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

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

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

Your procedure seems fair to all. Hopefully, DNA testing can be made faster. I've heard 2-6 weeks - that's a long time with a new baby in the house and the father not knowing whether to bond or not. That sounds pretty awful. Also think automatic re-testing at a different lab should be done if the results don't match.

I wonder if this would result in a big surge in abortions, by women scared to death of what would happen if their husbands (or boyfriends, or whatever) discovered that they weren't the father.

[BuddhaBoy]

I know your example is true, because Washington, Oregon and California have created laws about this very topic.

My answer is a resounding NO!

Here is why.

Right of association is established in the Constitution. It assumes no liability or responsibility for the mere act of associating with, or NOT associating with another citizen.

If the mother of the child was concerned in the least, then she might have either pressed for marriage, or left the relationship earlier to protect the emotional needs of her child.

There are no laws (except in the states that I mentioned) the require someone who is generous at one point, to be obligated to continue such generosity over the fact of a child becoming accustomed to such largess.

The states that have instituted laws forcing step-parents or boyfriends to support children that are not their own, are acting in a purely un-constitution manner; allowed only because those states have activist judges who don’t care what the constitution says.

The first responsibility of a parent should be to protect their child, so I blame any mother who allows her child to become emotionally attached to someone who is not committed to both mother and child.

I have advised all men to stay away from single mothers for this very reason. Not that single mothers are all bad, but because in certain states, a man can be held responsible for children not his own, merely for associating with her and her children for an extended amount of time.

Women with children need to establish a man’s intentions early on in a relationship, in order to protect their children. If a man isn’t marriage or father material, then what happens next is HER responsibility. If she decides to carry on with a relationship with a man who won’t marry her, then whatever happens after that is her problem, not his.

The fact of a man having a lot of money does not justify him being forced to share it with others. Emotions don’t belong in the law.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>single women are EVERYWHERE these days, so single in no way means lonely<<<


Evidently more men are waking up to the harsh legal realities and refusing to marry these gals.

As for the popularity of vasectomies, I humbly predict that someday folks will reproduce through cloning more frequently than some care to realize. The "genetic lottery" problem is avoided, that way. Vasectomies should, in fact, become far more popular as a result. Forest Gump said "life's like a box of chocolates; you never know WHAT you're gonna get" and the same can be said for traditional methods of child-rearing.

[elbucko]

In a sane society, that should be grounds for the man to walk away without any legal obligation.

Or at least issue an automatic judgement against the fraudulent mother to re-pay the amount of child support extorted when the child turns 18.

The judgement may not be collectable, but if there is now vigorous enforcement of child support, there should be just as vigorous and equal enforcement regarding paternity fraud. However, I am still in favor of the "father" paying support until 18. The child is an innocent bystander in this situation.

[Mamzelle]

In the past, I have addressed questions you've put to me. Now I'd like to hear a response to #34, if you would be so kind. I've stood the whole issue on its head , but it is an actual child in this real circumstance. What do you think are the moral obligations entailed in the relationship I described?

[BuddhaBoy]

I definitely want female responses!

I just notice that there are many people made uncomfortable, and I wonder why.

Don’t take that as not wanting responses from women, I welcome and encourage them. I only hope that they remain on the topic, and not reduce the thread into finger-pointing and flame wars.

[marajade]

It works both ways... Women should make sure the men they are marrying haven't fathered any children either... Because if the author of this article has his way that could affect a man's current marriage...

[BuddhaBoy]

Re#33.

Great post, and completely true I'm afraid.

[Mamzelle]

I'm afraid she's out of luck all around. He's had a succession of tattooed bimbos for his delectation over the years, but it startled me when he brought home one with a child and started doing the Daddy Strut. The child even has some class. Alas, for her.

[Between the Lines]

DNA testing at birth is the way to go. Just mandate it, so the guy doesn't have to be the jerk to ask.

A new law to protect fathers from an old law. To mandate paternity tests at birth is to assume the mother is guilty. Neither you nor I would like any laws passed requiring us to prove our innocence. We should not require them of others. Two wrong laws don't make it right, just get rid of the old law.

[BuddhaBoy]

What happens to the deceptive mother?

In Georgia, she is charged with a misdemeanor, and assumes court costs, child support, and she may actually go to jail for a short stay.

[BuddhaBoy]

Forest Gump said "life's like a box of chocolates; you never know WHAT you're gonna get" and the same can be said for traditional methods of child-rearing.

Oh man, is that true or what?

[Mamzelle]

A woman is definitely at the mercy of the fidelity of her husband if he remains fertile in that some woman may make a claim on her family's income to support illegitimate children. But that's an old problem, made new by the high rate of divorce. New wives seem to expect the old children to be forgoteen.

[BuddhaBoy]

Some people should not be allowed to breed. It should at least be harder than getting a driver's licence.

[AppyPappy]

Women think differently from men for the most part. A response might be "These children need the money". At that point, the donor is irrelevant to the discussion. We have established the need and the need must be met by someone.

It's similar to the "the facts aren't as important as the seriousness of the charges". The whole Clarence Thomas theory. "Men commit sexual harassment therefore Thomas shouldn't be on the SC because sexual harassment is very bad". Whether he actually did it is irrelevant. We have established that it is bad and someone needs to pay. It's the same with the "Not the father but must pay" idea. Whether he is the father is irrelevant because the child needs support.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>The fact of a man having a lot of money does not justify him being forced to share it with others. Emotions don’t belong in the law.<<<


Aw c'mon! From each according to their ability to each according to their need. It worked for the Soviets, didn't it?

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>do you think are the moral obligations entailed in the relationship I described?<<<


I believe existing laws are sufficient to protect the child's rights. If the sugar daddy promises college and the daughter relies to her detriment in a reasonably foreseeable manner, then the laws of promissory estoppel / detrimental reliance protect the child's rights. Beyond that, I think it's unwise to discourage such folks from bonding with kids of single moms.

[elbucko]

DNA testing at birth is the way to go.

It would seem so. But I think an unintended consequence would be an increase in abortion. This is a situation that requires the wisdom of Solomon.

[BuddhaBoy]

I consider the states of Washington, Oregon and California to be monuments to Karl Marx.

[marajade]

It just bothers me that's there's always the double standard...