More Paternity Fraud: Underage Boys Bullied, Sans Legal Counsel
The thing about these paternity fraud cases is that they all seem so unbelievable vis a vis what America is supposed to be like: a land of rights and fairness, a land of laws.
Over at Fathers and Families, I read about yet another abuse -- the family court system allowing child support enforcement agencies to bully teenaged boys, often manipulating them into signing paternity declarations (as minors) without their parents' consent or access to legal counsel. F and F has helped introduce two paternity fraud bills to try to stop this. Here's a letter in support of one of these bills from Thomas Rodriguez, who was manipulated at 17 into signing a paternity declaration -- without parental consent or legal counsel:
I am writing to you in support of SB 377, because when I was 17-years-old I was victimized by the problem which the bill addresses.The hospital manipulated me into signing a paternity declaration when my former girlfriend gave birth to a son she said was mine. There was no parental consent nor did I have access to legal counsel or advice. I was never informed of the legal implications of what I was being asked to sign and I did not fully understand them. I thought that because I was a minor, there couldn't be serious legal implications. I have since learned differently.
The mother of the child has not allowed me to have a relationship with the boy, and several of her relatives have told me that another young man who I knew in our community is in fact the biological father.
I tried to rectify the situation, but the judge ruled me to be the biological father and denied my request to establish paternity, even after the child's mother initially agreed in court to have DNA testing done.
I am now on the hook for 18 years of child support to support a boy I'm not able to see and who perhaps is not even mine. Moreover, someday I would like to marry and have a family, and I am instead faced with the potential prospect of losing a quarter of my after-tax earnings because I was defrauded.
SB 377 would resolve these kinds of injustices by "invalidat[ing] a voluntary declaration of paternity that is signed by a minor parent if it is not also signed by the parent or guardian of the minor parent." SB 377 would also require that the parent or guardian of the minor parent receive oral and written information relating to the voluntary declaration of paternity.
I wish this legislation had been in place when I was 17--it would have saved me a lot of pain and problems.
Sincerely,
Thomas Rodriguez
Riverside, CA
Learn from Thomas Rodriguez, and see that others get the lesson: know who you are having sex with.
He didn't, and now he's paying. This isn't some situation which magically changes when you turn a certain age.
Radwaste at April 21, 2011 4:13 AM
There were actually cases in Tennessee where a husband was tagged for child support until the child was 18 after a divorce, at which time the mother announced another man was a biological father and tagged him for back child support. Under both presumptive paternity laws (husband is legally father) and biological paternity laws, this was perfectly legal... the husband had no right to reimbursement and the mother got paid twice for adultery. I don't know if this has been fixed (unlikely, no one seems to care when men get screwed as long as women benefit), but Dr. H. interviewed a legislator trying to fix it.
If there was a loophole where it was reversed, we'd see highly public legislation with massive support within days, if not hours, to fix it.
And, while I agree with you Radwaste that people should know who they are having sex with, that is a separate issue as to whether a man should pay for someone else's child for 18 years because he was duped as a minor. He couldn't buy booze, cigarettes, or vote, and couldn't enter into serious legal obligations... don't know why this is any different if he isn't the father especially. Not to mention, barring violent risks, I don't think a woman should be entitled to support from a man for a child she won't let him see... and that includes back child support for children he was never told about.
Thanks to Amy, and others like Dr. H., speaking up for men (especially when they no doubt get hostility from feminists over it).
Trust at April 21, 2011 5:35 AM
I'm coming around to mandatory paternity testing. I have no stake in this issue, and I don't even know anyone who has had this problem. It's about justice.
MarkD at April 21, 2011 6:02 AM
There is phrase one must memorize when dealing with potential legal situations:
I invoke my right to counsel.
Tho in the case of uncertain paternity, another good phrase is I want a DNA test.
know who you are having sex with
I'm thinking that doesn't matter - history is filled with people who knew and trusted their partner, only to find out that trust was...misplaced.
