Did anyone see this article?

[Moronic_Laughter]

I just read this article the other day from a local paper in Queens, New York. I've been trying to find a version online and I can't so I can only tell you what I remember. It was pretty funny to me, so I figure I would share what I could.

Basically, a man is suing his former lover (with which he has had a child) for tricking him into impregnating her because she dumped him in favor of a guru who uses his psychic powers to make her orgasm with his mind alone.


THOUGHTS? ;)

I'll add more info if I can just manage to find the article again.

[Fnord]

... a man is suing his former lover (with which he has had a child) for tricking him into impregnating her ...

He's screwed.

Even if future DNA tests prove that the child is not his, he is going to end up paying child support for the next 18+ years.

The excuse doesn't matter. Family Court almost always favors the mother. The only exception is when the mother is denied legal and physical custody, and she would have to be convicted of some truly heinous crime for that to happen.

Yup. He's screwed.

[skeptigirl]

Not to derail the thread, Fnord but let me clue you in. Unless you adopt, have a child by some artificial means while married or are the biological parent, you do not have to pay child support.

And speaking from my own bad experience, the parent with the better lawyer can end up being the screwer not the screwee.

Side note: you might not want to do that if your ex knows about all the income you didn't report to the IRS. ;)


Back to the topic, "tricked into getting someone pregnant" is usually bull for "shirking responsibility for your child". No matter how much you despise the other party, the child had nothing to do with it. Stuff happens. You don't abandon your kids because you didn't want them and a pregnancy happened, regardless of the reason for the pregnancy.

[Demigorgon]

Not to derail the thread, Fnord but let me clue you in. Unless you adopt, have a child by some artificial means while married or are the biological parent, you do not have to pay child support.



That's not always the case. There was a man here in Missouri who was forced to pay child support for a child that was proven not to be his.

I searched but this was the most I could find on it, but it was a big story at the time.

http://board.columbiatribune.com/index.php?showtopic=3092

[RSLancastr]

That's not always the case. There was a man here in Missouri who was forced to pay child support for a child that was proven not to be his.
I have heard - and this may vary from state to state - if a couple is married when the child is born, the husband is legally required to pay child support if there is a subsequent divorce, even if that child was the product of the wife having an affair.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1766384/posts

[DoubtingStephen]

tricking him into impregnating her

If we assume that this gentleman is not mentally deficient, how does a woman get a man to do something that can result in a child being born without the man realizing that what he is doing can result in a child?

Did this lady steal his ejaculate and quickly incorporate it into her body before he could stop her? I'm guessing it might not have happened that way.

Could be some dumbass involved here.

[Fnord]

Not to derail the thread, Fnord but let me clue you in. Unless you adopt, have a child by some artificial means while married or are the biological parent, you do not have to pay child support.

Tell that to my brother, who at 17 was coerced into signing into paternity under threat of a statutory rape conviction (she was 16), and ended up paying child support for not one, but two children that were not his. This was in the early 1970's. He joined the Army before he graduated high school to avoid jail time for non-support (who else would hire a 17-year old alledged father of two?).

It was only five years ago that he was able to prove by DNA tests -- not just blood matching -- that the kids were not his. It seems that one needed some kinda medical treatment, and no-one could figure out why his sibling wasn't a close enough match. It seems that the two kids had two different daddies, and that my brother wasn't either of them.

Their momma had at least three different lovers at the time, but picked my brother out of the crowd just because our dad had some money.

Being tricked into paternity happens, Rapunzel. Especially when even the mother doesn't know for certain who the daddy is.

[Fnord]

If we assume that this gentleman is not mentally deficient, how does a woman get a man to do something that can result in a child being born without the man realizing that what he is doing can result in a child?

"Don't worry," she whispered. "I'm on the Pill."

[skeptigirl]

That's not always the case. There was a man here in Missouri who was forced to pay child support for a child that was proven not to be his.

I searched but this was the most I could find on it, but it was a big story at the time.

http://board.columbiatribune.com/index.php?showtopic=3092The reason you couldn't find anything is because it is a myth.

I'm willing to consider actual facts here but I can't believe the unsubstantiated rumors you guys are putting up here as facts.

This is a forum post with no sources cited. If the cases described existed you could have found them searching Google News. Do you make any effort to check these facts?

Try Missouri State Statutes for starters:

Paternity order, establishing--entered when--genetic testing required when--docketing of order, result--copies to be sent to bureau of vital records of department of health and senior services --defense of nonpaternity--decision, how rendered. (http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400-499/4540000485.htm) 5. In an action contesting paternity, the director shall require genetic testing at the request of a party to such action if such request is supported by a sworn statement of such party which:

(1) Alleges paternity and sets forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility of sexual contact between the parties; or

(2) Denies paternity and sets forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility that there was no sexual contact between the parties.

Looks like a normal law to me. It was enacted in 1982 and last revised in 1997 probably keeping up with DNA capability.


A search of Google news for 'paternity' (http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=Paternity+&btnG=Search+News) gets you 40 pages of news on Anna Nicole Smith and a few other articles about paternity leave.

A 'child support ordered' (http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=Child+support+ordered&sa=N&start=20) search gets nothing like what is being claimed.

'Child support not the father (http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=Child+support+ordered+not+the+father&btnG=Search+News) - nothing

Here's one (http://www.13wham.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=e35e2bd6-cbb4-409a-8a6a-3a0fecabe560) where the name was the same. Sounds like it will be cleared up soon enough.

Here's one (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/29/nfling29.xml) where the boyfriend thought the baby was his because he didn't know his girlfriend cheated. That's hardly the crap being claimed in this thread that judges are ignoring DNA and slapping child support orders on 'innocent' men.

Try some legit web sites next time before claiming unsubstantiated rumors as fact. Like I said, show me something that is more than a lie in a forum post and I'll consider it.

Paternity net (http://www.paternitynet.com/articles.html) looks reasonable.

[skeptigirl]

I have heard - and this may vary from state to state - if a couple is married when the child is born, the husband is legally required to pay child support if there is a subsequent divorce, even if that child was the product of the wife having an affair.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1766384/postsFrom your link, Even though a paternity test ruled out Anthony L- Parker as the father of a child in a child-support dispute, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled today he still has to pay support owed the mother before he took the test.I don't know the court's rationale or if it is even a true case but it doesn't say support is ordered in the future despite DNA results. It says for support ordered before paternity was disproved. My guess is that's some court technicality like the support order was in effect, it is reversed now but the judge had no statute to make the order retroactive. The legislators may need to fix a technical error in the law or they might have written the law that way because they feel it's too much burden on the single mother to expect her to repay support.

There are any number of possible reasons. You may not like them, but it isn't the exaggerated claims in this thread that courts are ordering support despite DNA tests.

[skeptigirl]

Tell that to my brother, who at 17 was coerced into signing into paternity under threat of a statutory rape conviction (she was 16), and ended up paying child support for not one, but two children that were not his. This was in the early 1970's. He joined the Army before he graduated high school to avoid jail time for non-support (who else would hire a 17-year old alledged father of two?).

It was only five years ago that he was able to prove by DNA tests -- not just blood matching -- that the kids were not his. It seems that one needed some kinda medical treatment, and no-one could figure out why his sibling wasn't a close enough match. It seems that the two kids had two different daddies, and that my brother wasn't either of them.

Their momma had at least three different lovers at the time, but picked my brother out of the crowd just because our dad had some money.

Being tricked into paternity happens, Rapunzel. Especially when even the mother doesn't know for certain who the daddy is.:v:

Sorry, I don't know the circumstances but I don't have a lot sympathy for guys who play the "I was tricked by the evil woman" game. There is always the condom option.

Anyway, you still aren't talking about the court doing this. You are talking about your brother not getting a paternity test in a timely manner for whatever reason.

[skeptigirl]

"Don't worry," she whispered. "I'm on the Pill."So either you are having sex with someone you don't know very well, or you have poor taste in women. There is no reason a guy can't use a condom even if a woman is using birth control. And there are times when birth control fails in which case it takes two. It isn't the woman's birth control that fails it is the couple's birth control that fails.

Women have the burden of bearing the child. Men have the burden of a little less control in some situations. Life ain't always fair. But people who choose to have sex and a child is the result are that child's parents. It isn't that the woman is the mother and the man is the victim.

[sophia8]

"Don't worry," she whispered. "I'm on the Pill."You're twenty years out of date, pal. These days, you have to be pretty damm stupid to have condomless sex with somebody you aren't already pretty committed to.

[Fnord]

The claim that courts are ordering support despite DNA tests is far from exaggerated. It happened to my brother. It's happened to some of my friends, and I have no doubt that it happens everywhere.

I could play the gender card and say "Of course you deny it; you're a woman." But that would be a sexist statement, wouldn't it?

[Fnord]

You're twenty years out of date, pal. These days, you have to be pretty damm stupid to have condomless sex with somebody you aren't already pretty committed to.

It still happens, regardless of the intelligence of the participants. Again, I could play the gender card...

[drapier]

The claim that courts are ordering support despite DNA tests is far from exaggerated. It happened to my brother. It's happened to some of my friends, and I have no doubt that it happens everywhere.

I could play the gender card and say "Of course you deny it; you're a woman." But that would be a sexist statement, wouldn't it?


I guess you could play the gender card. Then again, I guess you could just address Skeptigirl's arguments.

[Fnord]

So either you are having sex with someone you don't know very well, or you have poor taste in women.

Never heard of a "Quickie" or a "One-Night Stand"?

Every man should either wrap it up or keep it behind closed drawers until the "I dos" are said. Even then, there is no guaranty that the wife's children are also the husband's.

But people who choose to have sex and a child is the result are that child's parents. It isn't that the woman is the mother and the man is the victim.

So only women can be victims, eh? And here I was worried about appearing to be sexist!

[CptColumbo]

Basically, a man is suing his former lover (with which he has had a child) for tricking him into impregnating her because she dumped him in favor of a guru who uses his psychic powers to make her orgasm with his mind alone.


THOUGHTS? ;)


Nice work, if you can get it. :)

[Fnord]

I guess you could play the gender card. Then again, I guess you could just address Skeptigirl's arguments.

I'd like to, but I identify too emotionally with the situation. Besides, her mere denial does not an argument make.

I'm getting out of this thread before I post something even more stupid than what I already have.

[drapier]

So only women can be victims, eh? And here I was worried about appearing to be sexist!

My, my we're touchy on the subject aren't we. Here is Skeptigirl's original quote. Nowhere in it does she say that only women can be victims.

But people who choose to have sex and a child is the result are that child's parents. It isn't that the woman is the mother and the man is the victim.

Why would a nice guy like you want to distort her intent so?

[FenrisWolf]

I've never understood why men who don't want a child can be forced to pay for one simply because they fathered it. Presumably, if at the time they had sex neither partner wanted a child to result, then the obvious thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy. If that's not possible due to the woman's moral beliefs, the next most obvious choice is to give the baby up for adoption.

So I think it would certainly be fair to require men to pay half the cost of an abortion, or alternately half of all the costs relating to carrying the baby to term: doctor visits, maternity clothes, hospital fees for delivery, any loss of income due to the woman missing work for pregnancy-related issues, etc. And possibly even some additional money as compensation for the general aches and discomfort and inconvenience being pregnant brings.

But past the time of birth, if the mother decides to keep a baby that neither person wanted at the time they had sex, I just don't see on what basis caring for it should be any of the father's responsibility. Yes, it takes two people to have sex, and yes, accidents happen, but no one should be allowed to turn an accident into a lifelong commitment for another person, when there is an easy way to avoid it. Two ways, in fact, one easier than the other, but both easier than being a parent.

I realize this is a wildly unpopular view, but most of the counter-arguments I've heard when I've expressed it elsewhere rely heavily on what I consider to be outdated and generally unexamined assumptions about gender roles in modern society. So, I'm posting this opinion here because in my lurking on this board I've observed most posters here tend to not hold many unexamined and outdated assumptions, and I rather expect I'll get more rational counter-arguments here that I haven't heard elsewhere.

[Spektator]

<snip> a guru who uses his psychic powers to make her orgasm with his mind alone.


THOUGHTS? ;)

I'll add more info if I can just manage to find the article again.

See, this is why I'll never become a guru. I mean, what fun is that?

[Trantor]

she dumped him in favor of a guru who uses his psychic powers to make her orgasm with his mind alone.


I wonder if this amazing paranormal ability could be demonstrated in order to win Randi's million?:D

[SamanthaMc]

I've never understood why men who don't want a child can be forced to pay for one simply because they fathered it. Presumably, if at the time they had sex neither partner wanted a child to result, then the obvious thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy. If that's not possible due to the woman's moral beliefs, the next most obvious choice is to give the baby up for adoption.

So I think it would certainly be fair to require men to pay half the cost of an abortion, or alternately half of all the costs relating to carrying the baby to term: doctor visits, maternity clothes, hospital fees for delivery, any loss of income due to the woman missing work for pregnancy-related issues, etc. And possibly even some additional money as compensation for the general aches and discomfort and inconvenience being pregnant brings.

But past the time of birth, if the mother decides to keep a baby that neither person wanted at the time they had sex, I just don't see on what basis caring for it should be any of the father's responsibility. Yes, it takes two people to have sex, and yes, accidents happen, but no one should be allowed to turn an accident into a lifelong commitment for another person, when there is an easy way to avoid it. Two ways, in fact, one easier than the other, but both easier than being a parent.

I realize this is a wildly unpopular view, but most of the counter-arguments I've heard when I've expressed it elsewhere rely heavily on what I consider to be outdated and generally unexamined assumptions about gender roles in modern society. So, I'm posting this opinion here because in my lurking on this board I've observed most posters here tend to not hold many unexamined and outdated assumptions, and I rather expect I'll get more rational counter-arguments here that I haven't heard elsewhere.

So basically if I have your baby rather than giving it away or aborting it, you do not understand why you should have any responsibility for the baby after it is born, since neither of us were trying to conceive a child at the time we had sex.

Since I chose to keep the child, the child should be my sole responsibility. Have I summed up your position correctly?

What if we were married at the time and we get a divorce when the baby is one? If we were not trying to have a baby when we had sex, would your responsibilities end then, as well?

If you do not intend to impregnate someone when you have sex with them and do not wish to be held accountable after a child is born from that union, do you take proper precautions, such as using condoms, to hopefully ensure that no unwanted pregnancies occur, or is your mere lack of intent good enough for you?

[Metullus]

The reason you couldn't find anything is because it is a myth.

I'm willing to consider actual facts here but I can't believe the unsubstantiated rumors you guys are putting up here as facts.

This is a forum post with no sources cited. If the cases described existed you could have found them searching Google News. Do you make any effort to check these facts?

Try Missouri State Statutes for starters:

Paternity order, establishing--entered when--genetic testing required when--docketing of order, result--copies to be sent to bureau of vital records of department of health and senior services --defense of nonpaternity--decision, how rendered. (http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400-499/4540000485.htm)

Looks like a normal law to me. It was enacted in 1982 and last revised in 1997 probably keeping up with DNA capability.


A search of Google news for 'paternity' (http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=Paternity+&btnG=Search+News) gets you 40 pages of news on Anna Nicole Smith and a few other articles about paternity leave.

A 'child support ordered' (http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=Child+support+ordered&sa=N&start=20) search gets nothing like what is being claimed.

'Child support not the father (http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=Child+support+ordered+not+the+father&btnG=Search+News) - nothing

Here's one (http://www.13wham.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=e35e2bd6-cbb4-409a-8a6a-3a0fecabe560) where the name was the same. Sounds like it will be cleared up soon enough.

Here's one (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/29/nfling29.xml) where the boyfriend thought the baby was his because he didn't know his girlfriend cheated. That's hardly the crap being claimed in this thread that judges are ignoring DNA and slapping child support orders on 'innocent' men.

Try some legit web sites next time before claiming unsubstantiated rumors as fact. Like I said, show me something that is more than a lie in a forum post and I'll consider it.

Paternity net (http://www.paternitynet.com/articles.html) looks reasonable.

FWIW - Wikipedia on PATERINTY LAW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_(law))

"In some jurisdictions the courts have also declared the male who acts as the child's father to be the father through the equitable operation of an estoppel. Once the child has been declared to be a son or daughter and has lived with the man for a period of time, the court may cloak the putative father with all of the obligations of parenthood letting the biological father, "off the hook" so to speak."

and

Wikipedia - PATERNITY FRAUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud)

"In some jurisdictions, there is limited opportunity to legally challenge the assumption of paternity, by limiting the amount of time allowed to challenge paternity, or by allowing women to claim paternity in nearly anonymous conditions, such as in California, U.S.A.

The ready availability of genetic fingerprinting has created a situation in which men suspicious of paternity fraud are able to have a paternity test conducted to verify a child's identity. Legal paternity testing usually requires the consent of the mother or an order made by a family court.

Access to such testing is restricted in some jurisdictions as it is held to not be in the best interests of the child for such information to become available. A man finding out that the child is not his biological child contrary to information supplied by the mother may result in his rejection of the child and the mother for her perpetration of the fraud."

"Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker, a Florida resident, discovered the child he was paying support for was not his via DNA testing. Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him, stating that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year post divorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child. Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.htm)"

[FenrisWolf]

So basically if I have your baby rather than giving it away or aborting it, you do not understand why you should have any responsibility for the baby after it is born, since neither of us were trying to conceive a child at the time we had sex.

Since I chose to keep the child, the child should be my sole responsibility. Have I summed up your position correctly?

Yes, with the caveat that there ought to be some way to "lock in" a father's responsibility if he does agree with the woman's decision to keep the child. Some kind of easily-accessible contract, maybe available through Planned Parenthood or something, that basically says "I agree to give support to this kid." That ought to take care of situations where neither one wants the child when they have sex, but then the man makes promises which influence the woman's decision to keep or not keep the baby, which he later goes back on.

What if we were married at the time and we get a divorce when the baby is one? If we were not trying to have a baby when we had sex, would your responsibilities end then, as well?

Marriage does seem to change the equation. I was pretty much talking about nonmarried couples who are having casual sex. But marriage creates a legal relationship between people, and so I could see justification for making the law different for married couples who later divorce.

If you do not intend to impregnate someone when you have sex with them and do not wish to be held accountable after a child is born from that union, do you take proper precautions, such as using condoms, to hopefully ensure that no unwanted pregnancies occur, or is your mere lack of intent good enough for you?

I certainly think using condoms is a very good idea when having casual sex, for more reasons than just birth control. But I don't think failure to use a condom (or the failure of a condom to prevent pregnancy, which can rarely occur) should carry a crippling 18-year financial and social penalty -- for either participant. Condom use should be encouraged, but it is a joint responsibility, not solely the man's.

If a condom is not used, it is because both people involved made a risky gamble. However, only one person (the woman) has total control over whether the consequences of that gamble are made dramatically more severe than they could otherwise be -- and I feel that with that total control comes total responsibility for the results of that choice.

[Aoidoi]

See, this is why I'll never become a guru. I mean, what fun is that?I gotta think that it would make for a great party trick.

Or debate tactic.

Or method to protect yourself.

Or a way to totally mess up public speakers.

Would think it'd make abstinence only sex ed a whole lot more effective (for a given definition of abstinence)

Come to think of it, if this power were widespread and could be used at any time I suspect it would mean the end of civilization as we know it. :D

[SamanthaMc]

Yes, with the caveat that there ought to be some way to "lock in" a father's responsibility if he does agree with the woman's decision to keep the child. Some kind of easily-accessible contract, maybe available through Planned Parenthood or something, that basically says "I agree to give support to this kid." That ought to take care of situations where neither one wants the child when they have sex, but then the man makes promises which influence the woman's decision to keep or not keep the baby, which he later goes back on.

Huh. So when the chick turns up pregnant, he can sign away his rights even before the baby is born, and at that time the chick can sign something saying, "I understand that I will not have any support from the father of this baby but I am going to have it anyway," so she can be making an informed decision on what will be required of her for the next 18 years.

Yeah, dude, I just don't know about all that. It presupposes a lot of maturity from both parties, and pregnant women are not known for their rational abilities. If we were all so aware of how having sex one time could cause us endless grief for the rest of our lives, then in the throes of passion we would stop and contemplate the long-term consequences right then. But being emotional as well as logical beings, we are liable to be at our most illogical when we are experiencing high emotion.

And terminating a pregnancy or giving a child up for adoption is not like squishing a bug or giving away a kitten to a good home. Of the people I know who have had abortions, none of them did it lightly or without sincere consideration.

Biologically speaking, women are built to have children. Not just having the right equipment physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. Before you even know you are pregnant your body goes through all sorts of changes. Hormones work their magic, and maternal instincts kick in. I am not sure men are cabable of understanding it at all.

So I don't think even in our utopia all of these contracts and legally binding documents would work.



I certainly think using condoms is a very good idea when having casual sex, for more reasons than just birth control. But I don't think failure to use a condom (or the failure of a condom to prevent pregnancy, which can rarely occur) should carry a crippling 18-year financial and social penalty -- for either participant. Condom use should be encouraged, but it is a joint responsibility, not solely the man's.

If a condom is not used, it is because both people involved made a risky gamble. However, only one person (the woman) has total control over whether the consequences of that gamble are made dramatically more severe than they could otherwise be -- and I feel that with that total control comes total responsibility for the results of that choice.

So come up with something as potentially traumatic as having an abortion or carrying a child for 9 months for a man to have to go through. Let's have a tumor inserted for about six months and then yank it out through an orifice. Hey, I bet lots of women would be amenable to signing the Document of No Support if the guy would just go through that!

Basically, whether we have an abortion, put the kid up for adoption or keep it and raise it for 18 years, our bodies, hearts and minds are forever changed. And you can walk away after you orgasm and never know the difference.

[FenrisWolf]

Yeah, dude, I just don't know about all that. It presupposes a lot of maturity from both parties, and pregnant women are not known for their rational abilities. If we were all so aware of how having sex one time could cause us endless grief for the rest of our lives, then in the throes of passion we would stop and contemplate the long-term consequences right then. But being emotional as well as logical beings, we are liable to be at our most illogical when we are experiencing high emotion.


Well, that's the root of the problem, isn't it? If everyone was being logical and thinking about long-term consequences, there would be no unplanned pregnancies in the first place. But as you note, humans don't behave that way, so there are lots of unplanned pregnancies. What's the fairest way to handle them? I don't think forcing men to pay child support for a kid they don't want is fair at all.

I'm not at all sympathetic to arguments like "pregnant women are not known for their rational abilities." It contains an implied excuse, that we shouldn't hold women fully responsible for decisions they make while pregnant. And the following paragraph is rife with excuses that I suspect you'd never let a man get away with:

Biologically speaking, women are built to have children. Not just having the right equipment physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. Before you even know you are pregnant your body goes through all sorts of changes. Hormones work their magic, and maternal instincts kick in. I am not sure men are capable of understanding it at all.

Let me re-write that a bit:

"Biologically speaking, men are built to spread their seed to as many women as possible. Not just having the right equipment physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. When you are horny your body goes through all sorts of changes. Hormones work their magic, and wandering instincts kick in. I am not sure women are capable of understanding it at all."

If a horny man makes a bad choice, say, cheating on his wife, we rightfully hold him responsible for the results of that choice. "I was horny and I'm biologically built to spread my seed" isn't considered a valid legal excuse for philandering in divorce proceedings. Nor should it be! A man is expected to be able to control his biological urges and act appropriately in spite of them. I don't have a problem with that. If a man doesn't control them, and ends up sleeping around and getting divorced, there are serious financial consequences built into our legal system for him making that choice. I don't have a problem with that either.

But let's have the same standard for women. If you keep a baby when you're not married and the clearly rational thing to do is get rid of it, and you do that solely based on biological urges that you can't bring yourself to control, the serious financial consequences should be yours alone.


And terminating a pregnancy or giving a child up for adoption is not like squishing a bug or giving away a kitten to a good home. Of the people I know who have had abortions, none of them did it lightly or without sincere consideration.


My wife works with a woman who's had five abortions, which I personally consider a pretty appalling number. The woman seems totally cavalier about it and doesn't seem to be affected by them in the least. So, anecdotes swing both ways.


So come up with something as potentially traumatic as having an abortion or carrying a child for 9 months for a man to have to go through. Let's have a tumor inserted for about six months and then yank it out through an orifice. Hey, I bet lots of women would be amenable to signing the Document of No Support if the guy would just go through that!


You're likely joking, but... In western society, money is generally used as compensation for pain and suffering, and I think a reasonable one-time payment for pain & suffering is justified, as I indicated in my first post. Not 18 years of monthly payments, though.


Basically, whether we have an abortion, put the kid up for adoption or keep it and raise it for 18 years, our bodies, hearts and minds are forever changed. And you can walk away after you orgasm and never know the difference.

Well, the goal of casual sex is for both parties to walk away after an orgasm and never have any bad consequence. But I don't accept that the potential regrets caused by an abortion or adoption justifies forcing parenthood on someone who isn't interested in being a parent.

[skeptigirl]

The claim that courts are ordering support despite DNA tests is far from exaggerated. It happened to my brother. It's happened to some of my friends, and I have no doubt that it happens everywhere.

I could play the gender card and say "Of course you deny it; you're a woman." But that would be a sexist statement, wouldn't it?You can claim anything you want, I provided evidence and you haven't. And I commented on your brother's case which is not as you say, despite DNA evidence, there were other factors. See my previous post.

[Metullus]

You can claim anything you want, I provided evidence and you haven't. And I commented on your brother's case which is not as you say, despite DNA evidence, there were other factors. See my previous post.Are you denying that courts are ordering that men pay child support even when DNA proves that the putative father is unrelated to the child?

[skeptigirl]

FWIW - Wikipedia on PATERINTY LAW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_(law))

"In some jurisdictions the courts have also declared the male who acts as the child's father to be the father through the equitable operation of an estoppel. Once the child has been declared to be a son or daughter and has lived with the man for a period of time, the court may cloak the putative father with all of the obligations of parenthood letting the biological father, "off the hook" so to speak."But this doesn't necessarily mean a father who is objecting to paying support. My brother used this to claim custody of his step daughter when his wife died. They hadn't filled out the adoption papers before she died, the child had no father and the grandmother wanted custody.

There are times when this might apply when there is no biological father. If you raised a child for 10 years and got divorced a judge should be able to consider certain circumstances such as the fact you essentially adopted a child without the paperwork. You can't walk away from an adoption commitment either.

Wikipedia - PATERNITY FRAUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud)

"In some jurisdictions, there is limited opportunity to legally challenge the assumption of paternity, by limiting the amount of time allowed to challenge paternity, or by allowing women to claim paternity in nearly anonymous conditions, such as in California, U.S.A.

The ready availability of genetic fingerprinting has created a situation in which men suspicious of paternity fraud are able to have a paternity test conducted to verify a child's identity. Legal paternity testing usually requires the consent of the mother or an order made by a family court.

Access to such testing is restricted in some jurisdictions as it is held to not be in the best interests of the child for such information to become available. A man finding out that the child is not his biological child contrary to information supplied by the mother may result in his rejection of the child and the mother for her perpetration of the fraud."

"Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker, a Florida resident, discovered the child he was paying support for was not his via DNA testing. Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him, stating that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year post divorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child. Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.htm)"And you don't know what an appeals court would rule. They could decide the deadline is a technicality the courts are simply stuck with or they could decide the statute of limitations started with the DNA results. I don't know.

But in neither case above is it as described by the OP where judges are simply ignoring DNA evidence and declaring the person involved is the responsible party.

[skeptigirl]

I've never understood why men who don't want a child can be forced to pay for one simply because they fathered it. Presumably, if at the time they had sex neither partner wanted a child to result, then the obvious thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy. If that's not possible due to the woman's moral beliefs, the next most obvious choice is to give the baby up for adoption.

So I think it would certainly be fair to require men to pay half the cost of an abortion, or alternately half of all the costs relating to carrying the baby to term: doctor visits, maternity clothes, hospital fees for delivery, any loss of income due to the woman missing work for pregnancy-related issues, etc. And possibly even some additional money as compensation for the general aches and discomfort and inconvenience being pregnant brings.

But past the time of birth, if the mother decides to keep a baby that neither person wanted at the time they had sex, I just don't see on what basis caring for it should be any of the father's responsibility. Yes, it takes two people to have sex, and yes, accidents happen, but no one should be allowed to turn an accident into a lifelong commitment for another person, when there is an easy way to avoid it. Two ways, in fact, one easier than the other, but both easier than being a parent.

I realize this is a wildly unpopular view, but most of the counter-arguments I've heard when I've expressed it elsewhere rely heavily on what I consider to be outdated and generally unexamined assumptions about gender roles in modern society. So, I'm posting this opinion here because in my lurking on this board I've observed most posters here tend to not hold many unexamined and outdated assumptions, and I rather expect I'll get more rational counter-arguments here that I haven't heard elsewhere.

Women bear the child, and thus have decision making power. Your choice is with the sex act. You could argue life ain't fair to either one.

But the child had nothing to do with either decision. You cannot abandon the child because the woman made a decision you do not like. You knew when you had sex, decisions beyond that were ultimately not yours to make.

[FenrisWolf]

Women bear the child, and thus have decision making power. Your choice is with the sex act. You could argue life ain't fair to either one.

But the child had nothing to do with either decision. You cannot abandon the child because the woman made a decision you do not like. You knew when you had sex, decisions beyond that were ultimately not yours to make.

You are accurately describing how the laws work in the US now, congratulations!

You are utterly failing to provide any rational or moral justification for why they should be that way. I am, in fact, arguing that the laws are not fair, and your attempt to trivialize my argument doesn't constitute a rebuttal.

[skeptigirl]

Here's one of the Wiki examples (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/09/1162661797800.html) for paternity fraud:She subsequently acknowledged a sexual relationship with another man which started after the birth of her first child.

Mr Magill's child support payments were adjusted to allow for past overpayments and an extinguishment of arrears.

Mr Magill sued, launching a case for deceit in the Victorian County Court, claiming damages for personal injury in the form of anxiety and depression resulting from fraudulent misrepresentations.

He also claimed financial loss, including loss of earning capacity by reason of his psychiatric problems and expenditure on the children under the mistaken belief he was their father, plus exemplary damages.

He was awarded $70,000 from his ex-wife, including $30,000 for general pain and suffering, $35,000 for past economic loss and $5,000 for future economic loss.

The County Court found Ms Magill's presentation of the birth registration forms to Mr Magill constituted the deceitful representation by Ms Magill that he was the father.

But the Victorian Court of Appeal reversed that decision on grounds that Mr Magill had failed to establish the essential elements of the offence of deceit.So the child support was ended from the sounds of it and the case that was dismissed was a separate lawsuit for damages from the adultery.

[Metullus]

But this doesn't necessarily mean a father who is objecting to paying support.
Actually, it does. What it means is that if a man believes he is the child's parent - even if such belief arises from misrepresentation on the mother's part, and he acts as the parent prior to finding out that he is not the parent, he can still be stuck with child support.

My brother used this to claim custody of his step daughter when his wife died. They hadn't filled out the adoption papers before she died, the child had no father and the grandmother wanted custody.Separate issue.

There are times when this might apply when there is no biological father. If you raised a child for 10 years and got divorced a judge should be able to consider certain circumstances such as the fact you essentially adopted a child without the paperwork. You can't walk away from an adoption commitment either.We are not talking about adoption, wherein the man voluntarily undertakes responsibility for a child not his own. We are talking about a circumstance wherein the man is forced to take responsibility for a child not his own. In California, for example, a husband is presumed to be the father of his wife's child, irrespective of what DNA evidence might prove.

And you don't know what an appeals court would rule. They could decide the deadline is a technicality the courts are simply stuck with or they could decide the statute of limitations started with the DNA results. I don't know.Follow the links below for some answers...

But in neither case above is it as described by the OP where judges are simply ignoring DNA evidence and declaring the person involved is the responsible party.The courts are relying on the claims of the mother and are holding the man responsible even when they had no notice and no opportunity to respond.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20060418.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html

http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/1022a.html

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144414531354

http://www.glennsacks.com/california_governor_davis.htm

[skeptigirl]

Here's another from Wiki (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.19.06/paternity-0629.html):Under California law, Jones had six months from the time he learned about Ethan to contest paternity. Unaware of this deadline, and unable to afford an attorney, Jones missed his chance. To this day, Jones does not have any proof that he is Ethan's father. His only hope to find out lies with a little-known piece of legislation set to expire in five months...

Florida passed a bill early this month that releases a man from paying child support if DNA proves he is not the biological father. A similar bill is being considered in Michigan. Colorado passed a law this year permitting men to challenge the paternity of alleged children during a divorce, separation or child support hearing. Other states, including Ohio, Georgia, Maryland and Alabama, have passed similar laws that allow men to disestablish paternity.

In 2004, the California legislature passed A.B. 252, a short-lived law that allows men named as fathers in default judgments two years from the law's enactment to contest paternity via a DNA test. A default judgment is a case in which the mother claims paternity, and the purported father does not agree or sign any paperwork. The window for A.B. 252 expires on Jan. 1, 2007. (The law also extends to two years, from six months, the period during which a man can contest a paternity judgment.)

Jones learned of A.B. 252 while being interviewed for this article. He says he will contest paternity; however, he is battle-weary and half-inclined to give up. In the nine years since a back-calculated child support bill landed on his doorstep, Jones has had his license to drive and his state contractor license suspended, and his wages and tax returns intercepted. He has visited Sacramento more than a dozen times in search of his ex-girlfriend, hired a private detective, commissioned two attorneys and finally, in desperation, given up and gone underground (working, at times, under the table) to avoid child support bills of over $100,000.Here's another one where the woman had to put a name on the birth certificate (welfare reform law) and the state ordered child support rather than just paying welfare for support. He missed the deadline to contest. Deadlines and ignorance of the law are not considered excuses in other situations either.

First, some state laws probably did need to catch up with DNA science. And second, in this story you don't have the courts ignoring DNA, you have a child who hasn't had the test. We only have the guy's side. I don't doubt however that the system was responsible for the mess.

[Metullus]

Here's one of the Wiki examples (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/09/1162661797800.html) for paternity fraud:So the child support was ended from the sounds of it and the case that was dismissed was a separate lawsuit for damages from the adultery.An Australian case? I thought we were discussing the USA. My mistake.

A case from the USA from the same Wiki link. (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.19.06/paternity-0629.html)

[Metullus]

Here's another from Wiki (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.19.06/paternity-0629.html):Here's another one where the woman had to put a name on the birth certificate (welfare reform law) and the state ordered child support rather than just paying welfare for support. He missed the deadline to contest. Deadlines and ignorance of the law are not considered excuses in other situations either.

First, some state laws probably did need to catch up with DNA science. And second, in this story you don't have the courts ignoring DNA, you have a child who hasn't had the test. We only have the guy's side. I don't doubt however that the system was responsible for the mess.Of course, in California there is no requirement that the mother or the county prove that the accused father has actually been given notice that he has been named as the father.

Yup. And in California you need the mom's consent to the DNA test or a court order. D'ya suppose the mother is going to consent to the DNA test? And upon what basis is a court going to order the test?

[Sasha]

[QUOTE= But let's have the same standard for women. If you keep a baby when you're not married and the clearly rational thing to do is get rid of it, and you do that solely based on biological urges that you can't bring yourself to control, the serious financial consequences should be yours alone.[/QUOTE]

Unfortuneately, all too often it isn't just "yours alone." It would be lovely if the woman-keeps-child thing were as simplistic as you seem to think it is, but the reality is that unless the woman has the financial wherewithal to raise a child for 18+years, the serious financial circumstances become everyone's.

[skeptigirl]

What you are missing from the point I made, Metullis, is that the law allows the judge to consider a person who acted as a parent for all intents and purposes until the divorce and now wants no part of the child. I didn't say it wasn't used to order support. And I mentioned my brother as an example. He could just as easily have been found responsible for child support if he didn't want his stepdaughter and the grandmother sued for support.

The point I was making was, just as some men have been ordered to pay 'palimony' for common law marriages, a judge might conclude you had essentially adopted the child but not formalized it.

I'll look at your case examples later and comment further.

I stand by my main assertion in this thread, the OP makes a claim based on an uncited news article we cannot check. A subsequent post cited a forum post with unsubstantiated stories. Other posts seemed to accept the mythical exaggerations without question.

None of the case examples I have looked at thus far support the mythical exaggeration made in the first couple thread posts. None of them support the claims made in the OP cited post which appear to be completely fraudulent claims since the news accounts that post cites cannot be substantiated.

[skeptigirl]

An Australian case? I thought we were discussing the USA. My mistake.

A case from the USA from the same Wiki link. (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.19.06/paternity-0629.html)The majority of the cases linked in the Wiki citation YOU POSTED were Canadian and Australian. I had to hunt for the US example. I commented on that case above.

I don't have an issue looking at the facts here so don't be accusing me of posting irrelevant cases. So far what I have found supports what I said. If there is evidence to the contrary, I am not married to my previous conclusions. That is a mistake humans naturally make. We want to be right. See my sig. I don't have that hang up. So far, however, I'm not convinced.

[skeptigirl]

I just read this article the other day from a local paper in Queens, New York. I've been trying to find a version online and I can't so I can only tell you what I remember. It was pretty funny to me, so I figure I would share what I could.

Basically, a man is suing his former lover (with which he has had a child) for tricking him into impregnating her because she dumped him in favor of a guru who uses his psychic powers to make her orgasm with his mind alone.


THOUGHTS? ;)

I'll add more info if I can just manage to find the article again.Since this has turned into a 'find any case that shows men as victims' thread and since my post called your claim in this post into question, (I did not claim no judge ever screwed a person, male or female), how about listing the name of the publication and if you have it, something more to identify the case by.

I already tried to find the reports claimed in the forum post Demigorgon linked to and could not (http://board.columbiatribune.com/index.php?showtopic=3092). In a story in the Kansas City Star a week ago, another in the STL Post Dispatch a month ago, 90 days ago KC Channel 4, and more and more news stories about the legalized theft caused by paternity fraud in Missouri....

Missouri's antiquated laws are denying Truth and Justice when it comes to defrauding families via Paternity Fraud.

A man in Kansas City seperated from his wife... 18 months later she bears a child from another man... She states IN COURT that her husband IS NOT THE FATHER... But that (and a DNA Test proving it) isn't enough in Missouri....

That man, defrauded by antiquated Missouri Laws is now in jail because he is innocent. Many hundreds of families are being affected each year.. Being told it does not matter what the truth is. They're convenient, and the govenment can take their hard earned money.. Denying their own children of a better lifestyle, robbed of their college savings, being forced to live in substandard conditions, being denied the benefits of their own families hard work because of Paternity Fraud in Missouri.

Senate Bill 55 stops dishonest people from taking advantage of the innocence of others by promoting Truth and denying Fraud in Missouri.

Call or email your legislators and tell them you support Senate Bill 55 and the protection of innocent families by people who promote paternity Fraud in Missouri.I posted what I searched for to find those cases. Maybe someone else can find them. But it looks to me like rumors either passed around or made up by this guy who wanted to promote support for they bill in question. I posted the Missouri law and it was not congruent with this guy's post.

