Paternity Fraud: Crime Usually Pays
All too often, men are forced to pay child support for children who aren't theirs. Even children the mothers admit aren't theirs. All that concerns the state, thanks to slimy legislators like California's Sheila Kuehl, is that somebody's paying.
People don't believe this -- it sounds too horrible and unjust. But, it's true.
But, in a surprising case in Georgia, justice has finally been done. Sandy Hodson writes for the Augusta Chronicle:
Judge David Roper said he felt badly for Kenneth Samuels when he learned the child he had fathered for 11 years wasn't his.Justice was also shortchanged, the judge said, because Mr. Samuels had been paying child support all of those years.
Last month, Judge Roper ruled that Jamie Hope, the child's mother, and Oba Wallace, the child's biological father, would have to repay Mr. Samuels $14,460 in child support he had paid since 1997.
Such an order is unusual, but not unique.
And that's what's most disgusting.
I have talked to those that wonder why men don't crusade against such things... The easy answer is that you can spend thousands and thousands of dollars crusading... and get told to pay anyway. There are a number of laws about marriage and children that exist this way.
The worst part of them, is that they effect the guy who stays. The one that can be found, the one who has a decent job. The guy who moves around all the time, scms his way into a womans life, knocks her up, and then splits?
Yeah, just does it to someone else. He will never be held accountable.
I dunno, the topics of who pays have arguments for and against, but the bottom line is amazingly easy and yet ignored.
If you can prove the kid isn't yours?
You shouldn't have to pay.
Why is THAT one so hard?
SwissArmyD at March 5, 2008 5:00 AM
If you can prove the kid isn't yours?
You shouldn't have to pay.
I totally agree.
But even if the kid is theirs, sometimes they don't pay anyway, as in the case you made above. There are a friggin' boatload of guys out there like this.
Then there are guys like my ex, who do pay child support but it's so minimal it's laughable - and they go to court crying to the judge about how they don't make enough money to live on, never mind pay child support! In my ex's case, his mommmy and daddy have fixed it so I will never get more than the paltry $69/week I was awarded for 2 kids back in 1996. He's had one excuse after another. And I can't withhold visitation because he's a cheap bastard, or else I would, but that's not fair to our girls and the courts rule that visitation and child support are two different issues.
Flynne at March 5, 2008 5:36 AM
The hard part of this Flynne, is that we each have our own horror story... and yet how can it be made better? My ex uses her advanced engineering degree to answer the phones at a retail store, while I pay $1600/mo for my 2 kids. Couple that with alimony, and 58% of my takehome pay goes to my ex. Last year, that alimony paid HALF her income. There isn't much incentive for her to go get a real job when I'm paying for everything. Even if I could afford a lawyer, how is the ocurt going to force her to get a better job?
The bottom line in both situations is that it would work better for everyone, if both parties took responsibility for their own actions, independant of the other. Yet? We wouldn't be having this conversation if that was the case.
SwissArmyD at March 5, 2008 6:20 AM
Exactly, D, exactly.
Flynne at March 5, 2008 6:52 AM
People need to make ethics a requirement when seeking partners.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 7:41 AM
But ethical people are so BORING! Psychos are way more exciting!
Chrissy at March 5, 2008 7:48 AM
"Even if I could afford a lawyer, how is the ocurt going to force her to get a better job?" If you could swing a lawyer or find one with a perchant for cutting edge case law I would. You would have reasonable legal argument for applying potential income. It's used on the wealthier partner all the time. Basically if they are calculating support it is dependent on what one should be making. The reason for this is that some CEO or VP tried to demote himself prior to a divorce to reduce support. They got nailed and thus this was enacted. You may end up on the news for progressing the swing towards equality in the law.
Now before we look at this option the big question is how long has she been out of work in engineering. After about 5 year you have to go back to school for at least a little while otherwise your job prospects are low. I have seen BS ENG then they got an MBA after being a stay at home mom for a few years.
