Man Insists On Justice -- All The Way To Jail
Via ifeminists, yet another disgusting story of paternity fraud:
Jody Murphy writes in the Vienna, VA News and Sentinel that 37-year-old Sean Keefe has opted to go to jail rather than to pay $1,800 a month in alimony to a wife (Tina) who had a son he says a DNA test proves is not his.
Just to be clear, he is paying $1,300 a month in child support for that child, but he doesn't want to reward the wife who screwed around on him -- as the court has ordered him to do:
"I didn't kill anybody. I didn't assault anybody. And I didn't steal from anybody and I am going to jail. I am in jail," Keefe said in a YouTube video posted Saturday.Keefe alleges two years after he divorced his ex-wife, he discovered he was not the father of the couple's youngest son.
"Just before our divorce was finalized I was told I should have a DNA test performed. I was told there was zero-percent chance I was his biological father," he stated on the video. Caroline Keefe, Sean's (current) wife, provided The News and Sentinel copies of the test results.
Under West Virginia laws, Sean Keefe is financially bound to support the child. The man who fathered the child bears no responsibility.
"Any child born under your marriage is your responsibility," Caroline Keefe said.
Crazy. So your wife can cheat on you all you can do is hang your head and sign away your income every month for 18 years?
Keefe feels, as I do, that men who find they aren't the father of a child shouldn't be required to pay for that child. Despite that feeling, he is willingly paying $1,300 a month in child support:
"I don't need my DNA coursing through his veins to know I was the father," he said on the video."I was there throughout the pregnancy. I spoke to him through his mother's belly. I was there the day he was born. And I have been there ever since. I love my son. He will always be my son, and I will always be his father. And I will always take care of him. And I will always pay his mother child support."
His YouTube video:
This is a little misleading. Alimony is totally separate, and they were married 19 yrs and had two biological kids. It doesn't say how long he's been asked to pay alimony, whether it's rehabilitative or long-term. Yet, it seems to me that his "paternity fraud" case would be much more valid - and more of rallying cause - if he stopped paying child support for the younger child.
It's understandable why he doesn't want to do that, as it would seem like he's abandoning the child he obviously still loves anyway, but that would be the clearer message. Not paying alimony in some punitive move towards the wife for cheating just opens the door for all spouses to be punitive, and almost every divorce has he-said/she-said tales, often involving infidelity. The courts have to keep property settlements and alimony apart from that, or it will become a nightmare of "fault" divorce cases.
Child support is really the issue here. Due to the length of their marriage, she was likely eligible for alimony whether they had any children or not.
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 6:19 AM
Sorry but in cases involving alimony fault should be considered.
Marrige is a contract, she violated the contract by fucking someone else, as she violated the terms of the contact she is not entitled to the payout agreed to in the contract.
The guy really aught to sue her lover for the cost of her alimony check each month
lujlp at May 15, 2011 6:27 AM
"Sorry but in cases involving alimony fault should be considered."
Not unless we want to do away with "no fault" divorces, which is one of the smartest, cost-saving moves the courts made.
Look, my divorce settlement declares that I have to share property and make all sorts of provisions for my ex. Many I don't like. And he cheated, but if I decided now that I just don't want to live up to that agreement because he was a jerk in the marriage, I'd be penalized.
Plus, some poor judge would have to listen to each of us bash each other, because it's rarely clearly one-sided who the "bad person" is, at least as far as the court can tell.
In this case, she'd just say she had tons of reasons to cheat, like he was physically and/or emotionally abusive...or impotent...or that he cheated too, despite what he claims....and...this is why we don't want fault divorces!
But I agree he shouldn't have to pay child support for a child that is not his.
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 6:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/15/man_insists_on.html#comment-2139444">comment from lovelysoulHe CHOOSES to pay alimony, but it's still paternity fraud that he's being asked to.
Amy Alkon at May 15, 2011 6:49 AM
I never sad we shouldnt have no fault divorces, only that in the case of contested finacial and property dealings fault should be considered.
In this case we have clear evidence that she broke the marrige contract - not just mearly brought it to a legal end, bu broke the TERMS of the contract.
You cna get out of any contract you want so long as you do it legally and abade by the dissolution clauses, but if you violate the terms of he contract you should not be rewared as though you had done nothing wrong.
lujlp at May 15, 2011 7:02 AM
No, the alimony is based on how their divorce settlement was determined. They may have owned a lot of property or a business together. She may, like my friend, have taken alimony in leu of a flat settlement or property distribution. Or it may be rehabilitative alimony for a few years because she has been out of the job market, raising their (two, anyway) kids, and needs to get skilled to re-enter the job market.
The court is right to separate divorce settlements from fault. In most states, they are pretty standard, based on accumulated assets and years of marriage. Theoretically, if fault is considered, guys who cheat will have to give up even more of their assets and alimony would apply probably in all those cases.
People always think fault divorces are better because they always imagine the judge will declare their ex spouse totally responsible for the failure of the marriage. How nice that would be, right? But we've gotten away from that, rightfully so. Blame and responsibility in the failure of a relationship is so convoluted in most cases that it's a nightmare to determine.
The issue here is child support. The guy who made the kid should be responsible. However, the flip side of that is, if he pays, he will be able to go after visitation and/or custody.
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 7:11 AM
And, that's another thing. What about the biological father's rights? Did he even know he had a kid? Everyone is so focused on how he gets off scott free, but maybe he wouldn't have wanted that.
We may be facing a similar situation. I don't know. A few weeks ago, some nutjob called my husband in the middle of the night, saying he had "ruined his life" because his wife is still in love with him.
My husband was briefly involved with her 7 yrs ago, while they were split up. Then, she went back to him, obviously, and they have...a 7 yr old child.
This guy started making threats. Said he knew where we lived and he "has guns". He's scary (even worse, he's a pilot for a major airline!). I feel bad for the kid, but can only hope he isn't biologically my husband's.