[Loss Leader]

Not to derail the thread, Fnord but let me clue you in. Unless you adopt, have a child by some artificial means while married or are the biological parent, you do not have to pay child support.

The reason you couldn't find anything is because it is a myth.

I'm willing to consider actual facts here but I can't believe the unsubstantiated rumors you guys are putting up here as facts.


But in neither case above is it as described by the OP where judges are simply ignoring DNA evidence and declaring the person involved is the responsible party.

First, some state laws probably did need to catch up with DNA science. And second, in this story you don't have the courts ignoring DNA, you have a child who hasn't had the test.


Sadly, Skeptigirl, you are incorrect. As a family law attorney in New York with over ten years experience, I can positively confirm that there are some cases when a man has been ordered to pay child support even when DNA evidence proves it is not his child, even when he was misled into believing that it was his child, and even when the man severed all ties with the child the moment he learned he was not the father.

This is based on concepts of equity, estoppel and detrimental reliance. When a man treats a child as his own, bonds with the child and acts as the child's father (with or without ever intending to adopt the child), the courts have found that it is inequitable for the man to later try to claim he is not the father. At least one reason is that the child is allegedly supposed to relied to her detriment on the man's representation of himself as her father.

The most recent New York case to say this: Shondel J. v. Mark D.,
7 N.Y.3d 320, 853 N.E.2d 610 (2006). In that case, the mother lied to the man, a DNA test was done, he never moved to adopt the child and he broke off ties with the child.

I do not agree that this should be the law. I'm just saying that it is.

[skeptigirl]

Sadly, Skeptigirl, you are incorrect. As a family law attorney in New York with over ten years experience, I can positively confirm that there are some cases when a man has been ordered to pay child support even when DNA evidence proves it is not his child, even when he was misled into believing that it was his child, and even when the man severed all ties with the child the moment he learned he was not the father.

This is based on concepts of equity, estoppel and detrimental reliance. When a man treats a child as his own, bonds with the child and acts as the child's father (with or without ever intending to adopt the child), the courts have found that it is inequitable for the man to later try to claim he is not the father. At least one reason is that the child is allegedly supposed to relied to her detriment on the man's representation of himself as her father.

The most recent New York case to say this: Shondel J. v. Mark D.,
7 N.Y.3d 320, 853 N.E.2d 610 (2006). In that case, the mother lied to the man, a DNA test was done, he never moved to adopt the child and he broke off ties with the child.

I do not agree that this should be the law. I'm just saying that it is.

I will correct my statement to include all the exceptions that have been cited. The problem still remains that the claims made in the beginning of this thread do not reflect the reality of the issue. Men are not the victims implied.
ML Basically, a man is suing his former lover (with which he has had a child) for tricking him into impregnating

F He's screwed.

Even if future DNA tests prove that the child is not his, he is going to end up paying child support for the next 18+ years.

The excuse doesn't matter. Family Court almost always favors the mother. The only exception is when the mother is denied legal and physical custody, and she would have to be convicted of some truly heinous crime for that to happen.

Yup. He's screwed.

D There was a man here in Missouri who was forced to pay child support for a child that was proven not to be his.

I searched but this was the most I could find on it, but it was a big story at the time.

RSL I have heard - and this may vary from state to state - if a couple is married when the child is born, the husband is legally required to pay child support if there is a subsequent divorce, even if that child was the product of the wife having an affair.

F Tell that to my brother, who at 17 was coerced into signing into paternity under threat of a statutory rape conviction (she was 16), and ended up paying child support for not one, but two children that were not his. This was in the early 1970's. He joined the Army before he graduated high school to avoid jail time for non-support (who else would hire a 17-year old alledged father of two?).

It was only five years ago that he was able to prove by DNA tests...Being tricked into paternity happens, Rapunzel. Especially when even the mother doesn't know for certain who the daddy is.

F "Don't worry," she whispered. "I'm on the Pill."And Fnord is citing something from the early 70s! The DNA he speaks of was only 5 years ago. That means these kids were either adults or almost adults when the DNA was tested. So is the gripe that the brother didn't get his money back? Or is it that everyone hates the evil woman now and can't say enough bad things about her?

Take your cited case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I06_0102.htm), when we look closer we find not that some judge arbitrarily took a woman's claim of her child's paternity, but we have a man who from the looks of things adopted the child without the paperwork. Granted he may have done so under the false belief it was his biological child, and it is difficult to say what the law should say about that. But look at the first few posts in this thread. This case does not support those assertions.

Although Mark was in New York when the child was born, he provided financial support for the child and returned to Guyana later in the year to see her. In a sworn statement, notarized by the Guyana Consul-General in New York in January 1996, Mark declared that he was "convinced" that he was the child's father and accepted "all paternal responsibilities including child support." In 1998 he signed a Guyana registry, stating that he was her father and authorizing the change of her last name to his. Mark named the child the primary beneficiary on his life insurance policy, identifying her as his daughter. He also sent Shondel money monthly for the child's support from her birth until June 1999 and then less regularly through the summer of 2000.

[Loss Leader]

Take your cited case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I06_0102.htm), when we look closer we find not that some judge arbitrarily took a woman's claim of her child's paternity, but we have a man who from the looks of things adopted the child without the paperwork. Granted he may have done so under the false belief it was his biological child, and it is difficult to say what the law should say about that.


Whatever other people have been said and whatever your other points, this is not a case where a man "adopted" a child without paperwork. It is impossible to adopt a child who is thought to be biologically one's own. It is impossible to adopt a child without paperwork (although some cases have used the fact that paperwork was incomplete or was in process as evidence). It is possible to be equitably estopped from denying paternity based on representations one has made to the child.

[skeptigirl]

Whatever other people have been said and whatever your other points, this is not a case where a man "adopted" a child without paperwork. It is impossible to adopt a child who is thought to be biologically one's own. It is impossible to adopt a child without paperwork (although some cases have used the fact that paperwork was incomplete or was in process as evidence). It is possible to be equitably estopped from denying paternity based on representations one has made to the child.You are saying then that he never acted as the parent when he clearly did. I use the term, adopted without the paperwork, not as some legal description but as an analogy to common law marriage. You act as the parent for all intents and purposes.

It is a separate issue why he did so.

[Metullus]

The majority of the cases linked in the Wiki citation YOU POSTED were Canadian and Australian. I had to hunt for the US example. I commented on that case above.

I don't have an issue looking at the facts here so don't be accusing me of posting irrelevant cases. So far what I have found supports what I said. If there is evidence to the contrary, I am not married to my previous conclusions. That is a mistake humans naturally make. We want to be right. See my sig. I don't have that hang up. So far, however, I'm not convinced.Actually I specifically referenced the Florida example and provided the CSM citation. This is not an issue that is near and dear to my heart, I am merely pointing out to you what appears at first blush to be a minor error on your part. As top its relevance to the OP, well, it was you who said:

Not to derail the thread, Fnord but let me clue you in. Unless you adopt, have a child by some artificial means while married or are the biological parent, you do not have to pay child support. (Bolding mine)

The facts are thus: in many states, and California is one of those states, a man may be required to pay child support for a child that is neither biologically related to him nor adopted by him. Such a case may arise, for example, if a child is born during the course of a marriage and it is only discovered subsequent to a divorce that the child was fathered by someone other than the husband. This is even the case if the mother of the child perjures herself and misrepresents to him that he is indeed the father and he believes her until finding out otherwise. It is enough of a problem that there has been legislation proposed to address the issue.

Although a Florida case, the Parker case is very much to the point. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.htm)

[Metullus]

You are saying then that he never acted as the parent when he clearly did. I use the term, adopted without the paperwork, not as some legal description but as an analogy to common law marriage. You act as the parent for all intents and purposes.

