Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Paternity Fraud case.(30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.)
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/23/2002 | By Kathy Boccella

Posted on 12/26/2002 8:34:04 AM PST by BuddhaBoy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 361-379 next last
To: BuddhaBoy
I suspect men are in the fix they're in because the most money is spent according to the wishes of women.

In most marriages, women have the final say as to how most of their family's money is spent . . . .

Also, most women outlive their husbands, and have the accumulated wealth of a lifetime to play with . . .

And also, the divorced woman probably has more money to spend than the averaged divorced guy who is sending money for child support that the ex-wife decides where to spend, and then there's still alimony.

Even before marriage, the average jerk buys stuff that he fancies will attract women--so even here what women want is what money is spent on.

And so our dollar-driven world caters to the wishes of women because they've got control of how most money is spent.
101 posted on 12/26/2002 10:42:35 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: dorben
I agree with the premise of this article... but it seems that many men on this board don't realize that the men who are having affairs might have families too and that those families will also be affected...
102 posted on 12/26/2002 10:44:05 AM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Okay, this took me 5 minutes on Google. Surely if interested you can find out the truth for yourself. This is from 1995, so you can imagine how things are today.

by Raymond Hughes (RR 2 Box 475, Claremont, NH 03743; 603-542-2708); published Father's Day, 1995 in the News Leader, Claremont, NH

What do you say we thumb through some statistics for Father's Day? Here's a good one--twenty-five million children in the U.S. (40%) living without fathers. What's shocking about that, given all the hype about deadbeat dads?

Except, those 25,000,000 children weren't exactly abandoned by their fathers since over 80% of the divorces are filed by women, who get custody 90% of the time. Or the fact that fathers pay child support in full 90% of the time when both parents are awarded joint custody. Modify that to visitation "privileges," and the rate drops to 78%. Take away all fatherly contact and that's when the deadbeat dads show up--only 40% pay support.

Gee, how surprising, take a guy's kids completely away and he stops paying for them. Further inflating deadbeat dad statistics are things like the fact many of them actually are, dead, others have moved back in but the files haven't been upgraded, not to mention, about 690,000 of the 1.2 million-plus prisoners in this country are fathers.

But, male bashing in the media is such popular sport, dads as a whole are routinely maligned. We've just lived through the worst of what I call the "Disposable Dad" decade, just now abating. A telling interview was that of Princeton researcher Sarah McClanahan on Peter Jennings recently.In 1980 she began research to prove women could single parent without fathers--you know, the Murphy Brown myth. After a decade's research, she was forced to rewrite her thesis statement and admit that parenting without fathers is on par with child abuse.

The most insulting thing is that anyone ever assumed you could do it without fathers. The reality is that 70% of American prisoners grew up without fathers, and teen pregnancies are over double in fatherless families. A host of other social ills follow suit.

But, when the current socio-legal mind set is to throw the bum out if he isn't a perfect guy, it's no wonder so many aren't home.

I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column not long ago about spousal abuse. The serious joke is that advocates actually believe it's abusive if a man yells, or is emotionally abusive if he withholds affection, and that these things are grounds for battering charges.

These same advocates mislead the public into thinking domestic violence is a male trait, never mentioning studies like that by the Journal of Marriage and Family which found1.8 million women annually, but 2 million men annually are subject to one or more assaults from their spouse or live in.

Or the Children's Rights Coalition survey of state child-protective service agencies which found that mothers abuse children at a rate almost double men.

Or a widely-quoted study by UNH researcher Murray Straus that concludes women are more likely to be initiators of violence. Yet, it is women who can almost get a restraining order over the phone, then fathers who are sentenced without a trial to the gutter.

In Claremont, if a woman gets a restraining order, and according to one local lawyer, "they give them out like candy," the man is simply presumed guilty, given about 15 minutes to get his personal belongings and left out on the street. And, if he violates that restraining order, say, by going to see his children, he could be thrown in jail.

New Hampshire's most famous "batterer," Stephen Sarno, who hit his wife when he caught her in bed with another man, got 90 days in jail six months later for writing her three letters--three letters she said he could write, then turned him in for violating the restraining order. In the letters, by the way, Steve is merely asking his wife to bury the hatchet enough to work out what is best for the children. of course, Stephen is up against the same unit millions of other fathers are up against, and what father's rights advocates call "malcontent moms." These are mothers who routinely interfere with whatever meager visitation the father gets. Mothers who routinely falsely accuse fathers of stalking, sexual assault, abuse, non-payment of support.

Between 1989 and 1991 false accusations of child molestations against fathers rose almost 500%. A previous study found that up to 90% of all child molestation accusations against fathers were unfounded. There is almost never a penalty for false accusations.

Is it any wonder many dads simply drop out?

And, if the father does get the children, he'll probably get no support. According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, of 2,000,000 custodial fathers in the country caring for 3,000,000 children, and 488,000 rearing children born out of wedlock, only 80,000 receive any child support at all. That's about three percent.

So, when you read that Gordon and Marcia Clark are having custody problems, remember, it's not Gordon the deadbeat dad who didn't want the children, but Marcia the malcontent mom who didn't want him to have them.Though he had time and desire, she wanted him to pay a babysitter.

Next time you hear about deadbeat dads, come down to Monadnock Park and meet some dads who live the fact that they can't work on their kid's skills at home because they don't live in that home with their kids.

Somehow, the state and media got together and decided the only thing dads were good or was support money, and they buried the real story--fathers systematically denied access to their own flesh and blood.

103 posted on 12/26/2002 10:44:56 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Tell me--out of curiosity--the case you mentioned where the salt-of-the earth women morphed into a demon, was she born in America?

She was born in San Jose, California.

104 posted on 12/26/2002 10:46:07 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Doesn't make any difference. If the guy is as careless about his marriage as the woman, that is the opposite of an excuse to let him run wild.
105 posted on 12/26/2002 10:47:44 AM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Somehow, the state and media got together

As I said in my post to you above, the "somehow" is that women have control over how most money is spent.

And the businesses that pay for media commericals know this.

And the politicians, where it's not also a matter of campaign contributions, are still at the mercy of the mind of the voters, which is shaped by the media acting under the influence of advertisers at the mercy of the buying habits of women.

And there you have it.

106 posted on 12/26/2002 10:49:26 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
OK, thanks.
107 posted on 12/26/2002 10:50:25 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
I don't need to search google to see how bad it is... My mother was one of those 80% and she is better off for it... Its not just about the money...
108 posted on 12/26/2002 10:51:00 AM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
IF women were RESPONSIBLE for their actions and by those actions comdemned their bastard children to substandard existance there would be no problem here.

But NO, the FUBAR courts Reward the woman's behaviour and the women wonder WHAT could be wrong.....

WE let them vote to boot....../sarcasm.
109 posted on 12/26/2002 10:53:35 AM PST by S.O.S121.500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Thanks for the info. I think something like 95% of child abuse in families occurs when the biological father is not present. So, when it comes to asking 'what about the children?', very many women had better put a hold on initiating divorce, so that they practice what they preach instead of being shallow hypocrites.
110 posted on 12/26/2002 10:54:01 AM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
Its not up to me whether or not "my husband runs wild". Its up to me to make sure about the kind of man I marry and the reverse should also be true.
111 posted on 12/26/2002 10:54:02 AM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: marajade
She's in the minority. If under 18 children are present, child support or not, the standard of living goes down dramatically for the children. We're talking a 5% poverty rate going to 40% in these cases. That's not smart - that's very stupid.
112 posted on 12/26/2002 10:55:26 AM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: marajade
You left out 'when possible', because it certainly appears many are not able to tell for sure.....
113 posted on 12/26/2002 10:56:27 AM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
Well she must be in the other 5% percent with the biological father who abuses in the home... in her case it waw stupid to stay married just to stay out of poverty, if that too was the case, because she was the major bread winner in the family...
114 posted on 12/26/2002 10:56:47 AM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
Your #113... that's because they are taking a divorce lawyer's word for it...
115 posted on 12/26/2002 10:58:18 AM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: marajade
"it seems that many men on this board don't realize that the men who are having affairs might have families too"

We do realize that many of those "sperm donors" will have families, we just happen to think that the persons responsible for creating the child should be held financially responsible for supporting it. A person deceived into believing they are biologically responsible should not be held financially responsible.

116 posted on 12/26/2002 10:59:58 AM PST by SC Swamp Fox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Gee. I thought we were talking DNA tests here.....
117 posted on 12/26/2002 11:00:27 AM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: SC Swamp Fox
As do I... But the man who fathering children may also be married to someone else and that family will be affected...

I've already stated earlier in the thread that I agree with the premise of the article...
118 posted on 12/26/2002 11:02:09 AM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Well, she appears to have made the best choice in this particular case.
119 posted on 12/26/2002 11:02:40 AM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
DNA tests in your post #112?
120 posted on 12/26/2002 11:02:52 AM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 361-379 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson