'Dads' cleared by DNA fight 'paternity fraud'

[sbp]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020622-31655902.htm

"If the genes don't fit, you must acquit."

This trademarked slogan — developed by a Georgia man who has been ordered to pay support for a child he didn't father — is being repeated around the country as protests grow against "paternity fraud."

Paternity fraud is where "two people are walking away with no responsibility at all — the biological mother and the biological father," says Carnell Smith of Decatur, Ga., who owes $750 a month for a child even though he has two DNA tests that show that the girl isn't his.

Mr. Smith helped push for a new law in Georgia, signed in May by Gov. Roy Barnes, that allows courts to terminate child-support obligations to men who can prove they are not the fathers.

Lawmakers in New Jersey and California are considering similar laws.

These are "truth" bills, says Dianna Thompson, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, which supports the legislation.

But there is strong opposition from advocacy groups who say that fatherhood goes beyond biology and that disrupting child-support orders will bring indescribable chaos into the lives of children, family-law courts and child-support systems.

"Once someone has stepped forward as a father and acted as a father and supported a child, then even if they simply discover that they are not biologically related, they should not then abandon this child and leave him without a father," says Valerie Ackerman, staff attorney with the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif.

"Our primary concern," says Courtney Joslin of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, "is that where there is an established parent-child bond, it's not in the best interest of the children to terminate that bond."

Both the youth-law center and lesbian-rights center have filed opposition to a bill introduced by California Assemblyman Roderick D. Wright to allow judges to set aside erroneous paternity judgments and child-support orders.

Mr. Wright's bill passed the Assembly in May and is now in the Senate.

Paternity establishment is an essential prerequisite to a child-support order, and federal and state authorities are constantly pushing for higher paternity-establishment rates. Thanks in part to aggressive in-hospital programs in which boyfriends are asked to acknowledge paternity when they visit their girlfriends and newborns, a record 1.4 million paternities were established in 1998, according to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.

Once a father is identified, a court sets a child-support order, which may last until the child is 18 years old. Child-support orders are difficult to change, and a federal law known as the Bradley Amendment prohibits retroactive forgiveness of child-support debts.

Collection is also increasingly aggressive. When Congress passed its welfare-reform law in 1996, it gave states new authority to track down child-support payments and seize assets from nonpaying parents.

All these efforts have paid off. In 2000, nearly $18 billion of the $23 billion owed that year by noncustodial parents was collected.

But the system seems ill-prepared to handle unexpected DNA results. In most states, there is a short window of opportunity to challenge paternity, and if fathers miss that window, they have to pay child support even if DNA tests subsequently prove they are not the father.

Dylan Davis of Denver, a Gulf war veteran, missed his window and now pays $1,050 a month to his ex-wife for twins that she conceived with another man.

Mr. Davis, 32, says his wife had an affair while he was at sea with the U.S. Navy. The twins were born in 1994, around nine months after Mr. Davis returned home.

When the children were infants, Mr. Davis confronted his wife about rumors he had heard about her cheating on him. She denied it and accused him of not trusting her.

The Davises moved to Colorado and divorced in 2000. Mr. Davis, who continued to hear that his wife was unfaithful, didn't bring up the parentage of his twins during the divorce but ordered a DNA test described on an Internet site afterward. The DNA test showed that the children were not his.

"I then obtained an attorney and got a blood test, which is admissible in a court of law, and a deposition from her" in which she said she had an affair and knew who the father was, says Mr. Davis, who works for a software company.

"But Colorado has a law that says that if the children are 5 years of age, you are no longer able to remove yourself as the responsible party and make this other individual accountable."

The ex-wife, Stacey Davis, doesn't want to pursue child support from the biological father, he says, because he lives in another state and "makes less than minimum wage." Mrs. Davis could not be reached for her explanation.

Mr. Davis says he is angry about injustice. "In a meeting with the state social worker the other day, the lady said, 'Why don't you just suck it up and be their dad?' And I said, 'I'm trying for two years.' "

"But this isn't something you can 'suck up.' You find out that you've been lied to and you turn around and everybody says, 'Well, sorry, you waited too long.' I still love my children, but not like I did at one time. I think it's wrong that a lie was created and the state laws are upholding that lie."

Miss Ackerman of the California youth-law center agrees that big problems arise if paternity is incorrectly assigned but insists that legislation such as the California bill is too broad.

California has been too aggressive in assigning "default" paternity and child-support orders, she says, referring to a practice in which men are ordered to pay child support even if they do not appear in court. The system needs "to make more efforts to make sure men know of paternity hearings so they have an opportunity to challenge it."

She suggests that courts be allowed to set aside child-support orders only in default cases where fathers had no relationship with the child, or only until the child is of a certain age, such as 5.

The best interests of the children means finding the appropriate person to support them, says Miss Ackerman. "It's not as if these people have no relief at all." California law enables someone who discovers he has been defrauded six months to apply for relief.

Mr. Smith of Georgia says that laws such as Maryland's, which allow unlimited time to challenge paternity, are best. Otherwise, he says, "all Mom has to do is be quiet long enough and not spill the beans."

"Like in Dylan's case," he says, referring to Mr. Davis, "Colorado has a five-year statute and, lo and behold, the divorce and the facts come out when the children are 6. What a coincidence."

Mr. Smith, who now sells DNA tests and runs a paternity-fraud Web site (www.paternityfraud.com), says Georgia's new law can't help him because he needs a new DNA test but that he is blocked by his ex-girlfriend from seeing the girl.

Instead, Mr. Smith has filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to prohibit lower courts from enforcing fraudulent child-support orders. "All men and children deserve to know the truth," he says.

[molecularfire]

Easy way to fix this... check everybody via DNA before writing down that that person is really the daddy. If the guy wants to waive the DNA test, then he has no legal recourse afterwards.

Damn sick rat bastid parents (both are sleezebags if they're willing to use the kids as weapons). :angry:

[ufcrusher]

I dont think necessarily that the parents are using the kids as weapons. What you have to realize is that these women are cheating on their husbands and due to certain legal presumptions, their husbands are being stuck with the results of their liasons.

If I were ever stuck in that position, I can tell you most certainly that I would fight it tooth and nail. And if for some reason I could get no legal relief, I would figure out some way around paying a red cent! I would rather go live in another country then pay to support the result of infidelity!

In ancient times it was simple, you just took the kid outside of the city and left them there to die. Not that I am condoning infantcide or anything, but it sure as heck got rid of problems rather easily.

Now here is a thought that I dont think anyone has dealt with, what if the "father" gave the child up for adoption? According to most adoption laws, it is the imperative of the biological parents, so this man who is being forced to pay, couldnt even give up the kids if he wanted to. I think that anyone bringing this issue up in court, should raise that fact to show the idiocy of these laws. For all other things in the law, a presumption can be overcome by a clear showing that the facts dont match. Here, even with a clear showing, these courts are not allowing the presumption to be overcome. I definitely think its a miscarriage of justice.

[sbp]

"If the genes don't fit, you must acquit." :heh:

Things definitely need a changing. Guys shouldn't be nailed with no recourse. And what the hell do fat, ugly, butch lesbians have to do with this matter? Nothing.

[molecularfire]

I dont think necessarily that the parents are using the kids as weapons. What you have to realize is that these women are cheating on their husbands and due to certain legal presumptions, their husbands are being stuck with the results of their liasons.
No... if someone is pissed at their wives for her infidelity, and refuses to raise the kids, how are they not using the kids to get back at the wife. In this case, the woman did the cheating. The guy was stupid enough to get with that rat A$$ B!t@h. The only innocents here are the ones that get screwed the most.

If I were ever stuck in that position, I can tell you most certainly that I would fight it tooth and nail. And if for some reason I could get no legal relief, I would figure out some way around paying a red cent! I would rather go live in another country then pay to support the result of infidelity!
And you would be effectively screwing over your kids to get back at your wife. I can see how it would be traumatic to find out that your kids aren't really your kids... but being a father is more than just being a sperm donor. Finding out that your wife is a lying selfish whore is no reason to take it out on your kids. They are the real victims here. If a guy in a burning building pushes a kid out of the way to get out... most people would say that he is a selfish coward. How is this any different. The woman lied to both the guy and the kids. The guy is sacrificing the kids to help himself out. What's the difference? :shrug:

In ancient times it was simple, you just took the kid outside of the city and left them there to die. Not that I am condoning infantcide or anything, but it sure as heck got rid of problems rather easily.
In the old days, they did a lot of F***ed up things. Doesn't make any of them right.

Now here is a thought that I dont think anyone has dealt with, what if the "father" gave the child up for adoption? According to most adoption laws, it is the imperative of the biological parents, so this man who is being forced to pay, couldnt even give up the kids if he wanted to. I think that anyone bringing this issue up in court, should raise that fact to show the idiocy of these laws. For all other things in the law, a presumption can be overcome by a clear showing that the facts dont match. Here, even with a clear showing, these courts are not allowing the presumption to be overcome. I definitely think its a miscarriage of justice.
These stupid selfish bastids shouldn't even be allowed to procreate. A child is a living person... not an applicance. I think the stupidest things about these laws is that they let idiots like these procreate to begin with. :angry:

[molecularfire]

Originally posted by sbp
"If the genes don't fit, you must acquit." :heh:

Things definitely need a changing. Guys shouldn't be nailed with no recourse. And what the hell do fat, ugly, butch lesbians have to do with this matter? Nothing.

I think the thing is... if a lesbian wants a kid... she kinda needs a guy. So... once she has a kid, she can divorce the guy and have him pay for the kid's upbringing. I think that's why the lesbians like the laws the way it is. They're just using the kids as a weapon. Damn bastids shoving kids out as weapons. How is this kind of crap any different than me shoving a kid into a cannon and shooting him/her at some people. I would be a sick bastid if I did that, and these people are sick bastids for doing this. :angry: :angry: :angry:

[ufcrusher]

Originally posted by molecularfire

No... if someone is pissed at their wives for her infidelity, and refuses to raise the kids, how are they not using the kids to get back at the wife. In this case, the woman did the cheating. The guy was stupid enough to get with that rat A$$ B!t@h. The only innocents here are the ones that get screwed the most.

And you would be effectively screwing over your kids to get back at your wife. I can see how it would be traumatic to find out that your kids aren't really your kids... but being a father is more than just being a sperm donor. Finding out that your wife is a lying selfish whore is no reason to take it out on your kids. They are the real victims here. If a guy in a burning building pushes a kid out of the way to get out... most people would say that he is a selfish coward. How is this any different. The woman lied to both the guy and the kids. The guy is sacrificing the kids to help himself out. What's the difference? :shrug:


So how the hell is it your kid, if you didnt create it? Yes, the kid didnt do the cheating, but its not your kid. By your definition, just because your wife gave birth to it, its your responsibility?!?

I mean come on, get real....you didnt create it, its not yours! We are not talking about someone who is walking away or shirking responsibility but rather someone who is being saying that its not their responsibility to begin with.

Let me pose this one question...
If your wife or significant other cheated on you and it resulted in a pregnancy, you didnt know it at the time, but subsequently learn of the infidelity, what would you do?

Here are the problems. First, if you didnt know about the infidelity at the time of the birth, you wouldnt have objected to your name being placed on the birth certificate. Second, even if you didnt put your name on the birth certificate, there is a presumption that your wife has not cheated and as such any child born is yours. Thus, no matter what, you are listed on the birth certificate and liable for the child.

So then here are your options (as I see it):
1) You can say that its your kid and pay for it, even though you now know that its not your biological child.

2) You can go for a divorce and dispute paternity immediately since you know that it isnt your child.

Now what would happen if you had gotten the divorce prior to learning that your wife had cheated and that the child that you thought was your own wasnt? You now have not objected to the paternity of the child and on top of that are presumptively the father of the child that isnt yours.

The problem is, as these men have found out, is that at this point it doesnt matter. Even after a conclusive showing that its not your kid, you are still liable for it. There is no question that its completely unfair that you have to pay for someone elses night of fun.

To blame the man for fighting the imposition of child support for a child that isnt his and claim that he is using the child to hurt his ex is just crazy. If it was his kid, and he did this, then yes, I would fully agree with you. But there is no way that you can even make a colorable claim that fighting the child support of a child that isnt yours is just a way to get back at your ex.

[molecularfire]

So how the hell is it your kid, if you didnt create it? Yes, the kid didnt do the cheating, but its not your kid. By your definition, just because your wife gave birth to it, its your responsibility?!?

The kid is your responsibility when you agreed to take responsibility for it. I'm not faulting someone who found out that his wife cheated on him and decided not to accept responsibility for it. I'm faulting someone who has been raising the kid as his and then ditched the kid just because he found out that he was not the actual sperm donor. IMO... if the kid is old enough to be imprinted on you... then you should take the hit instead of making the kid take the hit. Yes the woman is at fault. However, because of what she did, someone else has to suffer. I have no respect for the guy that decides that it's better for the kid to suffer than him. How is that any different from a guy that pushes a kid out of the way so that he can get out of a burning building?