She *said* she had her period after they broke up, but we were just discussing this yesterday, and that can be misleading.
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 7:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/15/man_insists_on.html#comment-2139512">comment from lovelysoulWhat about the biological father's rights? Did he even know he had a kid? Everyone is so focused on how he gets off scott free, but maybe he wouldn't have wanted that.
Absolutely right, lovelysoul.
Amy Alkon at May 15, 2011 7:37 AM
I went to the original story, read a bunch of comments form people who clim to know these people.
They didnt divorce until this kids was five or six yrs old, he is 10 nowand Sean bean refuin to pay about a yaer after the divorce, as far as I can tell they didnt own any buisness together and a 'familly freind' claims the ex makes almost 50 grand a year.
The bio dad wants nothing to do with the kid, Sean refuses to surrdner his parntal rights. More then a few claimed she offered to waive alimony if he would contest his paternity so she could go after the io dad for a larger child support check. the bio dad is apparently a partner in a huge medical practice.
Whether or not any of tat is true or accurate I dont know.
LS if you and I were to enter into a business contract and I stole all your clients ans sold the list to your competitor and you fired me for breach of contract would you exect a judge to award me the severnce package I was promised should my employment with you ended on a legal and equitable footing?
lujlp at May 15, 2011 7:53 AM
In this case the real father knew about the child. he signed over all rights. And as far as her not having money or skills to support her other children, the real father was a nero/spine surgen and she was the nurse so she can get a job. And the other 2 kids are grown with children of their own. He did not cheat, he did not abuse, she flat out cheated and then tried to make sean believe it was his child for 4 yrs untill a friend told sean he should get a dna test. THERE IS THE FRAUD, child support doesnt matter he pays that no problem its the fact that she never once said there was a chance the child was not his. making onw man believe that he is a father when he really isnt is wrong all together but to lie to the man that you have 2 other children and 15yrs of marriage. that is what this fraud is. why should she get paid for sleeping around,and creating another child. that is wrong no matter which way you look at it. he should only have to pay the child support for the child he is taking responsiblity for. which he does thats it. heres a fact for you....the ex wife asked mr.keefe to take his name off of the birth certificate and give up rights so that she could go after the real father for support. if it is not about money why willingly drop everything to go after the bigger fishes wallet.
anonymous person at May 15, 2011 8:08 AM
Anyone else ever notice that whenever there is confusion over paternity years after a child was born, that it always seems that the man with the greatest income was assumed to be the father with nary a peep about the other possibility(ies)?
Trust at May 15, 2011 8:29 AM
Of course, it's about money, and we may disagree with alimony and property settlement laws, but thay are separate from this.
I divorced in FL, after a 20 yr marriage, and I was eligible for alimony. Although FL is no fault, my divorce atty said that the judge CAN weight fault in determining the settlement - there are a few ways he/she could be more or less generous - but it's pretty limited.
And the process is designed that way not for cases, such as this, where fault may be more clear, but because in most cases it's not.
Mine, for instance. I could've charged my husband with cheating, but I had no actual proof - no photos, or PI reports (I never hired one). It would've been my word against his, and of course, he would've said nothing sexual ever happened between him and his myriad of female "friends".
My atty said we could introduce the whole issue of emotional abuse, etc, but it didn't seem cost effective given the limitations the judge had to award me much more for this.
The settlement, at least in my state, is pretty straightforward. 50/50 anything accumulated during the marriage and anything we had before marriage stayed ours.
I didn't get alimony because I got a large enough settlement of cash and property. In FL, alimony is only awarded in long-term marriages and where there is no flat settlement. In other words, I got enough to support myself, so alimony doesn't come into play. Sometimes, alimony is a better option for people who don't want to cash out or sell assets.
I don't know why this woman got alimony, but I don't believe it would benefit the divorce process - or most men, in particular - to change the laws to make asset disbursal/alimony contingent on fault. That would work against more men than it would likely benefit. Women are far better at playing victims in divorce than men.
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 8:46 AM
"LS if you and I were to enter into a business contract and I stole all your clients ans sold the list to your competitor and you fired me for breach of contract would you exect a judge to award me the severnce package I was promised should my employment with you ended on a legal and equitable footing?"
Not if I could prove what you did, but I imagine it would be quite a convoluted and protracted legal battle, with you claiming you didn't "steal" my clients; they came willingly, and you have no idea how my competitors got my lists, etc.
The attys would love it, and maybe one of us would win, or we'd settle out of court from sheer exhaustion.
As divorce is far more common, and the twists and turns inherent in every relationship are so complicated, it behooves the courts not to get into them.
My divorce cost $200,000. That was the legal bill after all the mudslinging went down. And that was in no fault state.
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 8:54 AM
I have great respect for this man saying that's his kid regardless of DNA. He isn't skipping out on the kid years later because he finds out his wife is garbage. Its not the kid's fault and its not fair to this kid who only knew him as Daddy for him to suddenly disappear, again because the mother was garbage. This man feels he is the father for all of the reasons he stated and I think that is amazing.
As LS states though, I also wonder about the biological father and if he knew or if he would have wanted a chance to be a father to this kid. Its a very hard question because there should be fairness to him if he wanted to know his kid but at this point is that in the best interests of the kid? Tough question.
Kristen at May 15, 2011 9:28 AM
According to this, she worked 2 jobs to put him through school. If she's a nurse, it's quite possible that she was the main breadwinner for a significant amount of time. That's probably why she was awarded alimony.
Also, it says BOTH of them only discovered the true paternity after the divorce was in process. Fraud would be very difficult to prove.
People cheat. Get back together. The affair doesn't seem to be what broke them up since they were together until the child was 5, and the affair didn't even come to light for 2 years afterwards.
http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/547710/Vienna-man-chooses-jail-over-alimony.html?nav=5061
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 9:33 AM
Paternity testing should be mandatory at birth.