Now I'm a firm supporter of child support and I'd be upset if I got screwed into paying child support for one that ain't mine. It would be as nothing compared to the foaming hatred I have towards the concept of alimony.
vlad at March 5, 2008 8:05 AM
So....is there anyone out there who knows how a man can PROTECT himself from this kind of fraud. And no, I'm not talking about advice like "Keep your pants kipped". How do we protect ourselves from the blatant fraud where a random man who has never even met the woman is "bingoed"?
RedPretzel in LA at March 5, 2008 9:14 AM
P.S. Forgive the typos.
RedPretzel in LA at March 5, 2008 9:14 AM
Raise awareness, and see that anti-men scumbags like Sheila Kuehl are outed for what they stand for, and show the effects. Too few people know what men go through. Say "paternity fraud" to the average person and they won't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 9:40 AM
Lobby for mandatory DNA testing for proof of paternity prior to any birth certificate signing.. If you have the stones to do it demand a DNA comparison (which you'll have to cover) before you sign the birth certificate.
vlad at March 5, 2008 10:12 AM
I'm not for mandatory testing. People have strange pacts, tacit and open, that make up their relationships. Some guys would like to pretend a kid is theirs and not know.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 10:22 AM
"Some guys would like to pretend a kid is theirs and not know." Sure so make it a sealed court document that has to be popped when (or if) the couple separates and she asks for child support. He can of course refuse to open the document at trial or mediation. The reason she can't refuse to open it is that she will know if she's been sharing the sugar around the time of conception, he may or may not.
vlad at March 5, 2008 10:37 AM
There are also children who'd rather not know.
I think it should be mandatory in cases of contested paternity. If a guy chooses not to contest the paternity, well, fine.
I would suggest that men who wonder have their children's DNA tested without telling the wife, to match it to theirs. You can send it out for a couple hundred dollars, I think.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 11:17 AM
"I would suggest that men who wonder have their children's DNA tested without telling the wife, to match it to theirs. You can send it out for a couple hundred dollars, I think." The problem is that once they have signed the birth certificate they are screwed. I'm all for changing this law but there is an opposite problem.
If the father and mother agree (not through legal document) to the fact that while the kid isn't his he will take care of it as his and thus sign the certificate. Now they get a divorce he has agreed to be the kids father knowing it isn't his. Should he now be allowed to change his choice by refusing to acknowledge it ever happened.
Once the paternity is established by birth certificate (these laws are all way before DNA testing) your screwed.
vlad at March 5, 2008 11:28 AM
Chrissy, Amy,
The best poon tang is on the craziest Bitches...(so I hear)
Amy,
I have never seen you so pro family/kid before. We must be having a positive effect on you! (or have you started your big brother/sister thing already?)
rusty wilson at March 5, 2008 11:51 AM
I'm anti-injustice, hence this blog post. And I'm not anti-family and kid in general, I just don't want any, nor do I want to be around children in bars or badly raised children anywhere.
Also, if you're going to have children, you should have only as many as you can support, and not whine after the fact that you can't afford health insurance for the little buggers. This may necessitate giving up your dream to be a heavy metal star and getting a job at Best Buy. Not my problem.
The alternative: Wear a condom.
Also, I think parents should pay for their children to go to school, save for the very poor, who the rest of us will pay for so we'll have an educated populace; necessary for a democracy.
I should be doing my next talk at Uni High in a week or so. Getting sick in January mucked up my one talk a month goal, but I'm going to be back to it now, as well as getting other speakers in, too.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 12:08 PM
Oh, and it's possible to get a girl who's ONLY crazy in bed.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 12:09 PM
DNA testing shouldn't be mandatory for the reasons Amy has stated.
If blood parentage is important to the man the onus is on him to figure out if the child is his DNA-wise.
If he doesn't care and signs the birth certificate...and raises the kid until the kid is five...then finds out it isn't his that sucks a lot. But tough shit. The opportunity to figure this stuff out is BEFORE the kid starts calling you "Daddy." If you sign up for the job you need to stick with it - and if you decide to leave you need to pay up to finish what you agreed to start (which is a family).