It is a separate issue why he did so.You are suggesting that a man who is defrauded into believing that a child is his own, and who acts in good faith upon that belief, upon discovering the fraud must therefore still provide for another man's child? Even if he has, for example, never seen the child? That this constitutes what you call "adoption without the paperwork"? Absurd.

Your analogy with common law marriage is, well, flawed. In the case of common law marriage both parties enter into the an agreement to cohabitate willingly, with full knowledge of the circumstances. In the case we are discussing, the "father" did not enter into any arrangement with full knowledge of the facts, in fact, he was duped into providing support. Not at all the same thing.

[Loss Leader]

I use the term, adopted without the paperwork, not as some legal description but as an analogy to common law marriage.


Except in an ever-dwindling handful of states, there is no such thing as common law marriage.

[Loss Leader]

Even if he has, for example, never seen the child?


Probably not. In cases such as these, the deciding factor seems to be that the child relied on information that the man was her father to form a close child-parent bond with the man. If a man has never seen the child, he probably has not formed a close enough bond to estop him from denying paternity.

(There were four negatives in the preceding sentence and it made perfect sense. Tell me I'm not a lawyer.)

[skeptigirl]

Except in an ever-dwindling handful of states, there is no such thing as common law marriage.What possible difference does that make. I was using an analogy to show the logical rationale not making a legal case.

[Metullus]

Probably not. In cases such as these, the deciding factor seems to be that the child relied on information that the man was her father to form a close child-parent bond with the man. If a man has never seen the child, he probably has not formed a close enough bond to estop him from denying paternity.

(There were four negatives in the preceding sentence and it made perfect sense. Tell me I'm not a lawyer.)I was reading an article - which of course I cannot find at the moment - that described such a case. As I recall the facts were thus:

1. Woman named a man as the father at the birth of her child.

2. Putative father agreed to pay and, in fact, paid child support for several years but never visited or saw the child.

3. The "father" learned that another person (mom's current boyfriend) had acknowledged the child as his.

4. Testing determined that the current boyfriend was indeed the father of the child.

5. Court refused to relieve the "father" of responsibility for child support (citing his acknowledgement of paternity at the time of birth).

Hence my comment. My recollection of the facts might be neither accurate nor complete...

[skeptigirl]

You are suggesting that a man who is defrauded into believing that a child is his own, and who acts in good faith upon that belief, upon discovering the fraud must therefore still provide for another man's child? Even if he has, for example, never seen the child? That this constitutes what you call "adoption without the paperwork"? Absurd.

Your analogy with common law marriage is, well, flawed. In the case of common law marriage both parties enter into the an agreement to cohabitate willingly, with full knowledge of the circumstances. In the case we are discussing, the "father" did not enter into any arrangement with full knowledge of the facts, in fact, he was duped into providing support. Not at all the same thing.If you are talking about the case in question, he established himself as the father by signing all the papers he signed. The case for that being based on fraud is one issue.

The court declaring he acted as the child's father for x amount of time is the fact the court found. Why he did that is a separate issue. And I am not saying it is right or wrong.

I also corrected my first statement in a post above to include these exceptions. The exceptions still do not support the claims presented in the first few posts in this thread.


So speaking of those posts, I made a claim I later softened. I posted many things since and included citations and quotes. Yet everything I have posted is being dissected. How about addressing the false claims made in the first couple posts? I see very little questioning, "tricking him into impregnating her", "Even if future DNA tests prove that the child is not his, he is going to end up paying child support for the next 18+ years.", "There was a man here in Missouri who was forced to pay child support for a child that was proven not to be his", and what something that happened in the early 70s has to do with the claim men are being forced to pay child support despite DNA tests today.

A number of cases have been presented here which so far have been based on more than an arbitrary decision by a judge to ignore DNA evidence. Where is the evidence judges are ignoring DNA evidence right and left?

You have cases decided on legal technicalities such as missed deadlines, you have cases decided because the man acted as the child's parent for 'years' before discovering it was not the case and in one of those you had the support stopped but a civil suit for additional monetary damages thrown out.

[Loss Leader]

What possible difference does that make. I was using an analogy to show the logical rationale not making a legal case.


You analogized one thing that doesn't really exist (adoptions without paperwork) to another thing that doesn't really exist (common law marriages). The fact that common law marriage generally doesn't exist (and is being killed wherever it is still found to be hiding) is relevant to whether adoptions without paperwork should be considered a valid concept.

[SamanthaMc]

Well, that's the root of the problem, isn't it? If everyone was being logical and thinking about long-term consequences, there would be no unplanned pregnancies in the first place. But as you note, humans don't behave that way, so there are lots of unplanned pregnancies. What's the fairest way to handle them? I don't think forcing men to pay child support for a kid they don't want is fair at all.

In your estimation, how many children are initially unwanted by men? If a couple has as boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, and they guy has a positive reaction to having a child initially, would you like to see him locked in for 18 years even if he changes his mind 8 months into the pregnancy? Or one year after the baby was born?

Or let's say he initially rejects the child and all ties are severed. If he changes his mind after a year, and the mother does not want him to be a part of the baby's life, would he have any recourse?

And what about a situation where the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy, but the man doesn't? Would you like to see something in place to force the woman to have the kid and then give it up to the man? If she agreed to have the kid and give it to the guy, would you be in favor of allowing her to not support the child in any way?



I'm not at all sympathetic to arguments like "pregnant women are not known for their rational abilities." It contains an implied excuse, that we shouldn't hold women fully responsible for decisions they make while pregnant.

I am not trying to make excuses for women. Women are fully responsible for the decisions they make when they are pregnant. They just might not be the most rational.



"Biologically speaking, men are built to spread their seed to as many women as possible. Not just having the right equipment physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. When you are horny your body goes through all sorts of changes. Hormones work their magic, and wandering instincts kick in. I am not sure women are capable of understanding it at all."

I have the feeling that you might expect me to balk at your table-turning. But, oddly enough, (probably because I am odd), I do think that men are biologically set up this way and it is difficult for women to understand. I do not think that men are as emotionally connected to their offspring as women are. They are not supposed to be. With men it is quantity over quality, and the opposite is true with women. Females have the instincts to find the best seed for her eggs and males seek the most eggs for their seed.



If a horny man makes a bad choice, say, cheating on his wife, we rightfully hold him responsible for the results of that choice. "I was horny and I'm biologically built to spread my seed" isn't considered a valid legal excuse for philandering in divorce proceedings. Nor should it be! A man is expected to be able to control his biological urges and act appropriately in spite of them. I don't have a problem with that. If a man doesn't control them, and ends up sleeping around and getting divorced, there are serious financial consequences built into our legal system for him making that choice. I don't have a problem with that either.

But let's have the same standard for women. If you keep a baby when you're not married and the clearly rational thing to do is get rid of it, and you do that solely based on biological urges that you can't bring yourself to control, the serious financial consequences should be yours alone.

Society has done a good job of trying to curb the instincts of men. Unfortunately, it hasn't done the same for women. Men who curb their urges to philander are regarded as doing the right thing. Women who curb their maternal instincts by getting an abortion are often villified. I think in our little scenario perhaps getting an abortion could be more like visiting a day spa, where women could be pampered and treated like a "queen for a day." And maybe, just maybe, we could get rid of all the folks parading around with pictures of dead babies.


Well, the goal of casual sex is for both parties to walk away after an orgasm and never have any bad consequence. But I don't accept that the potential regrets caused by an abortion or adoption justifies forcing parenthood on someone who isn't interested in being a parent.

Okay, last thing. If a woman makes the decision to keep the child with the understanding that the father has no responsibilities, would you like to see her waive all assistance from the government as well? In my state, when women receive cash assistance from the government, the state attempts to find the absent parent and get him to pay instead. In our scenario, the government would not be able to do that, therefore the cost of welfare would increase. Would that be a necessary evil in order to allow men the freedom of not supporting their unwanted offspring? Or, if they were required to waive all governmental assistance, what would be the contengency plan for women who were unable to provide medical care for or feed their chldren?

[skeptigirl]

You analogized one thing that doesn't really exist (adoptions without paperwork) to another thing that doesn't really exist (common law marriages). The fact that common law marriage generally doesn't exist (and is being killed wherever it is still found to be hiding) is relevant to whether adoptions without paperwork should be considered a valid concept.

Are you functioning at the concrete level? Can't conceptualize a novel description? I understand your point but you are making no effort to understand mine.

I have only described the rationale one might have in mind when either writing such a law as the one we are discussing or when judging a case involving such a law. Might I ask what the heck you are talking about? Is this another post with some underlying bitterness about a child support case?

Besides, according to Wiki if it is accurate, several states still have common law marriage on the books. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage)

[skeptigirl]

I do think that men are biologically set up this way and it is difficult for women to understand. I do not think that men are as emotionally connected to their offspring as women are. They are not supposed to be. With men it is quantity over quality, and the opposite is true with women. Females have the instincts to find the best seed for her eggs and males seek the most eggs for their seed.May I assume you didn't mean this about all men? There are quite a few who would be arguing they get a raw deal with custody from the courts rather than only being upset about the support payments.

I think you have to consider the bonding mechanisms. I was very happy with my son when he was born but I also felt what I can only describe as a surge in bonding emotions when he was about 4 months old. If you have an absent father who doesn't spend the same time with their child, I imagine that bonding doesn't occur in the same way. So what you are attributing to gender may have a whole other component you are overlooking.

In some cases society can have an impact on that bonding time. A man who works during the time the mother may take maternity leave could have a big impact on infant bonding. The same is true if a mother can't stay home for a while after her child is born. I don't think 6 weeks is enough. I think 4-6 months would be much better for women who want to return to work. We should go by the research, (which I haven't read so this is just opinion.)

[SamanthaMc]

May I assume you didn't mean this about all men? There are quite a few who would be arguing they get a raw deal with custody from the courts rather than only being upset about the support payments.

I think you have to consider the bonding mechanisms. I was very happy with my son when he was born but I also felt what I can only describe as a surge in bonding emotions when he was about 4 months old. If you have an absent father who doesn't spend the same time with their child, I imagine that bonding doesn't occur in the same way. So what you are attributing to gender may have a whole other component you are overlooking.

In some cases society can have an impact on that bonding time. A man who works during the time the mother may take maternity leave could have a big impact on infant bonding. The same is true if a mother can't stay home for a while after her child is born. I don't think 6 weeks is enough. I think 4-6 months would be much better for women who want to return to work. We should go by the research, (which I haven't read so this is just opinion.)

Well, out of context it sounds a little like men do not care at all about their children! :eek: That wasn't my point at all. I was trying to point out that men don't have the biological make-up and maternal instincts that women do, and thus they might be inherently more indifferent to the idea of aborting their offspring than women might be.

My discussion with FenrisWolf is about men who father children that they do not want. Nothing I've said is meant to pertain to men who want to be fathers. :)

[Loss Leader]

Is this another post with some underlying bitterness about a child support case?


Nope. This is a post with some expert understanding of the issues. I don't like the fathers' rights people; I tend to think they're nuts. However, I am interested in seeing that the law is accurately portrayed.


Besides, according to Wiki if it is accurate, several states still have common law marriage on the books. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage)


Yeah, there are a couple left. I think the number may be down to seven. And it's shrinking. The elements necessary to prove a common law marriage are getting more difficult; in some states the arangement has to have extended back decades. It's disfavored by the law.

Any student of law would be do well to just pretend the concept doesn't exist.

[Lex Luthor]

Not to derail the thread, Fnord but let me clue you in. Unless you adopt, have a child by some artificial means while married or are the biological parent, you do not have to pay child support.

Let me be the second person in this thread to say that sadly, Skeptigirl, you are wrong.

The sad case of David Salazar is the story that Demigorgon was referring to earlier in this thread. Sorry I can't post the link. This forum won't allow me to post a URL until I have made 15 posts (how annoying!). However, you can find the story yourself by Googling "David Salazar" and "child support".

David Salazar is being forced to pay child support for a child that is not his. His estranged wife, who he separated from 14 months before the baby was born, admits that Salazar is not the father. The judge in the case knows damn well that Salazar is not the father. But Salazar now owes over $13,000 in child support for this child. He is not the father, and he has never been a parent to the child.

His only crime was not getting a legal divorce when he and his wife split up. For that mistake he is now on the hook for 18 years of child support for another man's child, and he is facing a felony conviction and 4 years in prison if he doesn't pay up.

It's all well and good for judges to consider the best interests of the child. But to rule that the best interests of the child trump everything else violates all concepts of fairness and justice. In this case, the rights of David Salazar have been completely trampled upon.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, men can be victims too.

[skeptigirl]

Let me be the second person in this thread to say that sadly, Skeptigirl, you are wrong.

The sad case of David Salazar is the story that Demigorgon was referring to earlier in this thread. Sorry I can't post the link. This forum won't allow me to post a URL until I have made 15 posts (how annoying!). However, you can find the story yourself by Googling "David Salazar" and "child support".

David Salazar is being forced to pay child support for a child that is not his. His estranged wife, who he separated from 14 months before the baby was born, admits that Salazar is not the father. The judge in the case knows damn well that Salazar is not the father. But Salazar now owes over $13,000 in child support for this child. He is not the father, and he has never been a parent to the child.

His only crime was not getting a legal divorce when he and his wife split up. For that mistake he is now on the hook for 18 years of child support for another man's child, and he is facing a felony conviction and 4 years in prison if he doesn't pay up.

It's all well and good for judges to consider the best interests of the child. But to rule that the best interests of the child trump everything else violates all concepts of fairness and justice. In this case, the rights of David Salazar have been completely trampled upon.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, men can be victims too.I believe I conceded to exceptions based on legal technicalities and this case (http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Feb/20070214News019.asp) is one of them.

Many men nationwide get trapped into paying child support because they do not contest paternity before state-set deadlines.

Several states recently have changed laws or are considering changes that would allow men to introduce DNA evidence after the deadlines have passed. A bill pending in the Missouri Senate would allow that here.

In the case decided yesterday, David Salazar and his wife agreed that they separated 14 months before she had a baby girl by another man in November 2001.

But the couple was too poor to pay for a divorce, his attorney said. A hospital clerk ordered the mother to list Salazar as father on the birth certificate. The Missouri Division of Child Support Enforcement named Salazar the father without DNA testing.

Salazar did not attend a hearing to contest the paternity finding. A Buchanan County judge later found him guilty of not paying $278 a month in child support and sentenced him to 28 days in jail.

OTOH, just like in another example already mentioned this isn't about declaring Salazar responsible for support, it's about Salazar neglecting to take care of the most basic legal requirements. It's hard to be sympathetic in the way this is portrayed as an injustice.

If you are sued and you don't go to court or you miss a deadline, guess what? You are ordered to pay and the other party wins the lawsuit by default. This case is like that and it has nothing to do with men having to unfairly support children that aren't theirs.

In this particular case, it appears it is the state that is trying to recover welfare paid to support the child. Salazar didn't just not get divorced in a timely manner, he never bothered to clear this up in a timely manner. For all we know that left the state unable to force the actual father to pay support. Thus the taxpayers supported the child. Now the ex-hubby non-Dad is crying foul. But the taxpayers have a right to hold him accountable if any deadlines passed and the real father cannot legally be made to pay or perhaps cannot now be found.

The concept of a judge just saying, "too bad, support this kid that isn't yours" is what I was referring to. In all these exceptions, the non-dad failed to take care of business and the support orders are based on default judgments, not some "unfair" victimization of men as is being implied.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If a condom is not used, it is because both people involved made a risky gamble. However, only one person (the woman) has total control over whether the consequences of that gamble are made dramatically more severe than they could otherwise be -- and I feel that with that total control comes total responsibility for the results of that choice.

That's not true.

I know 100% for sure that I will not father a child regardless of what methods the woman is using. I've had a vasectomy. It was completely in my control.