Robert at May 15, 2011 11:51 AM
Alimony is child support for adults. It should be eliminated.
Jeff at May 15, 2011 12:26 PM
I'll say we shouldn't have no-fault divorce, at least not only no-fault. My undergrad thesis was on the fault/no fault shift and the effect on the US family. The changes it has brought are-much like welfare-mostly bad. If the government is ging to be int he marriage contract business, they should treat it like any other contract, where a violation by one party makes the obligations of the other party null and void.
if you want to get rid of alimony/spousal support Jeff, you are saying no child will ever be raised by it's biological parent since no parent could ever take time out of a career. Since a caring blood parent has been proven best at raising young kids (for the kids) your argument is pretty stupid.
momof4 at May 15, 2011 12:38 PM
I have lots of sympathy for this guy (I once had to pay alimony that I didn't think my ex deserved), but legally he hasn't got a leg to stand on. No-fault divorce means that, in effect, sexual fidelity is not part of the marriage contract. If you want it to be part of yours, put that in a prenup.
Rex Little at May 15, 2011 12:43 PM
I think the word "alimony" is becoming a misnomer. They call it alimony, but these days, it's usually more of deferred payment plan based on equitable distribution. That's what this sounds like to me. She was somehow entitled to a certain amount of money due to her contributions throughout the marriage, and they likely did not have that in cash on hand, so she agreed to payments for a certain period of time.
It's not really "keep the little wifey in the style she's accustomed to" alimony anymore. I think very few wives get that nowadays. Judges have moved away from that, especially if the wife is working.
After reading more about this, I have little respect for him and his "new wife". Setting up a Facebook page...with their real names? Imagine how the son feels about being outed as non-biological and having his mother raked through the mud as a slut (basically). It certainly creates a toxic environment in which to co-parent all of their children.
Sounds like she gave him the opportunity to opt out and sign off, which he refused, so this isn't really as much about him having to pay child support as it is about humiliating her (and, unfortunately, their child).
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 12:48 PM
"It's not really "keep the little wifey in the style she's accustomed to" alimony anymore. I think very few wives get that nowadays. "
I disagree. My mom used to have a bunch of female friends who were living high on the hog off of alimony. Some of them were serial marry-ers and were receiving alimony from two or more exes. And this was back in the '70s.
Cousin Dave at May 15, 2011 1:17 PM
But that was in the 70s, Dave.
I think it would be very unlikely for this woman to have lifetime alimony. Sounds like she has been working throughout the entire marriage. This was probably a defferred payment plan for what she was owed in their settlement due to her financial contributions (like putting him through school). The court has backed her up each time.
He's being petty and vindictive. I understand why he's angry that she cheated and he didn't know, but this was a 19 yr marriage. People cheat and feel remorseful, go back and try to be good partners for years afterwards. Men do that all the time too.
Do you think a guy who cheated once should have to pay way more in a settlement?
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 1:35 PM
Actually, that may be why some of your mom's friends got such long-term alimony - because it wasn't a no fault, straightforward distribution of assets but at some judge's sole discretion. If the wife appeared to be long-suffering and the guy was a philanderer, he was made to pay.
I don't think we want to go back to that, as much as it might've benefited some people (including me).
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 1:42 PM
No-fault divorce means that, in effect, sexual fidelity is not part of the marriage contract. If you want it to be part of yours, put that in a prenup.- Rex Little
Only problem is Rex judges are throwing out prenups left and right.
Imagine how the son feels about being outed as non-biological and having his mother raked through the mud as a slut (basically). It certainly creates a toxic environment in which to co-parent all of their children.-LS
So in the face of an ethical social injustice this guy is supposed to fork over nearly two grand a month on top of the thirteen hunndren in child support, just so junior wont find out about why his dad hates his mother for 3 more years?
I got news for you people, your kids, no mater what they tell you dont trust you when it comes to the divorce (not unless one parent really is a raging peice of shit). You'd be supprised how many of them have the entire file of motions and trascripts dug up so they can see forthemselves what went on
Sounds like she gave him the opportunity to opt out and sign off, which he refused, so this isn't really as much about him having to pay child support as it is about humiliating her (and, unfortunately, their child).-LS
She gave him the pportunity to opt of of alimony on the condition he give up his rights to his kid. What kind of person does that? Why does someone do that. She was hoping for a bigger payday from the bio dad. I'm not sure what VA child upport tables look like, but she was willing to give up $3,100 a month tax free to shot for it.
Why should he have to give up his child? Why should the kid have to give up the only dad willing to fight for him so mommy can suck money out of someone else?
Lets be clear here, I think the bio dad should have to pay child support, I also think that he should get vistiation stating around age 13 whn the kid is old enough to better process the emotions given bio dad has avoided him for more then 10yrs. That being said she should get alimony - the DNA of the boy is proof that she broke the marrige contract
lujlp at May 15, 2011 2:08 PM
"Only problem is Rex judges are throwing out prenups left and right."
No, they aren't. My divorce atty is one of the very best in the biz, and he told me that judges rarely throw them out anymore. There has to be some major misrepresentation or glaring technical error in the wording of them. A good prenup is very hard to toss out these days, as the attys who write them know all the tricks.
"She gave him the opportunity to opt of of alimony on the condition he give up his rights to his kid. What kind of person does that?"
A person who felt badly that she'd made a mistake? I believe she offered for him to opt out of child support, not alimony. Since the child was proven not to be his, she offered to have him not pay child support if he waived his parental rights, which seems standard. I imagine by law he'd have to waive parental rights in order to get out of paying child support. That probably isn't her suggestion. It's the law.
But he refused and went after the settlement payments the court awarded her instead because it looks better. You can't say, "I want my kid, but I don't want to pay for him."
However, that would be the clearer message if this is all about paternity fraud.
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 2:26 PM
Only problem is Rex judges are throwing out prenups left and right.
Maybe so, but it's the best you can do. Any judge who'd refuse to enforce the adultery clause in a prenup certainly isn't going to use adultery as the basis for an alimony award in the absence of a prenup.
Rex Little at May 15, 2011 3:01 PM
"Not paying alimony in some punitive move towards the wife for cheating"
Is this a joke? Not paying alimony to a cheating lying ex-wife is "some punitive move"? Sure, in just the same way if someone breaks into my house, it's "punitive" of me if I don't give them a key and say "help yourself to anything anytime".
Lobster at May 15, 2011 4:00 PM
"Maybe so, but it's the best you can do. Any judge who'd refuse to enforce the adultery clause in a prenup certainly isn't going to use adultery as the basis for an alimony award in the absence of a prenup."
I'm not sure how effective an adultery clause in a prenup would be, but, as someone who was married to a less than perfect man, I wonder about the ethics of penalizing someone purely for adultery.
Would it be fair for me to have taken 75% of my ex's hard work throughout his lifetime just because he cheated?
Under equitable distribution, in a no fault state, I got a third. I think that was fair. I was married to him for 20 years, and, yes, he was a jerk, in many ways, but he had worked hard before I knew him, and, after all, I married him. Don't I have some accountability in choosing poorly?
Doesn't Sean Keefe have some responsibility in choosing his spouse and in do what is financially fair? He was married to this woman for 19 years, during which she apparently worked hard and contributed to the household, even putting him through school. There must've been some good times between them. A judge determined that she was entitled to a certain monetary compensation. Does the fact that she cheated ONCE in their entire marriage negate that? Does it negate her right to an equitable distribution of their assets and/or a payout of the same over time?
As someone who was cheated upon, I say no. It sucks, yes. But that doesn't translate into a financial penalty. Fair is fair. Our financial settlement had nothing to do with "fault" and that's the way it should be.
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 7:11 PM
I'm in the middle of an uncontested divorce and am quite up to date on alimony. Traditional alimony is going the way of the dodo in most states. Elsewhere it is rehabilitative alimony and is used to compensate the lesser earning spouse for a limited time. It is separate from the strict property settlement, which is 50/50 or what is equitable in most states.
In many states, if one spouse paid for the education of another, they are almost always eligible for very good alimony.
In my case, my wife is due some alimony. We agreed that she would stay home to care for the kids until they got into school. For us, that means she was out of the job market for thirteen years.
Where I'm annoyed is that one reason for our divorce is that my wife agreed to go back to college and/or become gainfully employed when the kids returned to school and she refused to do so. She's pointedly refused to find any significant employment for the past ten years. The result of this is that not only is my child support higher than it should be (though short term, since my two youngest are almost out of school) but my alimony is going to last longer and be higher than it should.
BTW, many states do not allow you to pre-specify alimony in a prenup. Prenups also can't violate existing state laws, such as requiring someone to surrender legally owned property without compensation. Many prenups are thrown out because they are written by crappy lawyers with greedy clients and courts do not like that. (Another cause for tossing prenups is failure to fully disclose pertinent facts when the prenup is signed and that the signature is not fully voluntary--that is one suddenly springs it on the other at the last minute--or it is made a condition of something else. In other words, you can't propose and say, but you have to sign this before I give you this massive ring.)
Joe at May 15, 2011 7:16 PM
Yes, Joe, you cannot "spring" a prenup on someone at the last minute. We had a prenup, but my ex threw it out. Still, my atty said the judge might still weigh it, but one of the factors was that it was signed the day of our marriage. That is grounds for contesting, as one can easily say it was "sprung" upon them at the last minute.
I just remarried and we had a prenup. I actually used my ex's atty to draw up the prenup. He made sure we signed it several days before our wedding. And there were lots of clauses declaring that no one was being "coerced" into signing. That is the biggest reason for challenge.
lovelysoul at May 15, 2011 7:31 PM
as usual, this is from an offstream publication unlike cnn which only has articles that say sharia is bad....#$@! crap publications like cnn till they start publishing these and try to portray the man in a sympathetic manner
Redrajesh at May 15, 2011 10:22 PM
I have talked to a number of attorneys about pre-nups and all have said they are easily and often thrown out or modified by the judge. They will usually look at them. There are many things have to be done. They have to be signed well before the wedding and both parties need separate and adequate legal council.
Still, they are often modified...FOR THE CHILDREN!
Yep. The child(ren)'s care has first preference. Once the kids are adequately looked after, then the pre-nup and other division of assets can be looked at.
I think the judges just need to do better. My brother had to pay 3 years of spousal maintance. This because she had been a stay at home for awhile and "she had supported him will he trained for a new career." The problem is she was making more money than when they met and her career had advanced more than would be expected if she had not taken time off. My brother took an apprenticeship with city (or was it county?) but it was doing a similar job and he earned more and worked less hours and that was the time she was a stay at home mom.
The Former Banker at May 16, 2011 12:22 AM
Well, you can't address children in a prenup. Custody, child support, and all child-related issues cannot be decided in a prenup. They must go before a judge.
However, you can address spousal support, and in the recent one I did, we both clearly waived it. We initialed that clause particularly. If that is in there, a judge isn't likely to grant spousal support. But child support, yes.
My atty was Maury Kutner of Miami. He just did A-Rod's divorce. All he does is big money divorces, so there's almost always a prenup. Sure, a judge may set part of it aside, but they almost all have separability (?) clauses, so the whole thing can't be tossed out just because one part is declared invalid.
One mistake is where people make them too complex, trying to decide a host of issues, like who'll stay home, who'll work, etc. You can't determine a lot of that in advance. You can't predict the future in a prenup.
They should be very simple and straightforward. What's mine stays mine. What's yours stays yours. And then how to deal with anything that's joint.
lovelysoul at May 16, 2011 2:28 AM
He should not be paying the alimony support and technically not the child support for the child that is not biologically his. Marriage is a contract, and in many states adultery is a felony or some other form of criminal act. I commend this man for being willing to pay anything to this women child support or even a word that doesn't straight up call her a whore. She technically broke the marriage contract by sleeping with another person and what's worse is that there is a child involved. I can not believe that the courts are forcing him to be in jail because he is not paying his alimony. I feel that they should take into account that she obviously is a whore and the proof is in the child. Why are we as a people allowing this type of action to be taken through our justice system. I don't care if the alimony was for 1 month or 10 years, she did not do her "wifely duty", to this man and she doesn't deserve to be getting money for it. I'm quickly understanding why people have their spouses killed before the divorce is finalized.
Sara Kammeraad at May 16, 2011 5:19 AM
Wow, Sara. Murder too?
So, no one has answered this question, but I assume, then, that you believe a wife should get all the assets plus alimony if her husband cheats on her even once during 19 years of marriage?
If you "break the marriage contract" you walk away with nothing? Is that your stand?
Is that what the guys here endorse too? One adultry = all forfeiture of financial entitlements?
lovelysoul at May 16, 2011 6:26 AM
If the adultry is cause for divorce then yes, if the act is forgiven, then no.
Assests should be divided equally, no question, spousal support after asset division should consider fault
lujlp at May 16, 2011 7:04 AM
What proof do we have that the judge didn't weigh fault? This guy has appealed several times and lost. The proceedings are closed, and even he doesn't say why she was awarded these payments and/or whether it had anything to do with equitable distribution or based on her financial contributions during the marriage, which may have been significant.
If she makes $50,000 a year, she wasn't awarded these payments as "support". They are part of a settlement payout.
lovelysoul at May 16, 2011 7:12 AM
A NOTE FROM SEAN:
5/12/2011
Responsibility
Please forgive my ramblings! You have to understand the emptiness of this cell and coldness of the common area of Pod F-5. There is always ample time for self-doubt. I miss the touch of my wife. I miss holding her hand and feeling the smile in her eyes. I miss the activities and the company of my children. I have had children in my life since I was twenty. They really do fill your life! I miss my two grandchildren with all my heart. I know they are learning new words and discovering new things every day! I have chosen this punishment. I knew it was coming and we prepared for it. But, the emptiness of jail requires that I constantly remind myself why it is worth sacrificing the company of my family and the comfort of my home. We, as human beings, must take the responsibility for our actions. The Judge said I owe my ex-wife. I disagree and am taking responsibility for that decision. The consequence of that decision is my incarceration; it is the emptiness of a cell. I have to remind myself that I am living with this consequence because I am directly or indirectly responsible for the lives of two sons, two stepsons, and one grandson. What happened to my youngest son should never happen to a child, ever! Were I to give in and then one day watch one of these boys or one my friends go through this, I would never be able to forgive myself. All of this could have been avoided had certain parties owned up to their activities at the outset and taken responsibility for their own actions. That did not happen, and unfortunately, the law contains no incentives for these individuals to take responsibility, even now ten years later. Finally, I know that my actions will have negative impact on some. I have wrestled with this since December of 2004. Whatever damages my actions may cause, I will take full responsibility. I will work to make amends and mitigate the damage. All I know is, children will have enough lies to deal with in the course of their lives. No life should begin as a lie!
Sean Keefe
04Evee at May 16, 2011 7:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/15/man_insists_on.html#comment-2141494">comment from 04EveeSean, I admire you for paying child support and acting in your son's best interest despite biology and your ex's cheating.
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2011 7:43 AM
I think he's petty and vindictive. His wife cheated. No, she didn't tell him that she cheated, but how many people do? She apparently stayed with him, probably regretting the affair. She also says she didn't know the kid wasn't his, and even he WANTS the kid!
Yet, here he is, in national news, with a FB page, talking about his youngest son being fathered by another man and basically calling his ex-wife - his children's MOTHER - a slut. How is this not impacting the child he claims to love? How is this not impacting his other children and their relationship with their mother?
These people were married 19 years. We have to assume that there were some good times in this marriage, some love, and happiness, and that this woman - who he chose and stayed with for 19 years - must've had some redeeming qualities. She is not the sum of this one mistake.
If he ever loved his ex-wife, or cared at all about these children, he wouldn't be doing this so publicly. He doesn't have a leg to stand on anyway. The alimony is separate from the child's paternity, whether he likes that or not.
I actually suspect the new wife is driving this. She seems to be enjoying giving interviews bashing the ex a little too much. But this cannot be a good for the kids, especially this poor youngest boy.
People need to think about what they're doing to their kids. My gf's son just killed himself, partly because his divorced parents couldn't make peace. The father was bitter and angry like this one - always bashing and harrassing his children's mother - and now, he's just a sad shell of a man, who has to live with the pain and depression he brought to his kid in the name of vengeance. It's just not worth it!
lovelysoul at May 16, 2011 8:23 AM
@lujlp: Spellcheck
Just sayin' at May 16, 2011 8:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/15/man_insists_on.html#comment-2141616">comment from Just sayin'Luj has dyslexia. His thoughts are worth reading -- enough so that those of us who are regulars here managed to read his posts without chastising him on his spelling. I, for one, find it charming.
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2011 9:02 AM
The more I think about it, the more it boils my blood that this guy is getting kudos for paying child support for a child he supposedly wants, then turns around and announces to the whole world is not his...while dragging the child's mother through the mud. That is NOT acting in his son's best interest.
lovelysoul at May 16, 2011 9:05 AM
Surprise, a case involving child support and alimony that is unfair at best and criminal at worst against the father/husband. Men get screwed in divorce because the system is set up to assume the husband did something wrong. Granted, that's true at times. I would like to see those who claim to be feminists come out and openly support this poor man. Equality should be for both the good and the bad. Men should not be penalized under law for their spouse cheating on them and getting pregnant by another man. There are DNA tests that can easily show paternity. If it's not his child, he should not be mandated by the courts to pay child support. Also, it shows that his wife broke the marriage union by her own actions and she should not benefit from that. If he chooses to give money to support the child that he says he loves as if it was his own blood, then so be it. It would be his choice.
Hunter at May 16, 2011 9:44 AM
But this case has proof. This is not "he said / she said" about cheating. And fraud is not difficult to prove in this case.
She cheated.
He's not alleging she cheated. He has DNA proof that the child born during their marriage was not fathered by him. Unless she got in-vitro fertilization without his knowledge or her son is the Second Coming, she cheated.
Whether she knew the child was not his is not relevant. She cheated.
Unfortunately, West Virginia law is not on this guy's side. And he's an ass.
In terms of the court's costs, it has probably been a wash. While the parties involved no longer spend ridiculous amounts of money and time trying to prove the other party was at fault or blatantly committing perjury (creating legal fictions or spurious allegations of "cruelty"), the arguments over alimony and child support rage on. And cost the courts time and money.
No-fault divorce has devalued and destroyed marriage. The ability to simply walk away has abrogated the legal concept of the marriage contract.
No-fault divorce is more correctly entitled "unilateral" divorce since it allows one party to walk away and still demand an equitable disbursement of assets, making marriage effectively little more than living together.
And, according to the NY chapter of NOW, no-fault divorce takes away the bargaining power of the non-moneyed spouse in a marriage.
If she regretted the affair, why didn't she waive all of part of the alimony?
I know she gave him an opportunity to forego the alimony and the child support, but only if he gave up his paternity rights ... allegedly so she could get even more money from the boy's biological father, a richer man than her now-ex husband.
That kid is going to need therapy when he's older. His passive-aggressive father and manipulative mother have surely messed him up.
Conant he Grammarian at May 16, 2011 10:26 AM
That is NOT acting in his son's best interest.
And her lying about the question of paternity for over six yrs is? And offering to waive alimony if only he would contest paternity so she could go after the richer bio dad was in the child best intrest as well?
Why is it always the guys responisbility to take it in the ass to bury the ex wifes bad behavior in order to "spare" the children?
lujlp at May 16, 2011 10:27 AM
This is silly. Every pro-Sean post here is conflating his alimony and child support obligations. They are two separate duties. As to the child support, he has already agreed to pay it, so the paternity inquiry should end there. As to alimony, that is generally determined by an economic formula meant to provide for a formerly dependent spouse. Maybe he got jobbed here, maybe he didn't. As posted earlier, this was a long-term marriage. Perfectly reasonable to impose some alimony in those cases.
Everything else in this case trumpeting parental fraud, etc. is just a dressed-up plea to repudiate no-fault divorce. Good luck with that. As lovelysoul succintly noted, "fault" divorces are mainly a thing of the past with good reason: how does one economically weigh subjective marital problems? ("You cheated?" "You yell at our daughter!")
Or as my old law prof used to say: hurt feelings do not a cause of action make.
snakeman99 at May 16, 2011 11:19 AM
"And offering to waive alimony if only he would contest paternity so she could go after the richer bio dad was in the child best intrest as well"
Actually, yeah. Extra dough could improve the kid's life and actually nail Bio-Dad with some responsibility. If Sean believes in his relationship with the kid, it should be able to survive a formal protest. Nothing there would prevent the two from continuing a relationship. In fact, ex-wife and Sean could contractually agree to still grant visitation to Sean.
This whole situation is rife with opportunities to settle civilly that would have avoided Sean's grandstanding.
snakeman99 at May 16, 2011 11:25 AM
This is silly. Every pro-Sean post here is conflating his alimony and child support obligations.
No they arent, I havent and neither have most of the others who have posted more than once.
As to alimony, that is generally determined by an economic formula meant to provide for a formerly dependent spouse.
She wasnt dependant, she has a job, they BOTH worked while he went to school, and any dely to her reentry into the workfeild due to child number 3 is her fault for having an affair
Maybe he got jobbed here, maybe he didn't.
He did
As posted earlier, this was a long-term marriage.
So?
Perfectly reasonable to impose some alimony in those cases.
Except for two facts 1 - while he is still supposedly resopnsible to pay her upkeep, why isnt she responsible to still cook his meals and clean his clothes? 2 she broke the marrige contract and as such is not entitled to a severance package
how does one economically weigh subjective marital problems?
Simple, marital assest are divied equally, you have proof that one of the fundemental clauses of the marrige contract was broken, you dont have to pay alimony
Or as my old law prof used to say: hurt feelings do not a cause of action make.
Now if that were true divorce wouldnt exist, nor claims of "emotional" distress
Actually, yeah. Extra dough could improve the kid's life
With that reasoning why dont we take ALL of Seans money, and yours too - its for the children afterall
If Sean believes in his relationship with the kid, it should be able to survive a formal protest. Nothing there would prevent the two from continuing a relationship. In fact, ex-wife and Sean could contractually agree to still grant visitation to Sean.
Visitation orders from a COURT between bio dads and their kids are routinly ingored by mothers with no repercussions, what recourse would he have if he did contest paternity and waive his rights?
This whole situation is rife with opportunities to settle civilly that would have avoided Sean's grandstanding.
Seems to me people resort to grandstanding once civility has failed. And how exaclty does total capitulatin on his part and no concessions on her = settle?
lujlp at May 16, 2011 12:11 PM
Snakeman is right. This is grandstanding. He has forgotten that this is his children's mother, not just some adversary. Conan is right too - this kid, and maybe all his kids, will likely need therapy to deal with this.
It's a mess. Sadly, relationships can get real messy, but the people who rise above that, who put the past behind them - even when it may not be entirely fair to one or both of them - and do what is best for their kids are the ones that deserve respect. Sean is making this all about him, and how he was cheated on, but the environment he's creating, in which to co-parent, is toxic for the kids.
lovelysoul at May 16, 2011 12:15 PM
The thing is, as I said when this thread started, what he's fighting for isn't even what he's doing, so it makes no sense! If he didn't want to support the child, that would be valid. He'd have a legitimate case there. Trying to void their settlement agreement isn't valid though. These are two different things.
He's trying to have his cake and eat it too. Keep the kid, stay the father - not burden the bio dad with support, or even allow him any rights - but punish her for having the kid.
But the main person he is punishing is the kid. I guess I'm extra sensitive to this, given my gf's son's suicide, but really, if this kid winds up humilated, depressed, and suicidal, will Sean really feel good about what he's doing?
She offered to waive the child support for this child because it isn't his. Of course, he would have to waive parental rights to have that legally accomplished. But she offered. Isn't that what most men in his situation would wish for and the very cause he is fighting for about?
The kid deserves to have a father. Her pursuing the bio dad isn't wrong. After all, he is the kid's father. Is Sean trying to inhibit that relationship too?
It seems to me that this is all about vengeance. He's publicly shamed his ex-wife, the bio-father, and, unfortunately, the boy. This guy wins no parenting points in my book.
lovelysoul at May 16, 2011 12:40 PM
yeah, LS that is ONE way of looking at it... the other way is that he is reacting to things being done to him by her.
the essential question in this and many cases is: "do you roll over and allow a spear to be stuck into you, if it helps the kids?" How much blood can you afford when it happens over and over again?
There are a lot of parents out there that roll over in the onslaught of their ex, and do damaging things to themselves to protect the kid, but does it really protect the kid?
The other parent seldom stops once it is proven that they can get more if they punch harder.
So what does the kid get? No respect for either parent because one never stood up for themselves, and the other did their damndest to wreck-the-ex?
Interestingly, most kids I know in such situations, grow up to hate the parent that games the system, pretty much regardless if the other stands up for themselves or not.
SwissArmyD at May 16, 2011 12:49 PM
The thing is, as I said when this thread started, what he's fighting for isn't even what he's doing, so it makes no sense!
He's trying to get out of paying alimony and punish his ex-wife for having an affair.
And he wants to use the courts to punish her.
But, with no-fault divorce, the courts aren't in the business of punishing someone for breach of the "marriage contract."
To confuse matters further, his current wife is arguing child support laws, not alimony laws, in the article. So, the focus has become that he's paying for a child that's not his...which he's already said he's willing to do.
====================
Basically, he's trying to get a retroactive at-fault divorce in a no-fault state.
====================
His antics won't hurt his ex-wife a bit. The state will collect back child support and alimony. If the court declares the alimony award null because of infidelity, she simply goes to court and has his paternity revoked so she can sue the biological father for even more money (including back child support).
But they will hurt his "son" who has had his mother publicly labelled a slut, his dad outed as a complete nut job, and his emotional foundation ripped from under his feet.
====================
And, apart from some hopefully temporary insanity, it sounds like he has had one all his life.
The biological father knows about the kid (and has known for years), but wants nothing to do with him. How is hitting him up for child support going to give the boy a father.
Conan the Grammarian at May 16, 2011 1:09 PM
"the essential question in this and many cases is: "do you roll over and allow a spear to be stuck into you, if it helps the kids?" How much blood can you afford when it happens over and over again?"
The marriage is over. Both parties should have the relief of being out of a dysfunctional relationship. He's apparently moved on and has a new marriage. There's no reason for anybody to keep spilling blood over and over, least of all the kids.
And, yes, kids do suffer tremendously from this. How toxic is this environment right now? Not only is dad bashing mom, dragging her to court over and over, but new stepmommy is giving interviews about what a lying whore she was. Do you think they have a cordial, respectful co-parenting relationship at this point?
In my experience, many new spouses are so threatened by the old spouse that they can't stand to see their partner have a civil co-parenting relationship. They go out of their way to drive a wedge.
I can't know that's happening here, but to have stepmom running a website and giving interviews pretty much devoted to bashing the mother of these kids seems very inappropriate.
lovelysoul at May 16, 2011 1:23 PM
"The biological father knows about the kid (and has known for years), but wants nothing to do with him. How is hitting him up for child support going to give the boy a father."
Because it's a fact of life and finances that few people (especially men) can stand paying for something and getting nothing in return. Hardly any fathers will just write a check and not ultimately want to receive some sort of visitation or relationship with their child in return.
For guys, paternity is almost surreal without hard evidence. It's easy to ignore and avoid a child that you're not sure is yours. Hitting him up for support is one way of making the paternity very real.
Even my husband, who may, in fact, have a kid out there, is kind of in denial. It wouldn't be his kid unless it was legally declared his kid. But, right now, he's in that state of convincing himself it isn't possible (he was "careful", etc...and, hopefully, he's right).
This kid was determined not to be her husband's. But that doesn't mean the bio dad has actually taken a DNA test. Probably not. In his mind, maybe he still has doubts he's the father too. It's easy to be disinterested in a kid you have no idea is yours or not. Filing a paternity petition would prove it one way or the other.
Frankly, I think I would want that for my child over the kind of self-centered father he has right now.
lovelysoul at May 16, 2011 1:38 PM
There's no reason for anybody to keep spilling blood over and over, least of all the kids
I dont know, twenty grand a year after taxes, on top of the fifteen grand a year in child support, also after taxes, all to a woman who made at the very least the last third of their marrige a lie for no good reason?
Stories like this are why I'm never getting married.
You know, my mom only got a few hunndered a month from her ex for my younget brother. This guy is paying three times that in child support alone.
Why does anyone deserve $37,200 dollars a year tax free for defrauding a guy for almost 6yrs?
lujlp at May 16, 2011 1:48 PM
@lujlp - alimony is not tax-free.
As to the fairness of his alimony - well that was for the judge/jury to determine a while ago. If he can't afford it, he can go to court and get it adjusted.
My point is, Sean is being disingenuous to dispute his alimony now as some sort of protest against child support/parental fraud.
Its like going to traffic court and asking for an adoption. There is just no relation between the two.
snakeman99 at May 16, 2011 1:56 PM
Snake - he's not just protesting it now, he stopped paying once he found out for sure he wanst the father back in 2006 or 2007, it just that he's been jailed NOW, so the papers ran with the story.
lujlp at May 16, 2011 4:05 PM
Yes the bio=father knows this is his child and not Sean's!! The bio-father is a very prom. Dr Dr. Rammy S. Gold (neurosurgeon)in WV. He and his wife (yes he is and was married at the time the child was conceived) do not want anything to do with this. Child support is not the issue. Sean does not have nor has he ever had an issue with paying child support. The issue that is at hand is fraud. Tina committed an act of fraud when she broke their marriage contract and bore a child from that affair. Fraudulent activities such as committing adultery and deceiving the spouse for financial gain should not be rewarded. People can get on here and spew childish hateful comments but the facts speak for themselves. If fraud is committed in any other contract except the marriage contract the fraudulent party is penalized with fines and/or jail, they are not rewarded.
prettylady440 at May 21, 2011 2:39 AM
@ Amy. I do not know you and I do not want to.What your saying is about paternity. Listen the paternity has been settled. Sean believed this child was his for years without knowing of any cheating. Obviously there are good and bad times in marriage but once you say those vows it is a contract. That is the FRAUD that is being discussed. I dont know if you have a father, brother, son but how would you feel one day when they get married and after 19yrs he finds out his wife cheated and created a child that she has led him to believe was his. Now most men would walk right out but sean raised that child thinking it was his and he will continue to. But your saying that if this happened to your father,brother,or son that you would be ok with him having to pay the ex wife alimony for concieving a child with another man during the marriage. I agree people cheat and they seperate but she could have walked away with only child support which is more than enough instead she got greedy and wants more money for for sleeping around....so is she now a prostitute? they get rewarded for sex, aparently its ok for her to get paid to have sex then right because that is what she is doing! next time Amy gets your facts straight or get your head out of you ASS!
anonymous at May 21, 2011 9:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/15/man_insists_on.html#comment-2157549">comment from anonymousSorry, I'd like to respond but your writing is incomprehensible. The law is the law, and alimony is due under the law as it stands now.
What's rather disturbing is that in America, where we are all granted a free education and access to libraries, that you are so incapable of putting your thoughts together in a coherent manner. If I could understand what you were saying, I would respond.
Amy Alkon at May 21, 2011 10:12 AM
@ Lovelysoul ** I think he's petty and vindictive. His wife cheated. No, she didn't tell him that she cheated, but how many people do? She apparently stayed with him, probably regretting the affair.
Really?? lets get a few facts straight!!
1)She hind the pregnancy from Sean until he pointed out the changes in her body! She knew who she slept with she knew when she got pregnant.
2) She choose to put Sean on that Birth certif. She choose Sean to be the father of her child!
3) Sean has kept this quite for 6 yrs due to the Love he has for his children. I have never know someone with greater Love then Sean.
4) After Sean found out the child was not Biologically his(with DNA Proof)the only thing Sean refused to pay was ALIMONY not child support! Tina put the offer in for Sean to give up his rights to the child and ALL ALIMONY would go away! Really a mother putting a Child on the barganing table and offer to take the only father this child knows away from him!! And at the age of 4 Tina told the child that Sean was not his father and to call him Sean! You tell me what does that do to a child at the age of 4?? Tina wants to go after the bigger pocket (the Bio Father).
5) The Circuit Court ruled in Sean's favore and found Tina guilty on Fraud it is only the Family court (which is a lower court)that Sean is having a issue with because there are no Laws to protect MEN!
oh and lets not forget your comment about SHE WORK to put him through school!! That is the Biggest BS I have heard!!
Please know the truth before you speak!
Sean has worked full time his whole adult life and went to school full time Tina DID NOT PUT SEAN THROUGH SCHOOL. Sean's sister lived with them so they could save on day care during this time!
During their divorce did Sean offer Alimony YES but that was before he knew there was an AFFAIR before he knew his wife was in another mans bed before he knew the two (TINA & BIO FATHER)produced a CHILD
Once you have Proof of Paternity Fraud Alimony should stop!
West Virgina and the other 37 States need Laws changed. Sean was sentance on a 80 year old law women work now it takes most house holds 2 incomes. 80 years ago women stayed at home raised the children in todays world most work!
The $1300.00 Tina gets a month on Child support + her income from her job $35000.00-$50000.00 = $50000.00-$65000.00 a yr income and she wants another $1800.00 a month in Alimony = almost another $22000.00 a yr income all I can say is GREED money hungry. She has lived with the same man since her divorce so there is another income boy seems to me she is living on HOG HEAVEN!!
Naniof5 at May 22, 2011 6:32 AM
As for prenups -- what you're saying (ultimately)is that you don't trust your fiance, that you aren't committed, that you won't take the risk of the leap of faith that is a REAL marriage. Very well then, don't marry that person. You won't be really married anyway.
GTR at June 26, 2011 4:06 PM
my father has a buisness and a family we are adult children i would like to know if the law has been changed
Nathaneal Nolan at September 18, 2012 4:17 PM
Leave a comment