I mean come on, get real....you didnt create it, its not yours! We are not talking about someone who is walking away or shirking responsibility but rather someone who is being saying that its not their responsibility to begin with.
Maybe you define a father as a sperm donor. I don't. When I raise a kid... when I decide to be his/her father... he's/she's mine. If my courts won't let me have visitation, the kid is still mine. If I find out that I'm not the sperm donor, the kid is still mine.

Let me pose this one question...
If your wife or significant other cheated on you and it resulted in a pregnancy, you didnt know it at the time, but subsequently learn of the infidelity, what would you do?
If I find out later that I'm not the sperm donor... I'll find some way to get back at the mother, but NOT in any way that could hurt the kid. Would I be pissed as heck? yes. Would I feel betrayed? yes. Would I be hurt? yes. Is this in any way the kid's fault? NO. Would I want a kid to have to go through what I did? NO. How can someone compare a few bucks to the life of a kid? How is that any different from someone who is willing to hurt a kid to get some money?... oh wait... that's exactly what they're doing.

So then here are your options (as I see it):
1) You can say that its your kid and pay for it, even though you now know that its not your biological child.

2) You can go for a divorce and dispute paternity immediately since you know that it isnt your child.

Now what would happen if you had gotten the divorce prior to learning that your wife had cheated and that the child that you thought was your own wasnt? You now have not objected to the paternity of the child and on top of that are presumptively the father of the child that isnt yours.
See... the problem that I have with these guys is that they're just thinking of themselves. So you feel hurt, you feel cheated on, you were lied to, you were betrayed. Big deal... the kid is also going to go through all these feelings if you tell him/her. How would that in any way make the situation any better for him/her? You're hurting the kid to get yourself out of the responsibility of being a father. Yeah, it's messed up... but that's life. Life never claimed to be nice. The way I see it... you were the idiot that picked the wrong person to marry. While that's not a big fault, it's more than the kid did.

The problem is, as these men have found out, is that at this point it doesnt matter. Even after a conclusive showing that its not your kid, you are still liable for it. There is no question that its completely unfair that you have to pay for someone elses night of fun.
These men have shown that more than half of their child's DNA is not theirs. Are you saying that a kid is just a collection of DNA strands? Are you just a collection of DNA strands?

To blame the man for fighting the imposition of child support for a child that isnt his and claim that he is using the child to hurt his ex is just crazy. If it was his kid, and he did this, then yes, I would fully agree with you. But there is no way that you can even make a colorable claim that fighting the child support of a child that isnt yours is just a way to get back at your ex.
How is my claim crazy? The guy finds out that he was betrayed. He feels hurt, betrayed, etc... Let's face it... he's not really gonna want much to do with his ex. However, cutting the chain is impossible as long as he has to be a father for the kid. Well... the easiest way out of that is to say that because the kid's strands of DNA didn't come from him that he could just put his mistake behind him. Let me put it this way and see if you disagree with this... the guy is willing to hurt an innocent child so that he would save himself some money/responsibility and/or to make his life less difficult.
Let me ask you a question (and I mean no insult by this, so please don't take it as so): If your dad found out that your mom cheated on him...how would you feel if he just ditched you?

[ufcrusher]

Originally posted by molecularfire


The kid is your responsibility when you agreed to take responsibility for it. I'm not faulting someone who found out that his wife cheated on him and decided not to accept responsibility for it. I'm faulting someone who has been raising the kid as his and then ditched the kid just because he found out that he was not the actual sperm donor. IMO... if the kid is old enough to be imprinted on you... then you should take the hit instead of making the kid take the hit. Yes the woman is at fault. However, because of what she did, someone else has to suffer. I have no respect for the guy that decides that it's better for the kid to suffer than him. How is that any different from a guy that pushes a kid out of the way so that he can get out of a burning building?




By your standards, it appears that you would rather have the "father" have nothing to do with the kid until he is sure it is his. Wouldnt you rather have a man take responsibility, like a responsible adult should, and then in the event that they subsequently learn of the infidelity, that they can have the person who is the REAL responsible party step in at this point. What I think you are failing to realize is that the real father would then have to own up and have responsibility, not just a free ride in the sack. If I were to expound your idea, and you can correct me if I am wrong, it would appear that you are against adoption if the child is older since he would have already imprinted on someone else. It would also appear that you are not addressing the fact that these men are not going to have anything to do with these children. This is a monetary issue and the money of the guy who had the fun is just as good as the money of the innocent guy. The court can not force these men to have anything to do with the child and why would they want to under these circumstances?