On the other hand we have sketchy sluts who pin daddy-hood on some guy when the kid is five and he's never been informed. The situation should be pretty black and white...and in writing.
It should go something like this: if you aren't in a relationship and some woman wants to label a guy as her baby's daddy she should send a letter which he has 30 days to acknowledge - all before the baby is born. If he doesn't acknowledge then I don't know what happens. But he needs to be formally informed and formally reject parentage (PurplePen - here's your male abortion!) or accept. And if he accepts...he's in for 18 to life.
I'm just getting my idea down in writing. Maybe I'll come back and change it up a little...I'm not married to it completely, though.
Gretchen at March 5, 2008 12:23 PM
The issue is not proving the kid is not yours. The issue is making the courts and legal system CARE that the kid is not yours. If you can be forced to pay for a kid who is not yours - despite irrefutable proof - then you can be forced to pay for other things as well.
The late Barry Goldwater said, "a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is a government that is big enough to take it away."
Conan the Grammarian at March 5, 2008 12:28 PM
"If he doesn't acknowledge then I don't know what happens." This is the part that's a problem. If he goes and contests within the 30 days he has a chance. The problem is that if he doesn't get the letter he's screwed. Which was instituted I suspect to prevent the "I never got it" excuse.
Otherwise I'm all for your plan.
vlad at March 5, 2008 12:30 PM
"People need to make ethics a requirement when seeking partners." - Amy
Too true, but it is kinda rare to find out that somebody is a firm believer in situational ethics, until the situation arises. By then you are in WAY to deep to get out of it.
So, RedPretzel, my assumption is that should I ever swallow that pill, and get married again, I will have a pre-nup. That way, at least expectations will be set similarly...
And Maybe... in that negotiation, I would find out if warning signs are there... Shoulda listened to the old saw about how a partner treats waitstaff, is the way they will ultimately treat you. My ex doesn't treat people poorly, but she always askes for exceptions to everything, AND knows how to ask for something unreasonable, in a reasonable way...
Heh, Rusty... we used to call the crazy ones "Challenging..." But one way I can tell I'ma gettin old, is that I have no patience for pointless challenges, that lead nowhere. Or to someplace bad. Although, as they say, "it ain't the years, kid, it's the mileage..."
SwissArmyD at March 5, 2008 12:37 PM
Amy,
Ha, you have softened up, admit it!
Anyway, I can’t argue with anything you wrote other than, “Also, I think parents should pay for their children to go to school, save for the very poor, who the rest of us will pay for so we'll have an educated populace; necessary for a democracy.” And since we have argued this before I will refrain from rearguing.
I would like to hear about the Big Brother Big Sister thing or have you given up?
Of course I am gently ribbing you about the other stuff. I know you stand against injustice which is why I value your views.
rusty wilson at March 5, 2008 12:43 PM
Yes, I am continuing, but it isn't "Big Brother/Big Sister." I'm giving talks at inner city schools (and I'll soon be getting others to talk, too), to demystify what it takes to do something with your life.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 1:35 PM
My bad. I thought it was big brother big sister.
rusty wilson at March 5, 2008 1:49 PM
Advances in DNA aside, the standard the courts have always utilized in such issues is what's in the best interest of the child. In the courts eyes, a Daddy with a check book is better than none at all. Frankly, I doubt the kid cares much about DNA, either.
cat at March 5, 2008 1:58 PM
Nope, this is my own program.
If you have an idea of what's not quite what it could be in the world, in an area you can improve a situation, I suggest starting your own.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 1:59 PM
[i]...the standard the courts have always utilized in such issues is what's in the best interest of the child. In the courts eyes, a Daddy with a check book is better than none at all. Frankly, I doubt the kid cares much about DNA, either.[/i]
I care about a court system that can take my money away from me and give it to someone else for any reason (or no reason)...and so should everyone else.
