Another Paternity Fraud case.(30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.)

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/23/2002 | By Kathy Boccella

[whipitgood]

I always rest on Saturday. My slaves do too.

[Mamzelle]

Having said that, would you mind addressing the situation I outlined in post #34? I'm curious as to attitudes when the situation is stood on its head, that is, when there is no deception and a man enjoys his surrogate role of father with no dread of responsibility.

[xrp]

You are right, the backfire has already begun. I have many friends, all successful, great guys. NONE of them have any intention of getting married EVER. The feminists are responsible for destroying opportunities for many of today's women.

Took the words right out of my mouth...you sure we aren't clones?

[HairOfTheDog]

That's 30% of the cases that go to DNA / blood testing, not 30% of the whole population. I'm sure you didn't mean to insinute this, about did a spit take when I saw it.

Good point. I was scanning to see if someone made that rather obvious point. This is 30% of the cases where there is some doubt or reason to test.

[Brytani]

My husband's ex-wife moved a guy into the home with his two children while he was out to sea. Wasn't until he was divorced that he found out his oldest son isn't his biological child. Imagine that. And yea, he still had to pay support but did manage to finally get custody - though his ex-wife tried to use the fact that my husband was not the bio-father to try and stop him from getting custody.

[Jim Noble]

>>Guess what? The wife and new boy-friend got the house (sailor makes the payments), car (sailor makes the payments)and child-support, which the Navy would conviently take right out of his paycheck<<

But his problem is not the cost of this child.

The problem is that your hypothetical sailor is now supporting the whore and her pimp, as well as the child.

If the child were legally his without question, there would be no support payments, he would be living in his house, and his whore of an ex-wife would be sleeping on a bench.

Custody is the key. Everything else flows from that.

[Brytani]

Speaking from experience, it is almost impossible for a man in the military, on sea duty, to get custody of his children. Most judges worry about the father leaving for months at a time, they'd rather put the children with a whore of a mother then have a father defending this country.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Then that is all the more reason why duped dads should be allowed to walk upon learning they'd been deceived. ~~ ETH

In other words, punish the child for the mother's behavior. You care more about the man than the child, which is not surprising since we live in an age of "me me me." If this happened to me (and I am female so this is a hypothetical) I would continue to love the child as if she were my own out of human decency and love of the innocent person I raised up to that point. Anything less is cruel to the child who has been blind-sided. I realize most would reject that, as it takes showing compassion to the helpless. ~~ JMJ333

• Query: According to THE BIBLE (see Saint Paul, for example), is a Man lawfully permitted to completely put away a wife who has been sexually Unfaithful to him, with NO legal obligation to her?
• Answer: YES.

Does this mean that the Wronged Husband should not show Compassion for the child-of-adultery who is born of the wife's unfaithfulness? No, the Husband can and should demonstrate whatever Christian Charity (by definition, uncompelled) that the Holy Spirit lays upon him -- not the least of which would be (if legally possible), removing the Child entirely from the household of an adulteress and raising the child as his own.

But the husband's prerogative of showing Uncompelled Charity does not define for us his LEGAL responsibilities. As with ALL legal morality, the Bible defines our legal responsibilities. And the Bible says that a Man is lawfully permitted to completely put away a wife who has been sexually Unfaithful to him, with NO legal obligation.

Since End the Hypocrisy's position is Biblically correct from a legal standpoint, ETH's position is morally correct.

The Word cannot be Broken. QED.

---

• it is only a matter of time before DNA testing is mandated for all births. And that would be an excellent idea. ~~ John O
• DNA testing at birth is the way to go. Just mandate it, so the guy doesn't have to be the jerk to ask. ~~ dogbyte12
• The only real solution is to mandate DNA testing at all births. That way, everyone is apprised of what is what. ~~ Chancellor Palpatine

HELL YEAH, baby.

WE HAVE NO GOD BUT CAESAR, that's what I always say!!

Anything that expands Caesar's power and control of his subjects, has GOT to be good. He's from the Government... he's here to help us.

I observe in passing that this is yet ANOTHER problem which is created by the State Dictatorship over the definition and certification of Marriage.

In New Jersey, as in most other states, children born during a marriage are the legal responsibility of the husband - even if he isn't the biological father.

When you let Nero define and certify "marriage", then the Marital Responsibilities are whatever the insane Caesar says they are. It was OUR choice, Messiah-State "christians", to whore out the Institution of Marriage to the bed of Caesar; so now we hardly have cause to complain when he subjects our prostituted institution to some "rough trade".

Were Marriage established by Private Partnership (see Abram and Sarai, or Moses and Zipporah for examples), the Marital Responsibilities would be established in advance -- by private contract.

EXAMPLE:
In the event of proven sexual Infidelity (defined by the contract), the Faithful partner shall have the right to dissolve the Contract, shall receive ALL assets held in common by the partnership, and shall have NO legal obligation to the Unfaithful partner. The Faithful partner agrees to assume full responsibility for all faithfully-sired children (or, "all children", if so contracted), and will receive TOTAL custody of same.

Or, whatever variation the two Contracting Parties think is best. Different strokes for different folks.