In answer to your question, there is no emergency situation here as there would be in a fire. By refusing to pay for the child and asking that the responsible party do so you are not placing them in any harm.

I am not ignoring the rest of your response, but I dont really feel like dealing with it now. As a partial answer to you, you are continually making the assumption that just because they are being ordered to pay that they are going to have something to do with the kids. You are also making the assumption that it is going to better for the kid to have a relationship with a man who is mad about the fact that he is not the father and is being forced to pay for it.

Yes, a man can be a father without being the biolgical father and the biological father can also not be a father. You see this all the time in the world. But in order to be a father, when you are not the biological father, you have to WANT to be one. You have to act like one. If these guys felt that they could be a father to these children or felt such a connection to them, that they didnt care about the fact that they arent the biological father, then they would do so. There wouldnt be this issue. But these are men, who dont feel this link to a child that isnt theirs, so why force them to pay as though it was their child?

[Merlin]

I think that in these cases the women should be sued for fraud and have to pay back what they took under false pretences.

[mcs328]

I don't think it's the father's responsibility. Why should I pay for something I didn't do. How can you say it's his fault at all?? It seemed from me that from the get go he was doing his part and I don't think he was being stupid for marrying the b*tch because he had no idea. He was fooled not b/c of his own intellegence but by clear deception. You're mad at this guy for using the kids as a tool or weapon but how about this woman who's using them as bread winner. $1000/month is a lot and the biological father makes less than minimum wage so it's ok that HE doesn't have responsibility?? I'm glad I live in Maryland where the time limit is unlimited.

[molecularfire]

You guys just don't get it... I'm against people putting their selfish desires over the welfare of a child. Simple as that. Yes the father got screwed. I'm not arguing that. So is the kid. If guys can get past this selfishness... maybe they would see that. :(

By your standards, it appears that you would rather have the "father" have nothing to do with the kid until he is sure it is his. Wouldnt you rather have a man take responsibility, like a responsible adult should, and then in the event that they subsequently learn of the infidelity, that they can have the person who is the REAL responsible party step in at this point.
UPHHHPOHHUH... oops... sorry. Had some trouble talking with all of the words that were just shoved into my mouth. First of all... I would not rather "have the "father" have nothing to do with the kid until he was sure it was his". That is something that would be done only by the completely selfish people. However, if we did DNA tests on the father and child (I think we can safely assume the identity of the mother) when the child is born, then this kind of confusion wouldn't come up. That way... if the guy can live with leaving an innocent child who is not biologically his with a woman has shown that she doesn't have the maturity to take care of a carrot, then he has that right.

What I think you are failing to realize is that the real father would then have to own up and have responsibility, not just a free ride in the sack.
Nowhere in any of my posts have I said that I think the biological father should get off scot free. I place the biological father in even more contempt than I do the nonbiological father. I think that he should also be made to pay money to help take care of the child. I'm not defending the mother or the biological father. They are both selfish bastids that should be tortured in a method that involves bleach, wire cutters and dental floss.

If I were to expound your idea, and you can correct me if I am wrong, it would appear that you are against adoption if the child is older since he would have already imprinted on someone else.
What have I said that would in any way imply that I'm against adoption? Actually, I've thought about adopting in the future. Yes the child might have imprinted on someone else... but those selfish bastid also ditched their kid. I think adopting is the greatest show of someone loving someone else.

It would also appear that you are not addressing the fact that these men are not going to have anything to do with these children. This is a monetary issue and the money of the guy who had the fun is just as good as the money of the innocent guy. The court can not force these men to have anything to do with the child and why would they want to under these circumstances?
First of all... you're assuming that the court can find out who the biological father is. This is not always the case, under which with this law (at least what I'm reading into it... if I'm wrong please correct me)the kid would be left with nobody to take care of him financially. If possible, I think that the courts should also find out who the biological father is and also make him pay child support. He also be held responsible for the kid. By doing a paternity test when the child is born, it would increase our chances of finding out who the biological father is. By doing this... is the mother going to be making out like a bandit... probably. To be honest, I don't have a perfect system in mind. I don't know if it is possible to protect a child around this bunch of selfish pricks, hence why I have not posted any suggestions about a legal way of dealing with this except to do DNA checks on people when they have kids. With that... at least we won't have this confusion. I know that the courts can't make these people have anything to do with the kid. I never said that the courts should. I'm just saying that I think the biological father, biological mother and nonbiological father are all selfish pricks. :(