Conan the Grammarian at March 5, 2008 2:04 PM
Exactly.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 2:13 PM
DNA tests for all births should be mandatory. When they are, women will be revealed as the easy sluts that, statistically, they are (25% to 33% knocked up by someone other than their man). The rate of infidelity will go WAY down.
Jay R at March 5, 2008 2:31 PM
Saw/Heard Henry Rollins speak last nite, almost 3 hours, his energy level is daunting although by the end he looked worn out. Not all staccato, at times his delivery was mellow.
He told a story told to him by his friend, a woman who tracks deadbeat dads - paraphrased on http://www.scrutinyhooligans.us/?p=4534:
[a group of teenagers, out on a double date in the same car. Eventually, they “parked”. The couple in the front seat were using a condom. The couple in the back did not have one, but the guy in the front seat says “Hey, no problem! You can use mine when I’m done with it!” I’m sure you can guess the results of that little interlude…]
His friend in the back seat, according to Rollins, actually turned it inside out, shook off the goo outside the car window, and proceeded to use it. Idiot #1 was the deadbeat dad in question, despite not having enjoyed time with the mommy.
P.S. Someone please tell me how to indent and italicize these comments.
DaveG at March 5, 2008 2:42 PM
"I care about a court system that can take my money away from me and give it to someone else for any reason (or no reason)...and so should everyone else."
The courts are only effectuating what society deems is necessary.
As between you, the putative father who has already acknowledged some level of responsibilty for the kid, and us, regular taxpayers who already pay for too many of these kids, we pick you.
cat at March 5, 2008 2:53 PM
As long as the guy has already acknowledged some level of responsibility, that's cool. If he doesn't know the kid exists or isn't given the opportunity before birth to say "No Thanks", then mommy should be on her own.
DaveG -- Try this site and scroll down to the chart to get the coding. http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm
moreta at March 5, 2008 3:39 PM
moreta, many thanks!
DaveG at March 5, 2008 3:44 PM
(25% to 33% knocked up by someone other than their man).
Actually, Jay, that's not an accurate stat. I was going to write about this, as I heard this stat, too, but when I checked it out, I found that the 25% rate is for...if memory serves me, because I'm not at home, where I have the docs on this...
...I believe that one in four/25-33% (never heard 33%) is for unmarried inner city women where the man goes in having a high level of paternity uncertainty. I believe substance abuse is or may be a factor.
The rate is actually much, much lower for the average middle class guy who's married and living in the suburbs. Which isn't to say men shouldn't opt for DNA testing.
Now, I don't like to see men (or anybody) get screwed over, which is why I post about this issue time and time again, and warn men to only get involved with women they find ethical, provide their own condoms, etc...
But, putting out stats that are wrong is not a good thing.
I prefer to not put out stats at all, but merely say, "Here's this issue or that, here are the signs, and this is why it's a problem."
People are just too bent to simplify things into "one in four," "50%," etc.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 6:32 PM
PS I'm also not of the mind that men should have to pay for children they have from a one-night stand, or when they make it clear they do not want a child. If a woman gets pregnant from a situation like this and cannot raise a child on her own she can adopt it out to an infertile couple. And no, the answer isn't hitting the rest of us up for childcare...although I think the anti-abortion types should be funding some of those children they encouraged women who couldn't afford to pay for them to have.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2008 6:35 PM
I used to work in the court system in family law and as a woman found the way the system worked to be pretty unfair to the men. The state gets involved when a mother asks for public assistance of any sort - medical care, food stamps, welfare, etc. When they apply the DA is required to determine paternity so the father is required to pay some or all of the support for the child, taking the burden off the tax payers. The mother gives the DA a name, maybe he's the father, maybe not. The father is served papers for a paternity action and has 30 days to respond. Many don't. If they don't, they are automatically assumed to be the father and are required to pay child support. If they respond and they deny paternity a DNA test is done. Its a simple procedure - a cheek swab if the mother, the possible father and the child. If it comes back negative the guy is off the hook. If its positive, he pays child support from the date of birth (usually requiring back support) and also any medical expenses incurred by the state for the birth. Depending on his resources and education and that of the mother, she can also be awarded money for day care and potentially college costs.
So the rule to remember is don't ignore those papers if you are ever served or you'll be paying for at least 18 years. Oh, and if you're married and you don't think the child is yours, you're out of luck. Paternity is automatically assumed when you're married.
calm water at March 5, 2008 8:09 PM
Thanks, calm water. Any suggestions on what can be done to change all of this?
Amy Alkon at March 6, 2008 2:28 AM
Amy -
Not that I'm a fan of the anti-choice crowd, but I know a lot of anti-choicers who are more than happy to put their pocketbooks and even their family where their mouth is. From adopting to supporting private organizations that support accidental mothers.
Please, don't take this as support for their positions, it most certainly is not. But there are plenty of them who are very willing to follow through with the consequences of their beliefs. I would also note that many of the anti-choicers I know, are also against the death penalty and support finding a fix for the health care crisis in the U.S. (mostly keen on market solutions).
DuWayne at March 6, 2008 8:32 AM
"Depending on his resources and education and that of the mother, she can also be awarded money for day care and potentially college costs."
Why is it that a non-custodial parent can be on the hook for college costs whether he can afford it or not, when the parents in an intact family can say, "Sorry kid, we can't afford it?"
Steamer at March 6, 2008 8:45 AM
Makes no sense to me, either. Totally unfair.
Amy Alkon at March 6, 2008 8:48 AM
The solution to this is a male contraceptive pill.
I know one was in the owrks a while back, but then dropped because they said men would not buy it. I have my doubts about that, I am curious what happened to it.
If men had the pill, and could tell a now pregnant woman, that "hey I am on the pill, are you sure it is mine"?
The amount of these gold digger pregnancies would drop like a rock.
From what I remember there were polls that said men would not take it, out of fear of losing virility or something. I find that unbelieveable, but you can make a poll say anything you want.
Jim at March 6, 2008 9:01 AM
I remember reading that there was a 10% non-paternity rate in the general population discovered when the ABO serological blood test technique was calibrated back in the 1920s. Given that the test was weak, and could only definitively prove non-paternity 30% of the time, this could be consistent with a non-paternity rate of 33%.
Sadly, my research skills were inadequte to isolate a reference to this factoid, so take it FWIW.
But I did come up with this: www.ksg.harvard.edu/dnabook/bieber.doc
Bieber estimates a 15% general non-paternity rate.
If reliable paternity testing becomes widely used, this will create a revolution in human affairs, ahem, as large as the one based on reliable contraception.
There's evidence that this pervasive fraud is hard-wired. Women with lovers tend to see them more frequently during their fertile phase. I'd love to know how this correlates with contraceptive use... It's all covered by the {first get a solid provider then shop for DNA} evolutionary psychology hypothesis.
--phunctor
phunctor at March 6, 2008 9:12 AM
Male pill is a problem, and not because men wouldn't use it (silly speculation), but because it's easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm. Still, do wish somebody would invent one!
Amy Alkon at March 6, 2008 10:02 AM
Amy,
You should further look into the non-paternity stats. I believe one source of information was a tissue-matching study for medical purposes (nothing do do with domestic disputes), in which college students were matched with close relatives. Non-paternity, if I remember correctly, was established at 20% - 25% -- much to the shock and dismay of the researchers.
Interestingly, these stats tend to match up pretty well with non-human species who supposedly "pair-bond" for breeding purposes. It appears women like to "hedge their reproductive" bets at a fairly high rate.
Latest study: Women lie more than men, and as many as 60% of women cheat.
Liberation has given women a lot of rope -- and sho' 'nuff, they're hanging themselves.
Jay R at March 6, 2008 1:14 PM
To whom it may concern,
It looks like most of you have the facts. There are several states that are changing their laws to stop paternity fraud even if the child is born of the marriage. The only Fraud I know that is not considered a criminal offense is Paternity Fraud. The funny thing about it is it is worse then most any other Fruad there is that is illegal. You can have someone fraud you out of some money for some land in Florida and have them convicted, imprisoned and fined. A woman can tell you that she is carrying your child and know it is not yours and steel something that breaks you inside. I would much rather be a victim fraud in other ways then paternity at least that would be a material thing that you lose. The fact of the matter is that I am a paternity fraud victim where the child is born of the marriage. I lived in NY and she lived in AR and we met in New Orleans on a business trip and had sex after 3 day. I went back to NY and she went back to AR. 3 weeks later she told me she was pregnant with my child. I believed her and I never went to the OBGYN with her because I was working in NY at the time. I married her in April and the baby was born in May 6 weeks earlier then it should have. Lots of bad stuff happened and we got divorced after 7 years and another child. You have to take into account a person that frauds you into a marriage is not a good person, so I will skip what happened in the 7 year marriage. I got divorced and wanted joint shared custody, so I could be a real father and not a pay check. The law in AR does not care about joint shared custody and all the woman has to do is say that we cannot get along and the judge awards her custody. So now I get a double wammy. I not only have to pay for a child that is not mine and have to lie to him about being his father, but I also lose my only biological son. I tried to work within the system for 3 more years and then the boy that is not mine somehow figures out that I am not his biological dad. Now he blames me and I asked his mother several times for him and I to get consoling for free through my insurance and she denies us the ability to resolve this issue. This has gone on now for 2 year with no resolution and the child has only got more hurt and angry. I am only going to say this one more time. The lady is a fraud, so this person will do anything to help herself and hide behind "In the best interest of the child". She played her games for 7 years during the marriage and then 5 years after her divorce. She has 5 children of which there are 4 diffent fathers and maybe 5. I was forced to go to the court house and pull up any records I could find on her. This is what I fount. She got pregnant, go married had another child and got divorced in 2 year, got pregnant got married and got divorced in 3 months, got involved with a man that got a divorce from his wife to be with her got pregnant by another man, then her live in boy friend found out and could not have babies beat her up and left and then she met me and said I was a daddy. There is no excuse for this kind of person to get away with paternity fraud. This has tought the non-biological child that you can lie and get away with it and you can also profit from fraud. Now I am tired of getting kicked around for 12 years and am not going to take this anymore. All I hear is it is all about the money. Why did I ask for joint shared custody. It is because I love my only biological child and want to be a part of his life as much as possible. I want to be there for him every chance I get. I don't know if you read the statistics or not, but when the dad is not equally involved in a childs live they are more than likey headed for disaster. I do not want this to happen to my child and will do everything I can to be more involved in his life. You can find all this information by researching on the internet. I also saw a question about what one can do about this issue. You can lobby your states representatives and senate to correct this terrible abuse. There are 3 victims. The child and the father and family he does not get to know, because the mother cares more about herself then her own child, the biological father that could create a relationship with a son and help him with the pain and hurt his mother has caused, and the non-biological father that is paying for a son that is not his. It hurts to see people go to court and tell the truth and the other person goes to court and lies and gets away with it and then they say accept it. The truth is always best, so the child can accept it and stop living a lie only to find out he has been living a lie for his whole life up to that point.
The pain and hurt that the court system and fraudulant mother is causing to 100's of thousands of people every year has got to stop. There is a thing called the 13th amendment called no more slavery (involuntary servitude). The non-biological father does not voluntarily marry a woman beleiving the child is his and then find out it is not and then the court says he has to pay because the child was born of the marriage. This is slavery - involuntary servitude.
Jeff at March 6, 2008 3:56 PM
SHEILA KUEHL is the woman who perpetrated the Super Bowl Sunday Hoax back in 1993.
She was with the California Women's Law Center and called a press conference in January 1993 and stated that some sociologists had found that domestic violence against women rose 40% on Super bowl Sundays.
It was a complete lie-- as the researchewr, Janet katz, denied she had found any correlation at all and had in fact found that emergency room visits are NOT associated with football games.
{ Really weird, becasue only 1 % of all emergency room visits by women are realted to domestic violence per data from 1992 and 1996 collected by the US Government... indeed , more women are treated for animal bites than for domestic violence.}
So she is a well-known liar.
The media was so gullible that no one checked it out and every paper ran with it and there were commercials to tell men not to beat up their wife while watching the game !
Talk about male-bashing
Feminists always try to link masculine pursuits with rape or violence -- to show that all men are inherently violent. Hence feminist hate sports and athletes... thats why the Duke rape hoax was such a barnburner for feminists-- wealthy white male athletes accused of rape by poor black female etc...
etahasgard1986 at March 6, 2008 4:10 PM
In behavioral genetic research, I believe the non-paternity rate found is 2-5 %.
When a child is identified in the family that is not related to the "father"-- the researchers do not tell the father, they just excuse the family from participating in the study.
There is no question that evolutionary psychologists have great evidence that women have evolved to mate with another man with "better genes" while being maintained by their mate.
There are many adapataions that establish this--- one that men's sperm count per ejaculation goes way up after an absence from their mate-- and lack of sexual activity is controlled for. Men have evolved to compete with other potential inseminators by packing a bigger wallop the next time they have sex with their mate.
Male and female reproductive strategies often conflict with one another.
Evolutionary psychology is a great antidote to anger at the opposite sex. Once you understand the principles, you realize that the behavior of the opposite sex is consistent with their reproductive self-interst, and that behavior has evolved over gazillion years.So men have an innate preference for sexual variety and women always find the guy with the bucks quite attractive.
etahasgard1986 at March 6, 2008 4:29 PM
The current paternity laws evolved from the changes of the welfare system back in the 1990s. Before that, the more children women had, the more money they would get from the state. And the fathers had no obligation to pay. Now there is a five year lifetime limitation on welfare. Most of the clients I dealt with were poor and uneducated. Every time they got into a new relationship they would have a baby to "solidify" the relationship. However, you would be kidding yourself to think its limited to poor women. I have friends that have done the same thing, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
There really isn't a good answer. The only thing that struck me at the time is that its too bad that adoption isn't really considered a viable option anymore. In the 50s and 60s (the pre-legalized abortion years) girls who found themselves pregnant and didn't have the wherewithal to support the child would often give the child up for adoption. Now, mostly due to changes in society's thinking (its great and perfectly acceptable to be a single mom) adoption is rarely considered. Maybe as a society we have to go back to believing that adoption might be in your unborn child's best interest. And men need to more fully grasp the possible consequences to them (and their pocketbooks) of an accidental pregnancy, but these laws have only been in place about a dozen years and therefore to many men the consequences aren't clear.
Regarding a college education - whether or not that becomes part of the deal is dependent on the education of both the mother and the father. So guys, if you have a decent job and a college degree and get someone pregnant, there's a good chance you'll be paying for part of a college degree for your child. For men the new rule of thumb should be really, really think with your big head, not the little one!
calm water at March 6, 2008 7:18 PM
In a system that allows women to rape young boys AND collect child support from them subsequently I hold out little hope of paternity fraud ever being taken seriously.
gwallan at March 8, 2008 7:22 PM
it sucks for guys who end up paying support for kids that aren't theirs.
but what about that kid? the guy who he thought was his dad, who he thought loved him, and had bonded with as a father isn't anymore. and now not only does he not have a father anymore, his father cares so little about him that he wants his money back, like the kid was some piece of trash he could just throw away because he had some other man's DNA. now i'm not saying that's the way the ex-father really feels, but that's gotta be the way it looks to an 11-year old kid.
but the point is - family court, at least in theory, makes its decisions in the best interest of the CHILD. not the best interest of the parents, or even ex-parents, because the child is the only innocent and the one who stands to lose the most, and the one who can make sense of it the least.
yes, life sucks, the kid will grow up and deal, but why is that a reason to purposely screw him over?
i guess i don't really see it as an issue about the women screwing the men, althought they do and there should be some consequence to her, and i think alimony is stupid. it's gotta be about the kid.
kt at March 9, 2008 2:09 AM
In a system that allows women to rape young boys AND collect child support from them subsequently
Oh, come on -- get real. Most people -- women or men -- are not child molesters.
Amy Alkon at March 9, 2008 4:21 AM
"but what about that kid? the guy who he thought was his dad, who he thought loved him, and had bonded with as a father isn't anymore." - kt
except that wasn't the case here. Samuels wasn't the one the kid was calling 'Daddy' The child's biological father was. Samuels did what he thought was right when a child support case was moved against him. When the kids mother and real father suspected that he WAS the real father, they didn't do anything. They just kept the money.
I think this was a case where the facts simply prevailed. The issue is that it's unusual. The thing is, when you are paying the support and all that stuff, you don't really have the cash to fight the legal battles needed to reverse this. Assuming you have the suspision. If you stop paying childsupport they go after your wages immediately. It's not like you get anything if you win, to pay the lawyer back. In this case Samuels is supposed to get back childsupport, but I'll bet he never sees a penny. They took his money for 8 years without saying a thing... anyone seriously believe they will give it back? It is very hard to make them, since this is not considered a criminal act.
SwissArmyD at March 9, 2008 12:38 PM
ah. sorry, didn't catch that. in any case, yes there should definitely be consequences for the mothers - and the real father, for that matter - in this case.
it seems that a lot of people are talking about cases in general though, and it bugs me when people whine about child support laws. alimony laws, whine all you want. but even if the mother CAN afford to care for the kid herself, she certainly didn't make the kid by herself.
kt at March 10, 2008 12:27 AM
“Advances in DNA aside, the standard the courts have always utilized in such issues is what's in the best interest of the child. In the courts eyes, a Daddy with a check book is better than none at all. Frankly, I doubt the kid cares much about DNA, either.”
I find it disturbing that anybody can justify an continuing injustice because it is in the “best interests” of another person.
If you had a situation where somebody had been defrauding the company for which they worked for the past few years, doctoring the books in order to sneak a few thousand dollars a month, then it is very probable that the family of the thief would benefit from their theft; if they had children, perhaps they would be able to afford to send them to private school, pay for nice clothes, toys, etc. It would probably be fair to say that it would be in better for the thief’s children for them to continue to enjoy the benefits of the stolen income but would anybody ever dream of saying that, not only should the thief not be punished for stealing, the company from which they stole should be obliged to continue to pay them the few thousand dollars a month because it is in the “best interests” of the thief’s children that they are not deprived of the benefits of the income that the family has enjoyed, however dishonestly that income was obtained?
Are the thief’s children in this hypothetical situation innocent? Yes. Would they suffer from the loss of the income? Very probably. Should they continue to enjoy the benefits of their parent’s theft? Absolutely not.
Realistically, the odds of a woman not knowing that there is more than one potential candidate for her child’s father are exceptionally slim. If there is a possibility that the man named as the father is not the child’s biological father, then she has a duty to make this known to the alleged father, and to the other possible father. Otherwise, she is deceiving both the men in question and her own child. If she allows a child support order to be made against a man when she knows that he may not be the father and she does not speak up then and make it known that there is a possibility that he is not the father, then that is fraud and she should be made to face criminal charges for it.
Unless there are extenuating circumstances (for example in cases where the child is conceived through egg and/or sperm donation or where a child is adopted) a child has the right to be supported by his or her biological parents. Neither they or their mother have the right to expect the deceived man to be forced to continue to make payments.
If the man has been acting as the child’s father for years, has built up a relationship with the child and wants to pay for his or her upkeep, then that is very admirable and of course he should be allowed to do so, on his terms. If he does not want to make payments to the child’s mother, he should not be forced to. Perhaps he might prefer to put money in a college fund for the child, or similar. Either way, it should be his choice.
If the child’s mother wants child support, she needs to look up the child’s biological father.
Holly at August 11, 2008 8:33 AM
Leave a comment