Men: take control of your reproduction, and learn how to use a condom correctly.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 21, 2011 7:21 AM
While its always good to know what you're having sex with, who can ever be 100% that they aren't being cheated on especially at such a young age. If a girl showed up claiming one of my teen sons got her pregnant you're damn straight I'd be demanding a DNA test. I don't know where this kid's parents were through this but he shouldn't be penalized for that. And its sickening that a judge would rule on a paternity issue without a DNA test. Sickening.
Kristen at April 21, 2011 8:08 AM
"He didn't, and now he's paying. "
What does that have to do with the fraud, Rad? The woman could have named him as the father even if he had never had sex with her. That's the point of weakness in the system that is at issue - her fraud and the court's acceptance and enforcment of it.
Fortunately there is a legal remedy in California. Someone can kidnap the infant and drop him/her into one of those anonymous drop boxes for adoption. No child, no support. Problem solved.
Jim at April 21, 2011 8:38 AM
I agree with the comment above. I have no stakes in this issue as having no children of my own. (purposefully)
I suppose I don't see any harm in paternity testing before any child support is awarded to anyone. Paid for by the petitioner for child support.
Cat at April 21, 2011 8:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/21/more_paternity.html#comment-2063290">comment from JimTony Pierce was named as the father of a child of a woman he not only never had sex with but never met.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2011 9:10 AM
"Paid for by the petitioner for child support."
Sounds about right. The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion, in this case, as to the paternity of the child.
Amy, Chris Muir (writes the on-line comic Day By Day) had a story going in his strip where a woman named Sam[antha] living back east was collared by the state of California as the father of a child and ordered to start paying CS, and she had three days to get to court in California to fight the action.
I can't the actual strip, but here's his site;
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/archives.html
Jim at April 21, 2011 10:11 AM
"I am woman. Hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore! And it's too late to go back and pretend!" was so CUTE! (whiny, actually) Men are becoming increasingly aware that it was also, in no uncertain terms, a declaration of gender war, the intent of which was to make men second-class citizens in EVERY area where men's and women's interests compete.
Little lightbulbs are going off over men's heads all over the country, more and more every day, as they come to realize that they do indeed exist in, and serve, a "Woman's Nation." Those men should be angry at the feminists, male and female, who are responsible for the insidious assault on men's place in the family, the workplace, and society as a whole. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, it will be ordinary women (who could have spoken up long ago, but didn't) who end up taking the brunt of men's collective, long-suppressed, and eminently justifiable wrath.
Will that wrath take the form of violence? Let's hope not. It is likely that retribution will mostly take another form. Ironically, it will be women's new-found, sneering financial independence that will allow men, for the first time in history, to impose the greatest collective punishment that women could ever face -- men's complete and utter indifference, except for meaningless, itch-scratching "hook-ups".
It's already happening, isn't it? Slut culture is exploding as women desperately attempt to compete for a decreasing supply of male attention and affection. At the same time, women increasingly complain (surprise, surprise) that men today are irresponsible (i.e., not willing to be responsible for a woman financially), and that there are no "good" men left (i.e. a guy willing to subjugate his own interests in favor of the interests of a woman).
Reap -> Sow; Action -> Reaction, etc.
It's a damn shame, actually. Think about how much better things could have been if the readjustment of gender roles had not been hijacked by the fraudulent hate movement that feminism turned out to be.
Jay R at April 21, 2011 12:08 PM
Oooopsie!
Sow -> Reap
Jay R at April 21, 2011 12:14 PM
"What does that have to do with the fraud, Rad?"
My comment was additive. Lately, Amy has been pointing out how life has its risks. Duh. Thomas Rodriguez is careful, Thomas Rodriguez doesn't pay. Whoops, so he does.
Notice the second-degree problem he has? He's not the daddy AND he's paying. If he was the daddy, he'd still be paying and there's still no requirement that he see the offsprung. There are really two problems to solve.
I much prefer to point out what would have prevented the whole issue, especially in view of some of the extensive measures some people jerk into being to cope with the consequences.
If this underage male had a family who were actually acting as guardians... but no. And that's where we are, really. A minor had no guardian. So now he pays.
Radwaste at April 21, 2011 3:35 PM
Leave a comment