Everyone would know in advance what their legal standing would be... defined by Contract, mutually-agreed and sworn before Witnesses (such as a Presbyter!). Cut...and...dried.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled "solutions"... defined as, "ever-increasing the Power of the Messiah-State".

[SC Swamp Fox]

"For about three years now, he's been playing Daddy."
"(D)oes he owe anything morally to this child".
Yes, I believe he does. He knowingly, and without deception, brought the child into his home and made certain promises to her. He should keep them. In addition, since he instituted a father/daughter relationship with the girl over a 3 year period, he is morally bound to at least try to maintain ties to the girl after he and the mother part ways. I most cases I have witnessed, the mother does not allow contact with her ex-boyfriends. Perhaps a review of the mother's moral obligations is in order.

Does he just get to use her and send her back to the Pound?
Since her legal guardian did not bother with the paperwork, legally he does. The exception would be the "promises" made to her, which could be interpretted as a legally binding verbal contract. As I stated earlier, I believe that he has a moral obligation to the girl, but he has no legal right (the mother can block him) or responsibility (other than specific promises) to the girl.

I see a clear line between legal rights and responsibilities, and moral ones.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>I didn't miss the point. You're off topic and blatantly so.<<<


Please attempt to prove that you grasped the gist of the rape analogy before it got distorted (by you). Otherwise, you'll have dug yourself in an even deeper intellectual hole by desperately clinging to your "interpretation" of what was said.

[Mamzelle]

Thank you. Actually, I see the two circumstances as interestingly related. The flip side, as you were. If a man deceived can get off the hook, it would seem the consenting surrogate father should not be able to enjoy a traditional benefit without some thought to responsibility.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Please attempt to prove that you grasped the gist of the rape analogy before it got distorted (by you). Otherwise, you'll have dug yourself in an even deeper intellectual hole by desperately clinging to your "interpretation" of what was said.

Biblically, Rapists should be Executed.

This would tend to leave the child of rape... fatherless.

Nonetheless, it's the Biblically-correct thing to do.

[SC Swamp Fox]

Thanks for the confirmation. The sailors I posted about were not hypothetical. I saw these kinds of things too often.

I once held very similar opinions to BuddhaBoy on the subject of marriage. I was well into my 30's before I finally took the plunge.

[JMJ333]

Again...tell it to the kid whose been hit between the eyes. There is an esablished bond of 14 years and it won't disappear overnight. Legal matters aside (not arguing this point), the man shouldn't just break with the kid. Period. Its hurtful, and no matter how the man has been wronged, it doesn't trump the welfare of the child, which has her life crumbiling about her. Charity and love is all I'm arguing for, not state control of families. You inserted an argument I didn't make.

[JMJ333]

No...I'm done arguing with you because you want to change the subject. You care for yourself and no one else. The child's welfare means nothing to you, as you've demonstrated over and again. Consider yourself the victor, okay? I already conceded that you could kick the girl out without so much as a blink of the eye because to you she wouldn't be yours. Those 14 years meant nothing because you might be out some money.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Charity and love is all I'm arguing for, not state control of families. You inserted an argument I didn't make.

Respectfully, Ma'am, you were responding to ETH's argument that the man should be allowed to walk away, without obligation.

Then that is all the more reason why duped dads should be allowed to walk upon learning they'd been deceived. ~~ ETH

In other words, punish the child for the mother's behavior. You care more about the man than the child, which is not surprising since we live in an age of "me me me."

Respectfully, the Bible is not a book of "me me me". But while it certainly has oceans of good (neh, infallible, of course!) things to say in favor of Charity and Love, when it comes to the making of Law (i.e., "what should the man be allowed to do in this situation"), ETH's position is 100% Biblically spot-on as it comes to the proper legal requirement.

What should the man, in this situation, be allowed to do?
Biblically, he should be allowed to walk away -- with zero Legal Obligation.

[BuddhaBoy]

Took the words right out of my mouth...you sure we aren't clones?

I dont know. Are you a black conservative lady killer?

LOL!

[JMJ333]

Fine, op. Side with the one who thinks its okay to break a 14 year bond with an innocent child who has done nothing. If it were me, I would care for her as my own out of love. I would consider it a moral obligation.

And yes...me me me...that's all I've heard on this thread. I guess I shouldn't expect anything less from a society that's devolved into hedonism.

Have a good night, op.

[JMJ333]

And I already said I wasn't arguing from a legal standpoint. Legally, the courts will side the way of your argument. Doesn't mean that a man should walk away and leave that child like he never knew her. That's punishing the child for the sins of the mother. An ugly thing to do.

Gotta run..

[SC Swamp Fox]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Can you break it down a bit more for me?

Your turn. What is fair and just for the sailor returning from deployment who discovers his wife is pregnant with someone elses child?

Assume there are other children in the home (which may or may not be his), then assume there are none. Do your answers change? Why? The law currently sees no distinction.

He has to pay child support,(it's for the chillerin')
and make the car payment,(junior has to have a way to the doctor)
and for day-care.(Hey, a girl has to work)
and if he raises his voice about it, he gets a restraining order, and then he can't see the kids whether they were his or not.
This crap plays out in family court everyday, and it needs to end.