In answer to your question, there is no emergency situation here as there would be in a fire. By refusing to pay for the child and asking that the responsible party do so you are not placing them in any harm.
Assuming that you could find the biological father.

you are continually making the assumption that just because they are being ordered to pay that they are going to have something to do with the kids. You are also making the assumption that it is going to better for the kid to have a relationship with a man who is mad about the fact that he is not the father and is being forced to pay for it.
No... I don't think we should make the nonbiological father hang out with the kids if he doesn't want to. I think that is a really bad idea. I'm saying that if we are going to consider laws like this, we should put the best interest of the kid before the interest of the adults. If we can find the biological father, and he is capable of paying child support... then so be it. If not... I think we should still hold the nonbiological father responsible financially for the kids.

I think that in these cases the women should be sued for fraud and have to pay back what they took under false pretences.
If I could think of a way to do so without hurting the kids... I'd say shoot the skank A$$ b!t@#e$.

I don't think it's the father's responsibility. Why should I pay for something I didn't do. How can you say it's his fault at all?? It seemed from me that from the get go he was doing his part and I don't think he was being stupid for marrying the b*tch because he had no idea. He was fooled not b/c of his own intellegence but by clear deception. You're mad at this guy for using the kids as a tool or weapon but how about this woman who's using them as bread winner. $1000/month is a lot and the biological father makes less than minimum wage so it's ok that HE doesn't have responsibility?? I'm glad I live in Maryland where the time limit is unlimited.
First of all... I'm assuming that he at some time did his wife... if not... he really is stupid. :rolleyes: Yes, he was deceived. He was stupid enough to let himself get deceived... so how does that not indicate lack of intelligence? He was stupid... and got played. :shrug: Yes... $1000/month is a lot of money. What's a kid's future worth? As for the woman... I hope I've made my opinions of that stupid, selfish, Skank A$$ W#@re clear.

[mcs328]

I'll assume he did his wife also. But you make it sound like he was a complete moron and he should have known that his wife was cheating on him. Even the best of us gets fooled but that doesn't make him a dumass. It's not he couldn't find his way out of a paper bag, he logically trusted his wife (and you reasonably should do so after getting married) and she covered up her affair. I see your point of the children's welfare but I don't think it's his responsibility anymore. Cold-hearted but he didn't agree to take care of the children with all the facts on hand...he agreed assuming it was his own sperm. And he didn't really adopt them b/c he thought it was his own kids. Yes...it's horrible that the children suffer but it shouldn't be own his shoulders anymore. Now, legally in that state however it is his burden.

Anyways that's my two cents. Back to work :P

[ufcrusher]

I have not been trying to put words in your mouth. Rather, I am trying to understand your logic and in doing so, I have been also trying to show what I see as the flaws in it. So I am going to try to do in the most simple way. I am not trying to be demeaning or making fun of you in any way.

1. You agree with the law simply because you feel that the alternative is to harm the innocent child. (What about the innocent man? What about his natural children who now have less money and the fact that he now might have to struggle to pay his bills)

2. You are faulting the man for having been cheated on, not being aware of it, and then originally trying to take care of a child that he presumed was his by requiring him to pay for a child that is not his.

3. You are presuming that the woman who cheated is unable to financially support her children. (This is kind of old fashioned dont you think)

4. You are presuming that it is better to take the money of her ex-husband who is not the childs father rather than have the mother have to find who the real father is. (Obviously if she cant support the child on her own and she knows who the father is she will probably take action to recover from him. I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that once this presumption is in effect, even an affirmative showing of paternity by another man will have no effect. Meaning he can not get visitation with his children nor will the court award child support from this man.)

5. You would rather have everyones privacy invaded by conducting DNA tests at birth so that there is no question as to paternity and men upon learning that they were the victims of infidelity can deny the resulting offspring. (Since without having everyone checked out, the men would have to suspect infidelity to ask for the test, and thus put the wife on the spot)

6. You feel whole heartedly that anyone who denies a child (through adoption or disputing child support) is wrong as it is not in the best interest of the child. My question on this for you, is what abou those people who realize that the child would be better off without them. Yes, you have to have responsibility for the results of your conduct, but which is more responsible looking out fot the best interest of the child by giving it up for adoption or keeping it and not being able to provide for it, having to go on welfare, and thus living off of society.


