Sticking It To The, Uh, Boy
Paternity fraud has reached a new low, and that would be seven years old. That's the age at which a Florida man supposedly fathered a child. From a UPI story:
Rusty Cole, a National Guardsman from Port Orange, Fla., said his tax return was delayed by the state because officials told him he owes support payments for a child born in 1995 -- despite the fact that Cole was born in late 1987, Central Florida News 13 reported Wednesday.Cole said weeks of phone calls and office visits failed to yield any results.
"They were like, 'Oh, yes, we have it on here that you are the father,' and I was like, 'Ma'am, there's no way,'" Cole said to News 13.
He said an e-mail message to Gov. Charlie Crist finally yielded him an apology from the department of revenue and the promise that his return would be processed.
Now maybe this is just a mistake on the part of the state, but It's pretty vile that even this guy's case above takes serious effort on his part to clear up.
It's hard for the average person to believe the stories of paternity fraud that are out there, but it's absolutely sick, what happens -- and it does happen. A woman can name a man as the father of her child -- even a man she's never met, let alone had sex with -- and if he doesn't contest it in the correct amount of time (often 90 days, depending on the state), he's on the hook for child support.
And never mind ordering a DNA test after they declare him on the hook. And never mind if he never even got the paperwork to contest the paternity fraud. It happened to Tony Pierce. Matt Welch wrote about Pierce's case and paternity fraud in general in a terrific piece in reason magazine.
Oh, and if this case above wasn't paternity fraud, just government bureacracy doing what government bureaucracy does, think twice about whether you really think health care brought to you by Uncle Sam (and administered on a local level by, say, Uncle Okeefenokee) is a good idea. I'm always amazed by people who assume government will solve their problems instead of causing them.
via ifeminists
I tried to get a fishing permit a few years back, and they made me give my social security number. To fish? No, not to catch fish, but to catch deadbeat dads. So, if I had skipped town to avoid paying child support, I'd pop up on somebody's radar and they could find me. Nice.
So, in my civil disobedience, I gave him a fake SSN. Then it occurred to me I risked giving him, by chance, one that actually belonged to a deadbeat dad, and realized it was pretty stupid.
What does this have to do with anything? Dunno. Except that it's just another way men are demonized. I wonder how many "deadbeat mom's there are out there, and if they are pursued with the same vigor as the dads?
Steve B at February 18, 2010 12:58 AM
Amy,
Thank you.
That article and Steve's comment are real eye openers.
I have often thought that the ONLY way a government-direct-to-the-people-program MIGHT work is if such a program were modeled after AAA.
You know, you fall down in your home, you suffer excrutiating pain, you dial (800 number for roadside service) and WHAMO! the nearest on-call brain sugeon is at your door.
BUT ... they're are drawbacks.
Follow the above formula for global climate change, and guess who shows up at your door (?) ... GULP! ... you guessed it, ... that moron Al Gore.
Ken at February 18, 2010 1:37 AM
When the state is after your money, it is funny how the burdon of proof is always you have to prove they are wrong. The state never has to prove it is right.
And so our rights continue to erode. Just because you are in a favored group in one area such as the mother in a child support case, that does not mean you are not the target of such practices in other areas. Nanny states are ultimately bad for everybody. Especially because they are trying to do "good" instead of just being "fair".
LoneStarJeffe at February 18, 2010 4:35 AM
We have come to a point in certain aspects of our society where a man is guilty until proven innocent.
The image in our country is women are some angelic type figures with a child in there lap and said child pulled closely to their heart. Some people cannot imagine women lying,cheating or defrauding someone, and it happens a million times a day in this country.
However people continue to ignore it because they so strongly want to believe in the above described image.
David M. at February 18, 2010 6:03 AM
I remember a case several years ago. The story goes like this. A foreign guy with an exotic sounding name started having his check garnished by the state of New York.
He called and found out that he had been named the biological father by a woman he had met once in his life, through a friend. He had never slept with her or had no other contact with her other than a brief intriduction.
He couldn't even locate her or his friend to try and clear the matter up. As far as the state was concerned, they had their man.
Not until he appeared in court with his attorney did they even consider he might not be the father. After all, he was named the father by an angelic mother figure-that would never lie.
He was an approximatley 26 year old male.
Not until his attorney stated in open court that his client is a 26 year old 100% homosexual man that had never seen a real adult woman's vagina in his entire adult life, did the judge even consider getting the ball rolling to even consider he wasn't the father.
David M. at February 18, 2010 6:35 AM
Here's a question. Given in a lot of these cases they cant find the guy in question before a default judgement is entered, how are they finding them in order to garnish thier wages?
lujlp at February 18, 2010 7:20 AM
LoneStarJeffie has a great point: in a nanny-state socialist system, all victims are equal, but some are more equal than others. There is always a hierarchy, and positions can shift depending on political favoritism at the moment. You may be somewhere in the hierarchy and be able to take stuff away from the people below you, but there is always someone above you who can take yours.
Cousin Dave at February 18, 2010 7:25 AM
This is just one of many reasons why we should start limiting congressional members, even at the state level, to no more than two 4-year terms. All of this crap that is getting legislated left and right, to the detriment of most of the population, has just got to go. Erosion of our rights, indeed. If things don't change soon, it'll get worse before it gets better. So, people. Pay attention to local politics, now, and get as much info as you can on the candidates. THINK before you vote. Then VOTE. It's got to start locally before it can go nationally. And it's got to start with US. We're the only ones we've got.
Flynne at February 18, 2010 7:33 AM
This is going to be a wildly unpopular opinion, I'm sure, but I think the only way this is ever going to stop is to DNA match every child born to its parents, regardless of their marital status.
And yes, I know OMG THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE MY DNA! But really, it's the only thing I see working.
And frankly, the people who would complain the loudest are the women trying to trap somebody into paying child support for a kid that's not his.
Ann at February 18, 2010 7:36 AM
Ann - your suggestions is actually quite reasonable. If this were standard procedure, as part of the physical examinations that happen anyway, no one would bat an eye.
Privacy is not so much a concern. The test should be commissioned by the birthing center or hospital, and carried out by a private lab. The DNA samples could then be destroyed.
Of course, some people know they are not the biological parents of a child. If you are not (adoption, sperm donor, whatever), you would obviously still be the recognized parent.
What would be fascinating: How many men think they are the biological father of a child, when actually...
bradley13 at February 18, 2010 7:52 AM
I remember reading an article once that said DNA taken as part of the human gemone project placed non paternity in familly groups at about 20-30%.
Dont know if its true or not though
lujlp at February 18, 2010 8:12 AM
So, did they also throw the woman in jail for statutory rape?
KarenW at February 18, 2010 8:30 AM
Ann,
Co-sign!
Jim at February 18, 2010 8:33 AM
Ann, the problem is the government doesn't CARE if I am the biological father or not. If I spent a few years raising a child thinking it is mine, then I am on the hook in many states. Most states require you to break off all contact with a child once you realize it is not yours. And after helping raise one for a few years, it is understandable how many men have a hard time doing that right away.
So, dna matching wouldn't help, because quite frankly judges and prosecutors don't care if the father is the actual father. They just want someone to pay.
plutosdad at February 18, 2010 8:48 AM
I stopped reading the post at "they were like" and "I was like". It drives me nuts. What happened to the verb 'say'? (And oh, for the record: English is not my mother tongue).
Alan at February 18, 2010 9:10 AM
My husband is currently going through the nightmare bureaucracy of NYS child support. We live in Tx and his ex filed for more $ because he got a new job that paid a bit more. He didn't attend the tele-hearing thinking that they'll take the 25% of his income either way, which was okay. He gets paid bi-weekly but the dolts in NY computed his deductions for a weekly basis. He now has 50% deducted from his pay. He has called the courts, the "support deduction unit", re-filed form after form only to be denied on the basis that he didn't attend the modification hearing. The NY court miscalculated his income by double, but they don't correct their mistakes. It is up to him to hire a lawyer, live with the extra 25% coming out of his pay and deal with not being able to afford to visit his kids.
laura.u at February 18, 2010 9:11 AM
For some reason, I'm getting images of Maury in my head...
NicoleK at February 18, 2010 9:24 AM
I follow DNA very closely, since I had my y-markers done several years ago for genealogical reasons, which was a mistake since y-markers have never, as far as I can tell, ever added a name to a family tree.
But, the DNA guys actually claim their studies show non-paternity at less than 4%. I found this unbelievable, and when I finally found the explanation, it was hocus pocus math like global warming and Freon R-12, not actual measurements of kids vs. dads.
In 1953, a doctor in a large east coast hospital recorded blood types when babies were born. He discovered that 10% of the baby's blood types were not correct for the husband's blood type.
See http://www.canadiancrc.com/Paternity_determination_blood_type.aspx for charts on this.
This high percentage shocked him, so he kept his discovery a secret until 1993. Note that the 10% is probably not the number of errors; only the number which involved a man with a different blood type. If the cuckolder had the same or a compatible blood type, this would not show it.
I found a page which summarizes different tests, but cannot post it here because I think 2 links kills my posting as spam, right?
Results range from 1% to 30% paternity errors, though social class is a major factor, with higher social classes having much lower paternity error rates.
I appreciate the positive attitude about a solution, Ann. It will never happen, though, because too many people have vested interests in keeping the men in harness, and truth does not matter.
When I have tried to discuss these issues, and the tossing in jail of disabled and/or unemployed men for not paying the amount of support which was ordered based on junk math, I get the same response from most women. "The children need the money."
As if the need creates money in a man's pocket.
I know of a man in Texas who is getting close to 70 years old. Chronically unemployed and underemployed, he will never be able to stay at home and rest in his old age. He fell behind on his payments years ago when the kids were young, and with the 8% interest they charge on the unpaid amounts (does anyone here earn 8% on anything?) they take every cent they legally can for just interest and nothing goes for paying back support. It is impossible for him to ever pay this off, and his kids are well into their 40's. He is a slave, period.
My guess is there are many thousands of people like him in the country.
In other cases, they take away driver's licenses which mean they can't even get a job to pay it back.
One man was willing to go to some place like Dubai, to get enough money to pay his support. Nope, he can't have his passport because he is behind on his child support.
Right now, the pro-feminist left wing media is covering it up. Virtually all women and most men honestly believe this sort of thing only happens to those who deserve it. History always clears up the truth. Our c/s system will some day be correlated with witch burnings, and slavery.
I was for years an activist. I no longer believe that is a solution. Men should flee the US as African slaves did. I do my best, but probably only convince a handful every year to leave.
Writing as always from Mexico...
irlandes at February 18, 2010 9:33 AM
Yeah, it's always about the mom running a scam to get more money and never about the dad running away from his obligations.
Good thing only stand-up dads post here, and that none of you has ever used money as a weapon to get back at the ex, even if it meant punishing your child, or simply walked away from your obligations to your child because you can.
I've got to tell all my single mom friends about this wonderful website where all the men behave admirably and bitch because it's always, always, the woman's fault.
That said, no excuse for docking the pay of a man who isn't the parent. And all related legal costs should be reimbursed.
Elementary at February 18, 2010 9:42 AM
Yeah, it's always about the mom running a scam to "get more money and never about the dad running away from his obligations."
You're correct in that, since these are not the dads at all, so they don't have any valid obligations to run from. Establishing who the actual father is as opposed to making the state complict in some greedy slut's machinations, or some dog-turd stud trying to skate out, is all that DNA identifaction can do.
"That said, no excuse for docking the pay of a man who isn't the parent. And all related legal costs should be reimbursed."
As a beginning. Mandatory perjury prosecutions would be a good next step. Those attestations of paternity are sworn statements after all.
Jim at February 18, 2010 9:55 AM
During my activist days, I never even blinked at putting my name and address at the bottom of anything I wrote.
Now, with California's Mail-a-letter-to-last-known-possible-address-wait-thirty-days-and-issue-a-binding-order policy, with no legal service involved, I write with as much anonymity as I can.
Let me repeat this in case I did not make myself clear.
Law requires women who get welfare to state the names of the fathers. Note the plural.
When they give a name in California, some clerk looks in the directories and finds a name similar, even if the spelling is not certain. They send a regular letter, no receipt requested to that address, assuming the name given is written in a stone tablet.
If the person has moved, which happens often, and doesn't even get the letter, that is not important. What is important is they tried to contact him, assuming he is the one who impregnated the woman.
The letter states he has 30 days to contact them for a hearing or DNA or whatever.
So, if there is no response, after 30 days they automatically enter a child support order, with no judicial activity or review. The computer starts showing an increasing amount of unpaid child support. When he does show up, for example they find his driver's license, they confiscate it for unpaid support.
If they don't find him for a long time, the unpaid support becomes very large, that with interest he perhaps can never pay off.
And Amy has I believe well reported what happens when a man tries to tell them it's not him, and demands a DNA test. Nope, you failed to appeal within the 30 days, now you have no legal basis for revisiting the issue. Pay, you worthless deadbeat scum.
So, I must try to hide my identity, in case some man-hating feminist submits my name as the putative father of a child, with an old or perhaps even non-existent address, and I get destroyed by this evil child support system.
irlandes at February 18, 2010 9:58 AM
>>Yeah, it's always about the mom running a scam to get more money and never about the dad running away from his obligations.
>>Good thing only stand-up dads post here, and that none of you has ever used money as a weapon to get back at the ex, even if it meant punishing your child, or simply walked away from your obligations to your child because you can.
>>I've got to tell all my single mom friends about this wonderful website where all the men behave admirably and bitch because it's always, always, the woman's fault.
>>That said, no excuse for docking the pay of a man who isn't the parent. And all related legal costs should be reimbursed.
This attitude is the reason I tell men not to bother with activism. Avoid women like the plague, and as soon as you can Get The Hell Out. It is impossible to even discuss this with most women, even when it clearly involves men who have been falsely accused of something.
irlandes at February 18, 2010 10:01 AM
By the way, someone asked about women who don't pay ordered support payments. Always women are far greater deadbeats for child support than men are. Much higher percentages of support ordered to be paid by women goes unpaid. So, when was the last time you say a woman jailed for non-payment.
Instead of hate and sarcasm aimed at men when they complain about obvious injustices like men who aren't the father being ordered to pay support, why don't you clean up your own gender?
irlandes at February 18, 2010 10:07 AM
>>I've got to tell all my single mom friends about this wonderful website where all the men behave admirably and bitch because it's always, always, the woman's fault.
Good idea. I think I'll tell all my male friends, the men who are avoiding women like the plague, about this wonderful web site, which had a discussion of false paternity claims, and a woman immediately turns it into the usual men are all bums and deadbeats thing.
irlandes at February 18, 2010 10:09 AM
*****Ann, the problem is the government doesn't CARE if I am the biological father or not. If I spent a few years raising a child thinking it is mine, then I am on the hook in many states. Most states require you to break off all contact with a child once you realize it is not yours. And after helping raise one for a few years, it is understandable how many men have a hard time doing that right away.*****
Well, if you know the day the kid is born it's not yours, then you can at least make a conscious decision as to whether or not you want to raise it anyway. At that point, if you decide you will be responsible even though you're not the biological father, you can sign papers to that effect.
Just supports my mandatory DNA test theory, IMHO.
Ann at February 18, 2010 10:12 AM
From www glennsacks com, last December :
Pankaj (normally a pretty strong supporter of men's rights, IIRC) said:
These are the direct consequences of mandatory DNA testing - see if you like it
1. Cost of independent DNA testing will rise.
2. DNA reports WILL be falsified - either on purpose or due to the sheer incompetence of the testers - thus eliminating any doubts a man holds and thus reduce the chance he would actually check for himself.
3. When a father overcomes his false faith in govt issued DNA report, pays the elevated cost of DNA testing - and finds out that the govt issued DNA report was wrong- now he still has to go to court and fight a long drawn out battle over the DNA report. And as you might know - govt is very willing to accept failure and incompetence on its system. cough..CSEA.. cough.. TSA.. cough .. CPS..
4. And given that the govt has shown its willingness to use DNA as a basis for determine obligations of CS (child support)... yeah things
will work perfectly, right?
Delusional.. that is what this idea is. I would say be careful what you are wishing for - you might get it.
(end)
In the meantime, one thing that could at least alert men to their wives' adultery - AND could be used as a weapon against paternity fraud - would be better male birth control.
lenona at February 18, 2010 10:17 AM
So, I see what you are saying, Ann, but I have a better. Make the system and opt in, rather than opt out. IOW, IF you are asking for child support form someone, you must have a DNA test, and it must prove true. So, in order to implicate a guy, the court orders the DNA test, and if he doesn't match? The accuser gets in trouble, and he walks.
Rather than building a comprehensive database of all DNA, you only use this when needed. Yes I want the government to keep their hands off DNA when it is not needed, because the overall percentage of this issue is small compared with the total pop of the US.
BUT, this totally kills the cuckhold angle, becasue you would have to have a MATCH to proceed with the order, you'd have to find the actual guy.
This shouldn't upset anyone, after all it doesn't apply broadly. But I'm sure it wouldn't be easy to do, because as has been said...
All they really want is someone to pay, NOT the right one.
SwissArmyD at February 18, 2010 10:19 AM
It's worth pointing out that for every man who gets slammed with false paternity charges, another man (the actual father) gets to walk away scot-free from his parental and financial obligations. In theory, women are just breaking even from these incidents, since they're receiving the child support that they would have gotten anyway. But there are many men benefitting at another man's expense. Which is why, as LoneStarJeffe pointed out, bad laws are ultimately bad for everyone.
Shannon at February 18, 2010 10:26 AM
SwissArmyD, I like that idea. But, you're right. Common sense and government don't mix.
An at February 18, 2010 12:08 PM
Shannon said:
It's worth pointing out that for every man who gets slammed with false paternity charges, another man (the actual father) gets to walk away scot-free from his parental and financial obligations.
Nice that you assume that all men who father a child want nothing more than to walk away scot-free from their parental and financial obligations. You might consider that the real father, if he knew about his child, might actually want to be involved in his child's life and have a hand at raising them.
So really, the lying mother is screwing over two men - the falsely accused father with child support obligations, and the real father by preventing him from helping raise his offspring.
Ben at February 18, 2010 12:22 PM
Irlandes, paying for your own children hardly qualifies as slavery. Now, if in fact they are NOT your children, it is another matter...
NicoleK at February 18, 2010 12:48 PM
In theory, women are just breaking even from these incidents, since they're receiving the child support that they would have gotten anyway. But there are many men benefitting at another man's expense. -- Shannon
You assume the guys are exactly the same. I saw awhile back a report where the woman was caught saying one guy was father when really there was two possible fathers. The reason she selected the one was apparently that he had a good income, etc where the other what did not. The true father was basically unemployed so she would have gotton little child support. Instead she got quite a bit of child support from the guy with a good income. It came to light when the kid developed some genetic problems and neither the mother or the supposed father had the genes to pass them on.
The Former Banker at February 18, 2010 2:30 PM
Elementary - thanks for being so kind and compassionate. **** off *****.
Crusader at February 18, 2010 4:27 PM
It should be mandatory at the hospital at birth to test for paternity.
For families with nothing to lose, its just part of the hospital routine.
For the women with something to hide, it means a limited time to fess up.
Robert at February 18, 2010 4:54 PM
Since lack of service is no defense, I'm surprised there haven't been a slew of cases where women name wealthy men they've heard of, but never met, and give false addresses. Let the statutory time limits expire, then rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in tax-free child support payments.
Bob Smith at February 18, 2010 5:58 PM
It is clear to me that the large majority of society does not think that woman that commit paternity fraud should be allowed to get away with it. However, the woman that commits paternity fraud and the majority of the state’s legal systems think that this is acceptable and will go through great lengths to violate our 13th (Involuntary servitude) and 14th (Equality) constitutional right. Once they have someone on the hook to pay child support they do not care if you are the biological father or not. All they seem to care about is that someone is paying for the child, so they can protect the states interest in the amount of money the collect from the federal government, by reducing the number of children without the name of a man on the birth certificate.
I am a paternity fraud victim and here is my personal testimony of what has happened.
1. The mother decided to have sex with a man much younger than her (The name for this is Cougar) and then happened along my path, days later had sex, decided she could play God and tell me that I was a daddy, since I had an established career.
2. I duped myself by believing her and married her. Now there is no chance of me challenging paternity, since it is now presumption and can only be challenged if you can prove fraud.
3. I then have a biological child with the mother not knowing that I have already been duped by the 1st child.
4. The mother is a habitual lies and deception and our relationship falls apart so we get divorced.
5. At this point I am suspicious of the child being biologically mine, so I request the judge to grant me a DNA test and ask that I can adopt the child if he is not my biological son, so we can get on with our lives with the truth and have a consensual relationship that the mother cannot manipulate and the child does not have to live a lie to one day find out and think its life has been a lie.
6. The mother gives a picture of the child to the judge and he says ya that's your child.
7. The mother continues her manipulation with the non-biological child where the child does not want to be with its legal father.
8. The child figures out that the legal father is not the biological father.
9. The legal father tries to get counseling for the child and the legal father, so whatever relationship can be recovered. The mother has full custody and denies professional counseling. This legal father tries several times to get counseling for the child and him and the mother continues to deny it.
10. The legal father continues to try and work it out with the child, but the child is so manipulated by the mother and hurt that there appears to be no resolution without professional help that was denied.
11. The court requests that the child gets counseling but will not specify with the father, so the mother continues to manipulate the issue.
12. The father is still exercising visitation with the non-biological child, but now he non-biological child is trying to control the biological child’s relationship with the Child’s father, thus trying to destroy it.
13. During this time the legal father asked for joint custody of both children during the divorce and continued to do so after the divorce, but the mother only cares about maintaining child support.
14. This mother has had 5 children by 4 different men and always gets full custody. What’s wrong with this picture.
15. The child now has an identity issue.
16. The child does not have a right to any medical history on his biological father’s side.
17. The child is denied a possible relationship with its biological father.
18. The child is denied a possible relationship with the biological father’s family
19. The legal father no longer has a relationship with the child.
20. The legal father’s family no longer has a relationship with the child
21. The legal system will not permit DNA evidence admitted into the case
22. The legal system will not permit the legal father access to the paternity records, so he can prove fraud beyond a doubt.
23. The legal system will not allow a OBGYN to testify, in order to prove fraud.
24. The legal system will not allow the OBGYN to testify in order to prove fraud.
25. The mother has since married and divorced and now the man she last divorced has to pay for all court cost and legal fees for her whenever I take her back to court on our case #.
26. The legal system allows perjured testimony and does not care that it can be proved.
27. A man is arrested and faces jail time if they have someone else take a paternity test for them (paternity fraud).
28. The woman faces no legal ramifications by naming whomever she wants as the father (paternity fraud)
29. If the man has a child with another woman during his marriage the x-wife does not have to pay for another woman’s child.
30. This process is a double standard - Adopted children are required to have a medical history before adoption, why does it not matter if it is paternity fraud.
31. The legal system may force a man to pay for another man’s child, but the courts cannot force a relationship between the man and child, if it is based on deceit.
32. The hospital is sued if they mix up babies at the hospital, but it does not matter if it is not the biological father.
33. The victim continues to be punished everyday by this outrageous crime and has to write a check to the perpetrator every month or week.
34. We are teaching our society that you cannot trust the opposite sex, because if you do there will be a great price to pay both mentally, physically and financially.
35. The mother is rewarded large sums of money for adultery.
36. The legal system chooses fraud over truth
37. The legal system chooses unjust over just.
38. No court should be compelled to allow its judgments’ to work injustice.
Conclusion: The facts are compelling how corrupt this process is and has nothing to do with the best interest of the child and all the more better for a woman to get away with paternity fraud. I can say I have never felt any greater pain and hurt than paternity fraud I have lost loved ones, broken bones, torn muscle, etc. All of those things seem to heel, with the exception of such an outrageous act as paternity fraud where you have to deal with and pay the perpetrator month after month. This is beyond cruel an unusual punishment and as long as there is no accountability and laws that punish people for such acts why would these heartless, manipulating sociopaths care what they do to people in their destructive path, as long as they get what they want.
Jeff at February 19, 2010 6:55 AM
Yanno, if more people in this country KNEW THE TRUTH about this charade of 'Dead Beat Dads' we might have more sympathy for the FEW mothers who are faced with the trials of raising a child absent the man who fathered said offspring.
Yes, it's a hoax of grand proportions perpetrated on our culture as a smoke screen for the massive scale redistribution of wealth from working PARENTS to the state run gynocenty.
The truth of the matter is (and numerous studies, including the US CENSUS) bear this out: the VAST MAJORITY of divorced, separated and estranged fathers who can pay... DO pay. Even more so whyen they are permitted unhindered access to their children.
Inversely (in terms of percentages) more mothers who are ABLE TO PAY COURT ORDERED CS... refuse to (and are permitted to with impunity).
My ex-wife is one of them.
But to allege a young man fathered children at the age of 7??? Oh good grief this decries credulity on level untouched by even the most diehard Misandrists.
Gunner Retired at February 19, 2010 7:20 PM
It should be added that in the unlikely event that Rusty Cole had actually become a father at age seven he would be on the hook for child support regardless of the mother's age.
gwallan at February 21, 2010 3:43 PM
Irlandes, paying for your own children hardly qualifies as slavery. Now, if in fact they are NOT your children, it is another matter...
Posted by: NicoleK at February 18, 2010 12:48 PM
What amount qualifies as slavery though? How is imputed income fair, especially when looking at the current economy? Despite it being against constitutional law, a lot of CS rulings are essentially debt slavery even if the gov got the right father.
Thanks to Sen. Bill Bradley a decade or two ago, child support debts can theoretically never ever been dropped, not via bankruptcy or a judge order. Hence you have innocent men who are homeless with judgments against them.
Sio at February 21, 2010 8:00 PM
The nine most frieghtening words are:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
Mark at February 26, 2010 1:23 PM
One angle that I haven't seen talked about in mandatory DNA testing of new borns...
Family history is incredibly important in medical diagnoses. When a mother lies about paternity, or simply guesses incorrectly, she is putting her child at risk by either hiding his medical history, or giving him a false one.
Given the high percentage of incorrect paternity, the state could require paternity testing as a legitimate means of protecting the child's health.
BL1Y at February 28, 2010 8:28 AM
California's Child Support program spends about 10 times what it collects. Just so ya know.
mojo at March 1, 2010 2:04 PM
After reviewing many objective studies concerning DNA analyses or studies (not deliberately testing paternity), I and many other scientists conclude incidence of paternity fraud in the US to approximate 10-11%. However, because the probability a woman is impregnated by either her husband (partner) or her paramour (accomplice, affair, indiscretion, whatever you want to call him), the incidence of adultery for women not using birth control approximates the incidence of paternity fraud by at least a multiple of two. So, incidence of adultery is actually twice that of paternity fraud, but only for women who are stupid enough not to use birth control when they are having sex with someone besides their partner or husband. The incidence of adultery among women who are using birth control is understandably much much higher, and scientists like myself have concluded that adultery among married women exceeds 67%, resulting in an incidence of paternity fraud approximating 10-11%. Until laws are enforced that protect men from the immorality, deceipt and destructive tendencies of women, civilization is doomed. These kinds of problems were very limited when birth control didn't exist and when adultery and paternity fraud were punished in extreme ways to discourage women from behaving like animals. Men never behaved this way throughout history. The kinds of problems we currently experience and their extremes is possible only because of women and their natural tendency for psychopathy (read complete lack of conscience).
no country for old men at March 3, 2010 5:55 AM
I agree with the post that an important option for men is to leave the US. Unfortunately, there are few if any places to go, especially if your passport has been suspended and you don't have any money. The US and much of the developed world and a good part of the developing and third-world have adopted the same US child support strategy of extracting money from men. I believe that if the malicious matriarchy that has entrenched itself in the world is ever to be stopped, it can only be by war. I am not optimistic that a war will ever be fought to get our children back, because for forty years, men, with only a few exceptions like me, have done anything to discourage the system from expanding faster and farther than it ever has. The system is simply too lucrative for too many men and too many men have become too apathetic. And of course, whether they claim otherwise, no woman cares as they are all benefiting to such extremes, at least in the long run. Any woman who claims to care should demonstrate what she has done to change the system or shut up - she's lying. Remember, more than two-thirds of all married women are guilty of criminal adultery, and they all lie about it. Approximately 81% of all women have falsely accused a man of something - rape, sexual harassment, paternity, child abuse, domestic violence, etc... How many women do you really believe care about this stuff if they are all benefiting from it, at least in the short-term. Don't trust a woman who claims to care. Men need to take care of themselves. Maybe start their own country. Maybe we can take over North Dakota or Haiti.
no country for old men at March 3, 2010 6:12 AM
Please place me on your mailing list. Are there Florida case(s),(or another state), where there was a conspiracy between lab tech(s) and other "entities" that Manipulated Paternity results?
I eagerly await your response.
Trent Crowell at April 23, 2010 8:26 AM
Help me please. I dont want to go back living on the streets because of child support. Lets talk:
1(760)947-4104
Richard Wisneski at September 4, 2010 2:20 PM
Just for the record, 42 US Code 654(21)(a) states that a state may charge not more than 6% interest on child support arrears.
Therefore, any state or jurisdiction that charges more than 6% annual interest is in violation of Federal Law.
The worst offender that I have found in this regard is Indiana, which charges 1-1/2 percent per month. After compounding this is 19.56% per year, which is in excess of three times what federal law allows.
I have also been told that charging interest on child support arrears increases the gross amount of child support collected, which increases the kickbacks the state receives under the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act.
It's time for more research so that I can write paper letters to 'our friends in government' because they tend to ignore emails.
jon deaux at November 24, 2015 3:51 PM
Leave a comment