Yet if a woman commits paternity fraud, somehow the needs of her children exempt her from jail!! How unfair.

[constable tom]

At least on this issue, you are morally bankrupt and completely in the wrong. It is pure illogic to think there is any justification at all for extracting child support payments from a man when it is scientifically proven he did not father the child. The fact that a lie was successfully perpetrated for some period of time before a paternity test settled the matter does not alter the correct application of justice. Neither does the fact that the duped "father" and child have established a bond. Fraud is fraud is fraud. If an adult enters into any relationship or takes on any apparent responsibility absent informed consent, they cannot be bound to that relationship or responsibility. It works this way in every other case except current child support laws. Which makes absolutely no sense, especially considering the actual responsible party exists and is known to the party who perpetrated the fraud. Simply forcing the woman to admit the identity of the true father and verifying the fact scientifically provides the remedy for any financial concerns you have about the children.

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.

[PayrollOffice]

If you can come up with some way to punish Mommy without punishing Child, please offer it. I can't think of one.

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.