As I see it, these are basically the ideas which you are espousing here. I hope that I am understanding you correctly, and if so please let me know. I have tried to point out the problems (as i see it) with what you are claiming. I dont think we are going to see eye to eye on this problem, but I am trying to understand your point of view. I would hope that you would try to see the other side as well.

[molecularfire]

But you make it sound like he was a complete moron and he should have known that his wife was cheating on him. Even the best of us gets fooled but that doesn't make him a dumass. It's not he couldn't find his way out of a paper bag, he logically trusted his wife (and you reasonably should do so after getting married) and she covered up her affair.
Yep. He trusted the wrong person. He got played. It's not an extremely dumb thing... but definitely dumber than anything the kid did. So... if someone has to get screwed... who should get screwed? The guy that did a kinda dumb thing or the kid whose only mistake was to get born into this crappy family anyways (I mean immediate family. I'm not making any value judgements about their extended family). :)

I see your point of the children's welfare but I don't think it's his responsibility anymore. Cold-hearted but he didn't agree to take care of the children with all the facts on hand...he agreed assuming it was his own sperm. And he didn't really adopt them b/c he thought it was his own kids. Yes...it's horrible that the children suffer but it shouldn't be own his shoulders anymore. Now, legally in that state however it is his burden.
Yes... he is cold hearted. He's a selfish coldhearted bastid IMO. :angry: I'm not commenting on the laws per se because there isn't much details on how they intend to change the law. I'm just saying that I'm not going to support a law that lets him off without putting someone else capable of the financial support in his place.

ufcrusher's arguments
1. Maybe I have not been clear about my stance on this...in which case let me re-iterate. I don't agree with the current laws. They are messed up in a lot of ways. I also don't agree with the proposed laws because they are so worried about protecting the nonbiological father that there are cases where they can harm the kid. At least with the current laws, the kids would be covered. I understand that the nonbiological father may have kids of his own. To be honest... I'm not sure how to deal with that. However, I question the intelligence of a guy who is having more kids if he is having trouble supporting his kids from his previous marriage. The kind of law that I would support would switch the nonbiological father with the biological father if they could find the biological father and if he is capable of making the payments. However, I refuse to support a law that would leave the child screwed (and unless I'm wrong, the new laws don't give a rat's a$$ about the children). Also, I also want a system set up so that paternity tests are performed at the birth of every child so that this mix-up wouldn't occur.

2. No. I'm faulting the man for ditching the child upon finding out that it wasn't his swimmers that made it.

3. Yes. It is old-fashioned to assume that the woman couldn't afford to support the children. Unfortunately, this is a very common occurance. I don't see how the proposed laws are going to deal with this any better than the old ones did. The only difference is that the old laws cover the child in the event of this, the new ones don't. Now... if they wanted to say that the nonbiological father wouldn't have to pay child support if the mother makes over X/year, I would be ok with that. :)

4. First of all... I think you have a little too much faith in the intelligence of people. I can easily envision scenarios where the mother would rather let her kids starve than hunt down the biological father. :rolleyes: As for the law... I'm not supporting the current laws. There are a lot of things wrong with the current laws. However, the advantage the current laws have over the new proposed laws is that the current laws cover the kid in any event. The proposed laws will not. What if they can't find the biological father? What if the mother can't take care of the kids financially? The proposed laws (at least not anywhere that I've read) do not cover this. The proposed laws seem to be only interested in getting the nonbiological father off the hook.

5. Yes. This statement is completely true. It is better than to have a child screwed with not enough financial support. What is really the harm of taking paternity tests anyways?

6. I'm not saying that the fathers should have anything to do with the child. I'm saying that they should try to watch out for them in whatever way they can. If that means only financially, then so be it. As for people who give up their children for adoption... I can imagine some scenario where there are legitimate reasons for doing so. I can also imagine a lot of non-legitimate reasons. However, I was generalizing on my earlier post about adoption and I admit that is wrong. Hmmm... crow is yummy. :lick: That being said... I don't see how a nonbiological father who is trying to get out of paying child support is in any way watching out for the best interest of the child. I also don't see how the proposed laws are in any way watching out for the best interest of the child. :shrug: