Mandatory Paternity Tests: For Or Against?
Sometimes, a father has an inkling that a child is not actually his, and sometimes he would rather not know because he wants to raise that child as his own.
Then there's the argument that a child has the right to know his biological father -- to know his origins, to develop a relationship with his father, and because it's important for knowing medical history.
And there's a great deal of paternity fraud -- where men are either not told they have a child or are forced to pay for one who is not theirs if they fail to meet terms of Kafkaesque bureaucracies, where they don't respond to a letter (that they sometimes never get) denying being the father of the child. Men have been, with some frequency, deemed to be fathers of children even when the DNA is not shown to match after they've been forced to pay child support for years.
Men's rights organization Fathers and Families is calling for making paternity tests "mandatory" in the headline in their email they just sent me -- and then "widespread" in the body of the email.
Where do you stand on mandatory paternity tests?
The "mandatory" part of it doesn't sit right with me. If a man wants to know, he can do it with a kit he buys at Walmart, can't he? Why should the government tell a man whether he's allowed to trust his wife?
The numbers I last saw on paternity fraud in the manosphere were distorted. They had stats showing that 25% of men who /request/ paternity tests turn out not to be the father, but it was promoted as "25% of all fathers are victims of paternity fraud." Obviously if you request a paternity test you already have a reason to be suspicious.
Insufficient Poison at March 8, 2013 6:56 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/03/mandatory-pater.html#comment-3635418">comment from Insufficient PoisonBehavioral ecologist Dr. Marlene Zuk, whom I respect scientifically, wrote in the LA Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/20/opinion/la-oe-zuk-paternity-20100620
Amy Alkon at March 8, 2013 7:03 AM
I'm against mandatory anything. WHat I would rather is if the "Fathers" were automatically offered it, as an option, without the mothers knowledge or consent.
I beleive many men have heard the numbes of false paternity, and would like to check. But societally, daring to question the mother is seen as an unforgivable sin, guaranteed to end with extreme fights and divorces galore.
Society seems to feel that the high rate of divorce, even with children, should be celebrated as long as it is because men are 'evil'. But potential disruption/divorce is unthinkable and cannot be allowed if it means women are 'evil'. Both circumstances are pushed by womens groups with the catch phrase think of the children.
Joe J at March 8, 2013 7:03 AM
Mandatory, no. Routine? Sure.
Not just to help out potentially duped fathers, but for mothers and kids. A friend of mine had a horrible mother in law who spent years telling her son that their middle child couldn't possibly be his because she looked nothing like him. Indeed she doesn't, she looks just like her mom. They were religious types who married at 16 and felt unable to cut a parent out of their lives, so instead they let this monster drive a wedge between daughter and father.
This was back before a paternity test was relatively cheap and easy to come by and even if it was they probably wouldn't have had it done, feeling that even having the test would fuel mama's fire. "If you are 100% sure she's yours why get the test?" If it was a routine part of the care of a new baby, it wouldn't be a big deal.
The Jingoist at March 8, 2013 7:14 AM
Making the test mandatory seems to play into the hands of authority-I have no doubt that it'll be misused.
But to make it law that it's allowed, and cheap, yes.
And then make the women who lied or didn't know pay all the back child support to the fellow who paid all those years. That sounds pretty good to me.
Wyowanderer at March 8, 2013 7:24 AM
I think it should be mandatory only in certain circumstances, say, if the woman is collecting AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children), getting EBT and health care benefits, and has more than 1 child and no legal husband. Or if the father is contesting that the child is actually his, then he should have the option. It's a tricky situation, to be sure. Sometimes you don't want to know. In my case, my ex-sister-in-law accused me of being disloyal to my ex when I was pregnant with #2. As it happened, I had to have an amniocentesis. Ex came along with me, and because I was having a really bad bout of edema as well, he offered to have a blood test and a paternity test, and we were able to prove his sister wrong. Which was very gratifying.
Flynne at March 8, 2013 7:26 AM
Mandatory? Maybe not. Opt out (where the test will be done unless you specifically decline) definitely.
The most egregious thing that shouldn't be allowed this day in age is having paternity assigned. If the father isn't there to sign off or opt out, the mother shouldn't be able to just say (without DNA proof) that it was XYZ person.
Andrew at March 8, 2013 7:42 AM
One should also be aware that the current DNA tests in standard use are not particularly accurate.
According to one of the companies that sells paternity tests, there is 1 chance in 100,000 that you could be incorrectly identified as the father of a child that is not actually yours. However, they are selling these tests. From neutral sources I have heard much worse figures, more in the range of 1 in 5000. Either way, the number are such that some number of people will be falsely told that the child is theirs.
What's far worse - and figures that are not readily available: There is a non-zero chance that you will be told the child is *not* yours, even though it is. This isn't the DNA's fault, of course, but is due to the way the test is evaluated; it is also possible for DNA samples to be contaminated or otherwise damaged. What does it mean for a father to be falsely told: your wife cheated on you, that's not your kid?
a_random_guy at March 8, 2013 7:47 AM
So who pays for all this mandatory testing? Insurance? Parents? The state? Just wondering.
If men don't trust their partners, they can pay to have the test done. I don't see why anyone else should pay because a man has potentially poor judgment.
And women being upset at their partners for asking for a paternity test isn't unreasonable. I was in labor for 50 hours and gave birth via unplanned c-section because of complications. If my husband had followed that up with a request for a paternity test, he'd have been lucky I was numb from the chest down.
MonicaP at March 8, 2013 8:21 AM
I'm with those who choke on the word "mandatory." Mandated by whom?
And now, a message to "Men's rights organization Fathers and Families"
That last part applies to women, too.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2013 8:25 AM
It should not be mandatory except in a situation where a woman names a man who is not her husband as the father in an effort to get child support. In that case, it should have to be proven.
The fact that a DNA test would be done should eliminate a lot of bogus claims.
Steamer at March 8, 2013 8:31 AM
I'm in favor of. The way I see it, nothing really to lose. If you aren't a whore you should know exactly who the father of your child is. And fathers, if they aren't men whores, should know exactly who they impregnated and approximately when.
As for cheaters, this would stop them in their tracks. 1 in 100,000 are pretty slim odds. Lotteries give better chances.
wtf at March 8, 2013 8:32 AM
As for cheaters, this would stop them in their tracks.
Nah. Women in the Middle East cheat under threat of stoning. It's a biological thing.
If you aren't a whore you should know exactly who the father of your child is. And fathers, if they aren't men whores, should know exactly who they impregnated and approximately when.
It's the TSA approach. If you aren't smuggling a bomb on board the plane, you shouldn't mind a hand up your ass.
MonicaP at March 8, 2013 8:40 AM
So who pays for all this mandatory testing? Insurance? Parents? The state? Just wondering.
My question exactly.
Kevin at March 8, 2013 8:40 AM
It should be routine and opt out for two very good reasons.
1. " If my husband had followed that up with a request for a paternity test, he'd have been lucky I was numb from the chest down. "
It needs to be routine so that men don't have to fear the wrath of their wives. If the wife wants to opt out, then that would be suspicious.
2. "If you don't trust a woman to tell you the truth about paternity, don't fuck her.
If you fuck her anyway, don't bother the rest of us with the consequences."
Not every man has an infallible built in lie detector like crid. A man's ability to detect falsehood in the woman he is in love with, should not be the deciding factor in determining whether he pays for for her lies.
Assholio at March 8, 2013 8:52 AM
What Crid said.
Janet C at March 8, 2013 8:54 AM
If the wife wants to opt out, then that would be suspicious.
Again, the TSA approach. It's not suspicious to not want outside intervention in your personal affairs. If men want paternity testing, they're going to have to risk the wrath of their partners. The state does not exist to help people be wusses about their personal affairs.
MonicaP at March 8, 2013 8:56 AM
Also, it bears saying that all women should oppose mandatory testing because they have absolutely nothing to gain by it.
>>The state does not exist to help people be wusses about their personal affairs.
Who are you kidding???
Also I love the,"Man you were stupid or a wuss so you deserve every shitty thing that happens to you because you believed a lie" attitude. It's like saying her skirt was too short and so she deserved to get gang raped.
Assholio at March 8, 2013 9:06 AM
Who are you kidding???>/i>
You think this should be the state's job? Please explain/.
"Man you were stupid or a wuss so you deserve every shitty thing that happens to you because you believed a lie" attitude.
Nope. Never said that. I just don't think the rest of us should have to pay for the mistakes of 1% of the population, not unless we're going to pass laws ensuring no one has to suffer painful conversations about other personal issues too. It sucks to think a kid is yours when it isn't. Please explain why the rest of us should pay for that, and have the state interfere in our own private matters to protect a small number of people from that pain.
MonicaP at March 8, 2013 9:21 AM
I'mafore it.
Seeing as how sterotypically the women have no problem burdening me with various invasions of privacy, mandating things for me.
Sauce for the goose and all that.
Though it is nice to hear the usual suspects who say "it's about FAIRNESS" suddenly turn into legal privacy experts.....
Unix-Jedi at March 8, 2013 9:24 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/03/mandatory-pater.html#comment-3635519">comment from MonicaPIt sucks to think a kid is yours when it isn't. Please explain why the rest of us should pay for that, and have the state interfere in our own private matters to protect a small number of people from that pain.
I'm totally with you on that.
But, here's a question that isn't being addressed: Does a kid have any right to know who his actual father is?
Amy Alkon at March 8, 2013 9:24 AM
(But, not being unreasonable, I'd relax "mandatory for all" and compromise with merely "When support is being mandated/regulated by the government".)
Unix-Jedi at March 8, 2013 9:26 AM
Monica:
If men want paternity testing, they're going to have to risk the wrath of their partners.
Why?
That doesn't logically follow, unless you're admitting that women have a vested interest in lying... There's no disadvantage to women who are honest about paternity, after all.
And if they do, then systemically, we should deny that advantage.
Unix-Jedi at March 8, 2013 9:28 AM
But, here's a question that isn't being addressed: Does a kid have any right to know who his actual father is?
Right as in government-protected right? No, I don't think so. That should be on parents' shoulders. I don't know who my biological father is. My bio mother was what I like to call "popular." She doesn't know either. I would prefer to know, but the rest of the country doesn't owe me that.
I think the negative consequences of mandatory paternity testing outweigh the potential positives of giving a child that information.
Seeing as how sterotypically the women have no problem burdening me with various invasions of privacy, mandating things for me.
Like what?
MonicaP at March 8, 2013 9:33 AM
Why?
Because couples have painful conversations about lots of things. I don't see why my insurance premiums or taxes should go up, or my family's privacy invaded, because 1% of men get duped.
There's no disadvantage to women who are honest about paternity, after all.
See above. Apart from the money, it allows the government to invade the privacy of people who never asked for the testing in the first place. That conversations about fidelity can be painful isn't my problem. It isn't the problem of the vast majority of Americans. 1% is not a social problem that needs to be resolved with law. If men want paternity testing, there is nothing stopping them from doing it themselves.
MonicaP at March 8, 2013 9:38 AM
I think the test should be required if there is a question of money and transferring from one person to another...
that is to say... if the state is going to be looking for money from someone, they gotta prove it's the RIGHT someone.
or is it too simplistic to think that needs to be established?
elsewise, I don't think it should be mandatory...
SwissArmyD at March 8, 2013 9:39 AM
Seems to me if a woman doesnt trust a man not to cheat on her she shouldnt get married, therefore you dont get a divorce.
Not quite the same, but similar.
The reason mens groups push for this is beacuse of unjust laws allowing women to name random strangers and have them pay child support
I'd suggest changing the laws that allow judges to assume or force paternity on men who are not the fathers, and the ones that force duped men into paying for kids that arent theirs
However after 20+ years they've made very little headway in that endevor, this is a fairly reasonable end run around those laws by forcing the issue of paternity recognition into the first few hours of a childs life thereby giving those men the legal window required to bail if they so choose
Had womens group not fought the change of such laws they would not now be in the position of having to claim they have nothing to hide or prove
lujlp at March 8, 2013 9:40 AM
From Jan. 2010:
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.
lenona at March 8, 2013 9:47 AM
I think the test should be required if there is a question of money and transferring from one person to another...
that is to say... if the state is going to be looking for money from someone, they gotta prove it's the RIGHT someone.
That's completely fair. No one should be burdened with the financial and emotional hardship of raising a child who isn't his if there are questions from the beginning.
MonicaP at March 8, 2013 9:49 AM
Check out the posting at Fathers and Families about the Michael Jordan case, and then check out the details of a different case (posted today):
"......That’s when the judge did a creative thing. First, he ruled that Parsons is no longer required to make child support payments for a child who’s not his, which is not unusual depending on the state in which the case is heard. But when it came to the past indebtedness, the judge was hamstrung by the Bradley Amendment. That’s the federal law that prohibits state judges from retroactively modifying child support orders. Once in place, those orders can only be altered prospectively. So Parsons still owes the $23,000 and the judge had no choice but to order him to keep paying. And so that’s what Parsons will do – for 1,917 years.
"That’s right, the judge ordered Parsons to repay what he owes at the rate of $1 per month, with no interest added on.
"And that’s what I like about the judge’s solution to the problem of how to fashion an order that complies with the law, but that also feels fair, i.e. doesn’t reward the mother for lying to the man (and the child and whoever the father is) for so long....."
(Franklin then goes on to suggest two ways to help men.)
lenona at March 8, 2013 10:01 AM
> A man's ability to detect falsehood in the woman
> he is in love with, should not be the deciding factor
> in determining whether he pays for for her lies.
This is childish, defensive, irresponsible, naive, and silly. The rest of the world made you no promises about love or anything else; We do not insure you for your errors of judgment, nor should we. But if we did, I'm quite certain your premium would be in arrears— When you think the "deciding factor" is a court of law rather than your own integrity, you're too young to get laid.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2013 10:03 AM
Paternity testing should only be required when it's a matter of child suppor or custody. Even, though, there should be limits. If a couple isn't married when the baby is born, there should be a window.of time for paternity to be established. In TX when a baby is born to an unmarried woman, no father can be named on the birth certificate unless.he signs it, and that's perfectly reasonable---no hysteria about women writing in Donald Trump or whatever. There ought to be a two year window.in which a father can either be added (because the mom filed for child support or the dad filed so he could have rights to his kid) or taken off because of a paternity test.If neither parent makes any move in that time, no calling backsies.You signed, just like an adoptive parent, and you are now committed regardless of biology, just like an adoptive parent.
While good parents should do whatever they can to get proper medical history for their kids, no, it's not a right to know your biodad's name and history. Or your biomom's for that matter.
Jenny Had A Chance at March 8, 2013 10:35 AM
There is a fundamental issue here that no one has yet addressed, that of the accuracy of government documents. Shouldn't they be accurate? Otherwise, what's the point of collecting the information? And if the mother lies about paternity, why isn't that a crime? It's a crime to lie to the FBI, so why isn't it a crime to lie to your state's vital statistics agency?
Of course, this begs the question as to why the government needs to issue birth certificates at all. Historically in Anglo societies, baptisms---and not births---were recorded at the local church. In a truly libertarian society, the government wouldn't keep track of individual citizens.
Tyler at March 8, 2013 10:45 AM
Wouldn't it be fun to live in a world of spotlessly indexed civic information collected by eager, inexpensive state employees?
That'd be great!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2013 10:50 AM
Tyler, go talk to anyone you know who was adopted at birth. His or her birth certificate will list the legal mother, not the biological one. This is accurate, because birth certificates are legal documents. Their purpose is to certify the legal identity of the person who was born,and who is legally obligated to him or her. They don't purport to be documents stating whose genes are present, they never have.
And I think you're confusing libertarianism with anarchy. We need birth certificates so that we know how old person is before we let them vote, join the military, drive a car, etc. We need this to be reliable and not dependent on whether the parents go to the right church, or any church.
Jenny Had A Chance at March 8, 2013 11:02 AM
Jenny, you're absolutely right about the status of the BC as a legal document. It never even occurred to me that someone would have no father or mother on their BC.
It does go to show, though, that the state doesn't really care about the truth and only about legal responsibility. But if that's the case, why would we even entertain this discussion of mandatory paternity testing?
Also, if the child has no legal right to the identity of their bio-parents, why do we record it at all?
Tyler at March 8, 2013 11:48 AM
"It's the TSA approach. If you aren't smuggling a bomb on board the plane, you shouldn't mind a hand up your ass."
Only in this case they'd only be going after people who are suspected for a good reason. How many people do you know who have children of questionable parentage? Most people wouldn't have reason to be concerned. Unless of course the next stop on the press tour is the Jerry Springer show.
wtf at March 8, 2013 12:21 PM
Ok a quick google search says that over a half million paterity test are done in the US, theyre are 4 million live births. Making 1/8 th of babies already being tested.
So if testers are saying 30% of that is not the father, that makes 1/8 x 30% or 4% the minimum of false ones.
As I said I'm against mandatory. but to answer a few other things posted.
Lenona. 1 Actually with everything else in the medical testing fieldwith increased numbers, coss drop, and become more accurate not less. Compared to the cost of pretty much everything else the hospital does and tests for during a birth (approximately 13,000) , the cost of this test is not that extreme.
A child has no right to know birth parents, however the kid does have the right to not be lied to.
@MonicaP. If he is the supposid father of the child, he should have every right to have a non invasive non damaging medical test performed on the child, without the Mothers involvement or consent, not her body, not her choice.
And as to history, hospitals have been complacent if not accesories in hiding, false paternity, when blood type groupings do not match.
Joe J at March 8, 2013 12:42 PM
Tyler,
The information about bioparents is recorded because they do have rights and obligations to the kid until they either waive those rights (usually through adoption,)or have those rights severed by a court. One way to waive your parental rights is to fail to claim those rights in a timely manner. Women typically are unable to waive their rights and obligations that way, for obvious reasons. A birth certificate with the biomom listed is made in nearly all cases because she is, at least for a short time, the obvious legal parent. In cases where a baby is surrendered at a safe haven, like a police station, within a certain window of time after birth, no bioparent information is recorded because the only obvious legal parent has just waived her rights by refusing to exercise them.
So basically we try and identify the biodad because he does have rights and obligations. He can accept those by signing a birth certificate, or he can be held to them by way of a court order or (with tge moms consent) he can waive them. If he waives them,he has no obligation to reveal his identity to the kid. Just like a mom who gives her baby up for adoption has no further obligation.
jenny had a cbance at March 8, 2013 12:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/sSM4IMX.jpg
Unix-Jedi at March 8, 2013 12:52 PM
WTF, no. Mandatory testing would be testing every baby, just like mandatory TSA screenings are for everyone.Testing for cases where there's a question makes sense.If the father doubts, let him get a test.
Jenny Had A Chance at March 8, 2013 12:59 PM
Mandatory is a Pandora's Box I hesitate to open.
However, I firmly believe that a father should have the right (but not the requirement) to verify paternity if he has doubts, and certainly before he is forced to pay mandatory child support.
That balances individual rights with government intrusion.
Trust at March 8, 2013 1:02 PM
Of course, the difficulty is that we've moved away from a strictly marital determination of paternity, ie. the mother's husband is the father. It is completely fair to put the onus on husbands to disprove paternity, as they're already voluntarily bound themselves to the mother by law.
But if the mother isn't married, who is the legal father? I've never understood how a woman can just name a man and put the onus on said man to disprove paternity. Does she even have to sign an affidavit? How can it be legally enforceable to name a man and have him declared the father? At least with a marriage, the man knows (or should know) that he's taking on a legal responisibility.
Tyler at March 8, 2013 1:09 PM
If a woman isn't married, her baby has no legal father until someone signs the birth certificate is otherwise named the legal father. If you sign, you are accepting the rights as a father, no backsies. If you don't sign, the mom can either leave it blank or file to have someone named. That person is contacted and summoned to court, or if the mom doesn't have contact info, public notices are posted.If he doesn't respond, the judge decides and then the onus is on the man to contest that decision.
Jenny Had A Chance at March 8, 2013 1:29 PM
@MonicaP. If he is the supposid father of the child, he should have every right to have a non invasive non damaging medical test performed on the child, without the Mothers involvement or consent, not her body, not her choice.
Yep. But I shouldn't have to pay for it. Let him get it done himself. It's the mandatory part I object to, not the testing part.
Only in this case they'd only be going after people who are suspected for a good reason.
Mandatory means everyone, not just sluts.
The government doesn'y care about the "truth" of genetics because the whole point of establishing parentage, from a legal perspective, is to figure out who is responsible for feeding and clothing the kid and paying the bill when he fires a baseball through a neighbor's window. How he grows up feeling about his genetics is not something our government should be involved in. Until recently, we didn't even have the means to sort that out.
A lot of our approach to birth certificates is related to secrecy about adoption. It doesn't matter whether you're adopted at birth or at 15: Your legal birth certificate will have your adoptive parents' names on it. This makes it difficult for people to track down birth parents who possibly don't want to be found, and for adoptive parents to maintain the fiction that they are the child's bio parents, if they so choose. I don't think there would be too many happy parents on either side of that aisle if we put both sets of parents' names on the paperwork.
MonicaP at March 8, 2013 1:42 PM
^ and possible for adoptive parents to maintain the fiction, I mean
MonicaP at March 8, 2013 1:44 PM
Thanks for your comments, Jenny, and patience with my dumb questions. The law isn't my area, obviously.
I still don't get how this makes any sense. I mean, I get it from the perpective of the state, at least from a political angle. A woman comes to the court for assistance in enforcing her child's right to support from both parents (which makes me wonder why the mother is allowed to give away her child's right to support from both parents) and legislators have decided that the court should help. Why alienate 51% of voters, after all? I also see that it's politically expedient to "make those deadbeat dads pay" and recoup the costs of social assistance instead of making the taxpayer foot the bill. I just don't see what right the state has to my DNA in the absense of probable cause. Although, I suppose in the minds of some women, not "manning-up" is a crime.
Are there any restrictions placed on determinations of paternity? Can a woman just keep going back to court until she gets a match? Is she sworn in? Does she have any legal resposibility to tell the truth to the judge?
Tyler at March 8, 2013 1:50 PM
If he doesn't respond, the judge decides and then the onus is on the man to contest that decision.
Slight correction
If he doesn't respond, the judge decides and then the onus is on the man to [fuck off, swallow hard, and understand that he will never overturn that] decision.
Anyone remember the name of the guy paying child support to the child's admitted bio dad as the mother abandoned her, he had his rights severed and the child is in the custody of her father?
lujlp at March 8, 2013 1:50 PM
"If he doesn't respond, the judge decides and then the onus is on the man to contest that decision."
I still don't get this. The judge makes a decision based on what, exactly? The woman's word? How does she have this kind of credibility? Or is this just rubber-stamped by the court?
Tyler at March 8, 2013 2:24 PM
It has to be mandatory to take the stigma out of it.As long as there is a Bradley amendment, as long as defrauded fathers cannot stop child support or stop owing debt on past child support, then yes, there should be mandatory testing.
And it's good for the kid as well to know his or her biological heritage.
If you don't trust a woman don't fuck her I'd truly stupid blaming judgmental ahistorical advice.
jerry at March 8, 2013 3:01 PM
Crid,
"If you don't trust a woman to tell you the truth about paternity, don't fuck her."
Who does that leave then?
Unix,
"If men want paternity testing, they're going to have to risk the wrath of their partners.
Why?
That doesn't logically follow, unless you're admitting that women have a vested interest in lying..."
Well the ones that do lie have a vested interest in dissuading their duped spouses from finding the truth out.
The answer here seems to be for men to have a little less concern for the wounded feelings of people who happen to be in a position to dupe them. As a general matter.
And in fact a woman who has nothing to hide on this score has nothing to fear from the results of the test and should not object. This is her hsuband's private matter, between him and his child, and that's that. In fact her oppsotiotiion would be grounds for suspicion. As for taking umbrage at his suspsicions of her - thought police much? She could stand to get some boundaries.
Jim at March 8, 2013 3:10 PM
It's like any other case where one party doesn't show up for court, they go by the evidence presented. The mom usually has to show that she does in fact know the alleged dad, and that she has attempted to have him served. So things like text messages, emails,and testimony from mutual friends helps a lot. The BIG deal that goes against alleged dads is evidence that he considers or did consider himself the dad. Texts or emails that reference "our baby" or family pictures would fit that. Judges can order moms to make more of an effort to find and properly serve the alleged dad,too, and then there's a new court date. Theoretically, a woman could keep going back til she finally gets someone,anyone,named as the dad. But that's unlikely; a lot of trouble stems from the fact that women often don't try at all til the welfare system forces them to. By then the kid could be ten years old and the judgment includes everything from the time he or she is born.Plus, the sort of marginal-life baby-mamas who procreate this way don't really have much incentive to track down the baby daddies. They get public aid either way, and court is a hassle. In order to get any money, you have to be able to find him, and anyone who could be found and knew he was definitely not the father would show up in court and take the paternity test. A woman who actually wants child support would be stupid to name a stranger.
Jenny Had A Chance at March 8, 2013 3:31 PM
How many of you would be offended if your wife demanded regular STD screenings just in case you were cheating? After all, if you've got nothing to hide, why should you be offended that your wife wants objective proof that you haven't picked up some deadly disease that could cost her not just money, but her very life?
Now, how many of you who actually don't cheat would be okay with submitting to mandatory STD screening just to "reduce the stigma" of askinr, so that those people who suspect their spouses of cheating don't have to grow the balls required to say "hey hon, I know we took a vow, but could you just prove one more time that you really meant it?"
Jenny Had A Chance at March 8, 2013 3:49 PM
"Nah. Women in the Middle East cheat under threat of stoning. It's a biological thing."
So. Are you claiming that cheating is as rampant in the Middle East?
Radwaste at March 8, 2013 3:50 PM
> Who does that leave then?
I don't understand your question.
I think men who need all this legal infrastructure to protect them from "liars!" before they even start a family should probably not start families.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2013 4:09 PM
God I love Crid. What are we, a bunch of stray cats? Jesus, just give these assholes to the polar bears, and let them sort it out. This isn't a question responsible people ever have to deal with.
Pirate Jo at March 8, 2013 4:31 PM
Mandatory? Why, for crying out loud, do so many people think the answer is always, "make it mandatory"?
As far as the kid has a right to know his/her father - says who? What about parents who die shortly after the child is born, or kids whose father dies before the mother gives birth? Are we suggesting that the kid has a right to know who his/her father is that we are denying their "rights" when the father dies in war before the kid is born? So, sue the government for sending fathers-to-be off to war!?
Life sucks; and yes, some kids are born to fucked-up parents. There are other rights more denied than the right to know who your father is. (such issues as being born addicted to crack because your mother was a crack whore comes to mind)
Charles at March 8, 2013 5:29 PM
@ Jenny "How many of you would be offended if your wife demanded regular STD screenings just in case you were cheating?"
Her asking me to get tested also points to her possibly being the cheater since it could hve come from her. But since having a baby is not a regular occurance but a rare and obvious thing it would be mmore a question of she has a burning sensation down there which could be a simple yeast infection or could be a STDs.
Considering that going by the CDCs numbers theres just over 1 million people with AIDS, which puts the odds at .3% ten times less than her conservative number.
@Tyler. Yep it's pretty much the judge decides. COuld be based just on her word/tertimony, Maybe some corroborating evidence, such as a picture of him, or of them together. Also you need to consider the entire sending him notice, often done through newspapers, which I'm not sure I know people who regularly read the paper, let alone legal notices in the back. One thing of note, The courts seem much better at finding him after a ruling, to get money than guarantee he got served in the first place.
Do women lie about it, occasionally, sometimes deliberately. But the court system is set up to ignore that possibility and never assume it's deliberate fraud, and stick it to that Deadbeat.
The sick cases are ones like she was his 30 something and he 13 yr old got raped, sorry kid, you and your parents are now on the hook, for 20 years, to pay your rapist.
Or she picks someone who can't show up, say somone now in Afghanistan. Army won't ship you stateside for a court case. Hell it may be a month after before he even hears about it. Because of cases like that, groups like Fathers + Families were able to get some laws changed, so now military have extra time. Not much just extra.
Joe J at March 8, 2013 6:14 PM
And the government would gain a nice, fairly complete DNA data base with mandatory testing. Law Enforcement will be highly in favor.
bmused at March 8, 2013 6:21 PM
With average cs payments at 430/month. A cs order is worth just shy of $100,000. Plenty of reason for either to lie about it.
Joe J at March 8, 2013 6:31 PM
When you think the "deciding factor" is a court of law rather than your own integrity, you're too young to get laid.
Does this apply to the rest of life Crid? So if you get food poisoning you just say "if I was responsible, I wouldn't have eaten at that restaurant"? Courts are there for a reason, to sort this shit out. It's going to happen. I'm glad you're so infallible you feel you'll never need protection of any kind.
I'm with all those who said testing should only be mandatory "at point of sale" so to speak (unless the man waives it). When someone is demanding money, it's time to stump up some proof. And, no, it shouldn't matter whether the purported dad signed the birth certificate. Nice middle class wives have affairs too, believe it or not.
Ltw at March 8, 2013 6:33 PM
I think men who need all this legal infrastructure to protect them from "liars!" before they even start a family should probably not start families.
What on earth are you on about? The legal infrastructure is already there, and it's set up to protect the interests of the child - part of which means finding a father to be on the hook, no matter how arbitrarily selected. Men are *complaining* about the legal protections, not asking for them.
We could always turn this around and say if a woman doesn't trust a man to wander off, she shouldn't fuck him - because of her integrity. Child support? You had a one night stand, or a casual relationship, forget it. That doesn't happen to responsible people.
Ltw at March 8, 2013 6:46 PM
Funny isnt it? In any other court proceeding criminal or civil, you have to have the person actually there, or concrete proof they've been served in a civil proceeding. Hell even a $40 dollar photo radar ticket has to be served.
But to take hunndereds of thousands of someone elses labor you just have to take out a 2in classified ad in a paper no one reads.
I can never find it, so it may have been a blog post and not a news article, but back when they were collecting samples for the human genome project I recall reading something claiming preliminary results had a side showing of a paternity fraud rate of 20%.
lujlp at March 8, 2013 7:05 PM
I don't think it should be mandatory for everyone.
However, if you want the State to be involved at all, like when you want a State issued birth certificate listing the parents, or issuing a State ordered judgement of child support, or receiving State granted welfare, then damn right the State should mandate paternity tests in those cases in order to ensure the correct people are identified with regard to their benefits and responsibilities.
Kind of like the same reason we provide public defenders. It's in the interest of Justice.
As for who pays for it? That tab goes to whoever pays for the delivery, whether it be the individuals in question, thier insurance, or the State depending on circumstances and the laws of the State they reside in.
Azenogoth at March 8, 2013 7:10 PM
Luj, judgments are entered against no-show debtors pretty regularly.
Jenny Had A Chance at March 8, 2013 7:24 PM
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2013 8:25 AM
This.
feebie at March 8, 2013 7:49 PM
First off -- all of this is based off of specious arguments with no true evidence.
What needs to happen before a single law is passed is to find a baseline. A study should be done from multiple hospitals that determines what is the rate of false paternity in couples. Discreetly asked questions to the mother whether the "father" knows the child is not his, a la Heart, or not.
The father, in a marriage, is by default the father, even back to English common law. I'd say a 3-6 month backsies at most.
Now as far as paternity named for CPS/Welfare benefits. That should be habeas corpus procedure. California has numerous cases where they have sent a letter to a "non-existent" address, old or wrong person. Then they name him as the father and he is on the hook for child support for current and back years.
There was a case that the case-worker said call in and protest every day. On day 11 the judge declared him a father and started the process to take his money. What he really needed to do was get a lawyer and protest it. The case worker lied to him and was finally sanctioned something like three years later.
Jim P. at March 8, 2013 9:13 PM
> Men are *complaining* about the legal
> protections, not asking for them.
Perhaps I misunderstood when Amy named her blog item "Mandatory Paternity Tests: For Or Against?" It just felt like she was inviting comment on a proposal for new regulation.
See also:
> A man's ability to detect falsehood in the
> woman he is in love with, should not be the
> deciding factor in determining whether
> he pays for for her lies.
After careful linguistic decoding, I would categorize that not as a plea for independence, but as a desperate cry for help. A childish one. A 'fraidy-cat one. (And a cheap one.)
More than that, it's just wrong-headed. I think "a man's ability to detect falsehood" is something he should strive to perfect over the course of his life, in matters of the heart and every other context. And by golly, nature has graciously provided this very context to hone his insight... Its high stakes cannot be lowered by fiat.
He should develop this backbone and clarity rather than demanding —even before the challenge, like some twitching, terrified schoolboy– that the rest of us relieve him of the need to deploy his own judgment.
Because Buttercup, I do not care whether or not you are "in love." If you can't trust your feelings, don't. Either way, leave me and my courts out of it.
> The legal infrastructure is already there
First time I've heard that merely having a legal system encourages, or should encourage, malfeasance. The courts aren't maintained in a spirit of playful experimentation: I'd much rather have them fall off the budget from disuse. (But by the way, those are American courts, and they're really none of your beeswax, Little Miss Tasmania.)
> you just say "if I was responsible, I wouldn't
> have eaten at that restaurant"?
A theme of infantilization continues: You want to reduce life's most important bonds —and most importantly chosen one— to a commercial transaction... With warranties, weekend newspaper coupon deals, and as much government regulation as you can get.
I'm going the other way on this, the fleshy and personal way, in the direction that encourages the growth of the whole culture through individual strength and decency rather than government command of timid, insensate personal lives. (This may be an American thing, so we'll all understand if you, being from New Zealand, need extra time to read this again and think it over.)
Modern life is better, Western life especially, because we ask MORE of individuals, not less... More literacy, more training, more work, more patience, more financial foresight, and more sexual & romantic fortitude... And the payoff has been grand.
If you feel really strongly about this, there are vast swaths of our planet where helpful authorities take a very strong interest in your mate selection.
Perhaps you should be visiting a blog from one of those nations.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2013 11:22 PM
" If you can't trust your feelings, don't"
Exactly.
Most of the time cheaters will let it be known they cheat, especially and I mean ESPECIALLY women who cheat. Don't you have level headed female friends who warn you of stupid shit coming your way anyways?
My stepsister told me something along the lines of oh babies just happen, nobody plans them. I blew her mind when I told her my happiest, sanest, and favorite friends all planed them with well established and ethical partners.
You're in love, well I'm in love with cars and I don't go around signing contracts for one I can't afford. Don't let your cum come inside of something you need me to make mandatory laws for.
Finding a woman who doesn't cheat, and having babies with her is not rocket science. Most men do it.
Ppen at March 9, 2013 1:32 AM
"It has to be mandatory to take the stigma out of it.As long as there is a Bradley amendment, as long as defrauded fathers cannot stop child support or stop owing debt on past child support, then yes, there should be mandatory testing."
So it's more about revenge. Got it.
Ppen at March 9, 2013 1:39 AM
"A theme of infantilization continues: You want to reduce life's most important bonds —and most importantly chosen one— to a commercial transaction... With warranties, weekend newspaper coupon deals, and as much government regulation as you can get.
I'm going the other way on this, the fleshy and personal way, in the direction that encourages the growth of the whole culture through individual strength and decency rather than government command of timid, insensate personal lives. (This may be an American thing, so we'll all understand if you, being from New Zealand, need extra time to read this again and think it over.)
Modern life is better, Western life especially, because we ask MORE of individuals, not less... More literacy, more training, more work, more patience, more financial foresight, and more sexual & romantic fortitude... And the payoff has been grand.
If you feel really strongly about this, there are vast swaths of our planet where helpful authorities take a very strong interest in your mate selection."
Wow. Beautifully said. I envy your talent for expression.
Lizzie at March 9, 2013 6:49 AM
When in doubt, make shit up.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 7:06 AM
Everybody can do that. You possess something much rarer. I hope you write in more places than this blog.
Lizzie at March 9, 2013 7:38 AM
While reading this blog I asked my husband if he wanted to get our youngest son's DNA tested. He said he said, "Hell no. Why?"
I guess that he had forgotten all the questions we got about our pink skinned, red-headed boy. One acquaintance started screaming at me during a church event, "That's not Jeff's son - he doesn't look anything like him! How can you just parade him around?"
My husband laughed and talked about the red head that was getting around and knocking so many people up. My sister also had a red-head.
Well, I am against mandatory testing and I would have been offended if my husband had asked for it. I can certainly see use for it in the court system.
I guess the first step is mandatory testing while the second step is carrying around those papers to prove to the skeptical that your husband did indeed father your children. After all, if I don't have anything to hide, why wouldn't I be happy to carry those papers?
Jen at March 9, 2013 8:32 AM
The case worker lied to him and was finally sanctioned something like three years later.
Posted by: Jim P.
Sanctioned, not fired, and he still has to pay
lujlp at March 9, 2013 9:07 AM
Also crid, as usual, misses the point.
These defrauded guys would be happy to have the courts out of their lives. The point is the courts are already there and, in their opinion, biased towards women
lujlp at March 9, 2013 9:09 AM
And another thing
(But by the way, those are American courts, and they're really none of your beeswax, Little Miss Tasmania.)
The way I see it, as america constantly tells other countires how to run their courts and pass certain laws as part of treaty and aid negotiations, until such time as we dont, how america operates its own systems is everyones business
lujlp at March 9, 2013 9:12 AM
Monica and Jennifer;
We already do how many tests on newborn children as a matter of course? To do these tests it is necessary to draw a bit of blood. Why not do a paternity test as a matter of course while testing bilirubin levels? Then only those who request to would see the results. Test them all, but only reveal if there is a request for it. No fuss, no muss.
I still don't see why parents would be concerned if they know who they're sleeping with. Pirate Jo said it best....responsible people never have to worry about this. And since we're talking about a child, I think the child's right to genetic information and the father's right to know his child (or not) outweighs the mother's right to privacy.
wtf at March 9, 2013 10:13 AM
So. Are you claiming that cheating is as rampant in the Middle East?
Where did I say that?
MonicaP at March 9, 2013 10:50 AM
>>This is childish, defensive, irresponsible, naive, and silly. The rest of the world made you no promises about love or anything else; We do not insure you for your errors of judgment, nor should we.
Ah crid what a great scam artist you are. Justifying every act of fraud there ever was because the world made me no promises. Do you sell bridges as a side job?
Assholio at March 9, 2013 11:03 AM
Why not do a paternity test as a matter of course while testing bilirubin levels?
Those are for health reasons. And they cost money. No one has answered the question of who pays for this. It's not like the lab just throws another drop of blood into the blood-o-rama and out pops the answer. I think that solution might be even worse: The state knows who the baby daddy is even if you don't.
I still don't see why parents would be concerned if they know who they're sleeping with.
Answered already. The government is up in our business enough already. It not about the mother's right to privacy. She doesn't have one here. The father can go get a test if he wants one. We don't need to pay for it or have our privacy invaded over it.
There seems to be this belief that men are regularly getting screwed paying for kids who aren't theirs. They aren't. 1% is not a social problem I feel compelled to create law over. And of that 1%, there are bound to be men who don't want to know. Why do we need to force them to know?
MonicaP at March 9, 2013 11:09 AM
Honestly, let's just go straight to the heart of the matter. Forget the testing, and make paternity fraud a crime just like any other type of fraud. With prison time and penalties commensurate with the financial scope of the crime. Stop codling these evil criminals.
As for the children, sorry kid that's what happens when you break the law. If she were selling drugs it would be no different.
Assholio at March 9, 2013 11:15 AM
Forget the testing, and make paternity fraud a crime just like any other type of fraud. With prison time and penalties commensurate with the financial scope of the crime.
I agree. Just one problem: You'd need to prove she was lying rather than just wrong, which is hard to do.
MonicaP at March 9, 2013 11:18 AM
Ahem I meant "coddling" I don't think were treating them like little fish.
Assholio at March 9, 2013 11:18 AM
>> You'd need to prove she was lying rather than just wrong
You could say that failure to admit that there was more than one possible father at birth is proof of guilt. And admitting such at birth is proof of innocence.
Assholio at March 9, 2013 11:24 AM
"outweighs the mother's right to privacy."
Let's sacrifice privacy because some men might get cheated some of the time.
MonicaP is right. You guys have this weird agenda that paternity fraud is common among everybody and that women constantly are scheming to screw you over. You guys sound just like women who think all men are the problem. You know the type right? Bitching about how men deceive to get sex and never take care of their kids.
If you doubt paternity you pay for it on your own dime. There is no reason for it to be mandatory. The majority of men are sure of the paternity or DON'T CARE.
You guys sound just like those Muslim men that think all women are inherently whores trying to tempt & screw men over.
We are not. Stop fucking crazy broads.
Ppen at March 9, 2013 11:29 AM
And admitting such at birth is proof of innocence.
Legally, there's no such thing as innocence. There's "not guilty." A fine but important distinction. And that fact that there's more than one potential father doesn't absolve them all. Somebody has to be the baby daddy.
I don't object to paternity fraud being illegal; it's just damn hard to prove.
MonicaP at March 9, 2013 11:35 AM
Stop fucking crazy broads.
Advice winner.
MonicaP at March 9, 2013 11:41 AM
"Pirate Jo said it best....responsible people never have to worry about this"
Because making things mandatory never crosses their minds, responsible people make responsible choices that don't need out intervention AT ALL. And they resent any intrusion on their privacy simply because you fucks don't know how to live responsibly.
Should I make mandatory laws on the fact you have to make a certain amount of money to get pregnant? What about forcing a contraception shot if you don't?
Ppen at March 9, 2013 11:42 AM
"Advice winner."
MonicaP to me it sounds like these men have had bad relationships were women used them, think it's normal and want our legal protection.
Ppen at March 9, 2013 11:48 AM
Babies are tested for PKU and have their bilirubin levels monitored because that's part of the baby's medical care. The doctor and hospital need to know whether a baby has jaundice or PKU, so the doctor and hospital test for those. The doctor and hospital don't need to know who's going to pay child support, if anyone, so why on earth would they routinely test for it?
Furthermore, the current routine testing of newborns takes samples only from the newborn...you know, the patient.Daddy is not the patient, and frequently not even at the hospital, either because he doesn't care to be, doesn't know, or just can't be. What happens when the wife of a deployed soldier gives birth, as happens quite a bit? Even though he trusts his wife and has a damn good reason to not be available for cheek scraping, he can't be listed as the father? What if this soldier never makes it home? Sorry, Susie, no survivors benefits for you. Or maybe Susie can have the benefits her Dad wanted her to have---if her mom runs round and gets DNA from Dads parents (if they're alive, and decent,which not all parents are) or siblings (if he had any, and they deign to help) and appeals to the VA. But, hey who cares about that hassle? It's much more important that we protect men from the dreaded stigma of asking for a paternity test on their own.
The thing I have always found most wretched about modern feminism is the way it treats women like children incapable of handling their own shit. The other hateful thing about is the way it portrays men as violent/sexist til proven innocent and even then, still not totally trustworthy. This sort of proposal from mens rights groups hits the same awful notes. Guys, if you suspect you may have been cheated on, that's between you and your wife and the mailman. Deal with it between those parties. Don't involve the rest of us, and our insurance carriers, mmkay?
Just like most men are not domestic abusers,and thus don't need to be "evaluated" before marriage or before being granted visitation with their kids, most women are not lying horrible sluts who need to be cleared of fraud immediately after giving birth.
If you want to be totally sure, there are ways you can handle this yourself like big boys. Don't get married,and refuse to sign the birth certificate of any child for whom you haven't taken a DNA test. There. Now, this doesn't protect you from that fabulous red herring,the case where a crazy lady spits your name at random to her welfare case worker. But neither does the proposed mandatory dna testing, unless you really truly think that those crazy welfare ladies usually give birth accompanied by the father...who I guess, takes pictures, fetches ice chips,and then doesn't sign the birth certificate?
Jenny Had A Chance at March 9, 2013 11:51 AM
it sounds like these men have had bad relationships were women used them, think it's normal and want our legal protection.
And they spend too much time on the Internet. You spend enough time on ThatBitchDoneMeWrong.com and every woman looks like a bitch ready to do you wrong.
(ThatBitchDoneMeWrong.com isn't a real URL. On the bright side, the domain is available!)
MonicaP at March 9, 2013 11:52 AM
MonicaP - you actually had me looking for ThatBitchDoneMeWrong.com. That would be a funny site, now wouldn't it.
Charles at March 9, 2013 12:17 PM
Wtf wtf? You are saying that Everyone should have a paternity test in the hospital because Some people may want to find out the results. If that person wants to discover paternity why can't they put a cotton swab in the babies mouth and test for it? Why should I pay for the test?
If I remember correctly, I was charged about $20 for a small box of tissue. It would cost a fortune - and why?
Jen at March 9, 2013 1:04 PM
it sounds like these men have had bad relationships were women used them, think it's normal and want our legal protection.
They have, they do, on number three is gets a bit complicated.
Most would rather the courts would follow crid's notion and stay out entirely, but support these assine things simply to highlight how the courts are already assinine on the side of women, the second largest group, and most vocal are the equivelent of gender feminists and want to blame women for everything
lujlp at March 9, 2013 1:36 PM
but support these assine things simply to highlight how the courts are already assinine on the side of women, the second largest group, and most vocal are the equivelent of gender feminists and want to blame women for everything
The answer is here to make courts stop being asinine in favor of women, where that does happens, not to make them more asinine in favor of a desperately small minority of men in order to even things out.
My observation has been that most court rulings are an attempt to protect children. Since women are usually the primary caregivers of children, this ends up giving women an advantage. This trend is reversing as more men are splitting custody 50/50 or becoming primary caregivers themselves.
MonicaP at March 9, 2013 2:05 PM
> You guys have this weird agenda that
> paternity fraud is common among everybody
> and that women constantly are scheming
> to screw you over.
There's a tiny bloc of commenters who're supporting this. I believe they're all men with developmental problems... Not necessarily illness, but adults without the capacity to deal with the world on the world's terms. (Like this guy, only without his candlepower for world-class physics research.)
As you breeze through these comments in support of testing, consider this list of people whose needs are not mentioned:
For the men who support this, there's only one party who matters: The aggrieved male, with whom they identify in such pitiable rapture... Essentially, themselves. These guys know they're wounded.Lujookilupee taunts others for missing the point, then instantly returns a laser focus to this nightmare fantasy figure: "These defrauded guys," and none of the more competent or deserving parties (#1 thru #7, above). Resentments can't be set aside for even ten seconds, and they detonate with blinding glare: To encourage mature relationships is "Justifying every act of fraud there ever was because the world made me no promises."
Every act of fraud there ever was.
It's difficult to imagine the constrained, frosty upbringing would give a person such a short and dark horizon for interpersonal connection.
Kinda difficult to care, too, when they're snotty about it. (Paradox!, right?)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 3:00 PM
Scary!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 3:14 PM
Lujookilupee taunts others for missing the point, the en instantly returns a laser focus to this nightmare fantasy figure: "These defrauded guys," and none of the more competent or deserving parties (#1 thru #7, above).
Not everyone missed the point crid, as for the defrauded guys - they are the ones pushing the agenda, is it really so suprising they'd be mentioned.
And who are they more deserving parties 1 - 7 over the victims of fraud? If you say kids, keep in mind they are just as deserving of your cash as some other random male
lujlp at March 9, 2013 3:33 PM
Perhaps you should be visiting a blog from one of those nations.
And yet again Crid bans me from commenting for the crime of not being American. Sorry, that's not your call. I'll agree I have no vote in this, no direct interest, no influence apart from my arguments. But as long as this blog is published in my country, and Amy doesn't block me, I'll feel free to provide my opinion. We have a similar legal system and similar issues, so it matters to me too. Live with it. I don't need your approval.
By the way, you've misattributed a few quotes in this thread. You might want to work less on your (admittedly well-written) cheap abuse and more your accuracy.
Ltw at March 9, 2013 3:43 PM
Again -- this is a case of putting the cart before the horse; or a solution in search of a problem.
Let's get some essentially unbiased numbers. The best way is to test for paternity for six months or a 100K births and the results become a baseline. This could be a PH.D. study for some doctorate student.
Making a new law without facts is foolish.
Modifying the current child support laws to be a habeas corpus. A positive defense is a genetic test. Basically a judge cannot award child support in absentia. Real simple.
Jim P. at March 9, 2013 3:45 PM
Jen's husband, who's done the thoughtful work to earn the love of —and feel the trust for— a good woman, is more "deserving" than a paranoid goof. There are a lot more thoughtful men than paranoid goofs out there, and they needn't be pestered with suspicion-inducing regulation.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 3:46 PM
> you've misattributed a few quotes in this thread.
Naw, I'm tidy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 3:48 PM
> bans me from commenting
&
> every act of fraud there ever was
Grandiosity may be theme here.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 3:55 PM
Wow. Beautifully said. I envy your talent for expression
Lizzie, do you admire his talent for putting words in other people's mouths and ignoring or dismissing anything that doesn't fit his small minded, blinkered viewpoint too? Good writing does not mean a good argument.
Ltw at March 9, 2013 3:57 PM
Child support should only be awarded after a DNA test confirms or refutes paternity.
The cost of doing it for every live hospital birth would be far to high.
However when a marriage ends, and a request for child support is made, testing should be done at that time to ensure that the wrong man is not put on the hook.
If the child is found NOT to be the named father, then a lopsided settlement should favor him as the long term wronged party, while in return she should be able to name each potential father to have them tested, then and only then should she be awarded child support, based on a percentage of his monthly income, on a sliding scale of what he makes. If he's making half a million a year, a higher percentage is awarded, while if he's making 20k per year, a lower percentage is awarded. During times of unemployment (not counting self employment) no support is owed as he has no income to provide.
Part of the problem with the support system is when a man loses his job, or finds one at a substantially lower salary after losing it, his obligation remains unchanged, regardless if it leaves him with nothing to live on.
We need a rational system:
1. Testing at the cost of the public dime makes no sense, since the nation at large has no special interest in the subject of paternity.
2. Testing as part of the routine process of care would increase the cost of care to the public, who again, has no specific interest in paternity determination.
3. While a child has a "right to know" that right is the responsibility of the parents to fulfill, not the state or the federal government, and not of the public at large.
However, the public's interest does lie in matters pertaining to the courts, to ensure justice is dispensed properly, and in this arena paternity testing should be required before assigning child support and determining the division of household property.
By restricting it to the time in which a marital contract is being disolved, we minimize the cost and the burden of the (relatively minor expense for a single test) is placed upon the parties that are already making use of publicly provided resources (the court system) and are asking for public awards of private resources from former partners.
In this way we have a noninvasive system that ensures that only the party "disruptive" to the marriage pays a price for their actions.
The way I see it, there is no real downside to this way of doing things.
Robert at March 9, 2013 4:12 PM
Grandiosity may be theme here.
Well, you'd be the expert there. Then again, what do I expect from a Canadian?
Ltw at March 9, 2013 4:12 PM
"During times of unemployment"
Whoever has the children doesn't get to stop feeding/ housing them simply because they themselves are unemployed.
You still owe the money when you are unemployed because you are paying for the kids to live. Last time I checked kids cost money all the time.
I don't get to skip on my debts when I ain't got money.
Ppen at March 9, 2013 4:40 PM
"Lizzie, do you admire his talent for putting words in other people's mouths and ignoring or dismissing anything that doesn't fit his small minded, blinkered viewpoint too? Good writing does not mean a good argument."
I find his viewpoint anything but small minded or blinkered, so I can't answer your question. Far from putting words in other people's mouths or ignoring/dismissing their words, I think he's seeing a horizon that escapes them. His writing is so good in part because it so magnificently makes his argument.
Thanks for using "blinkered", though. It's a fond reminder of time spent in England.
Lizzie at March 9, 2013 5:59 PM
Whoever has the children doesn't get to stop feeding/ housing them simply because they themselves are unemployed.
You still owe the money when you are unemployed because you are paying for the kids to live. Last time I checked kids cost money all the time.
I don't get to skip on my debts when I ain't got money. -Ppen
And yet a man who is married does get to decide to buy less, skip buying certian items, and wont be thrown in jail for it
lujlp at March 9, 2013 6:23 PM
Robert, you think unemployed parents shouldn't have to pay child support? Who should pay for the kid to eat while the father is unemployed? What if he marries again and becomes a stay at home dad, never earning another paycheck til the older kids are grown?
And why penalize the high-earning dads, and the children of low earning men? Why should a guy who makes 20K get to keep a higher percentage of his income? In the real world, getting a good job means that a lower percentage of your income is necessary for supporting your kid(s).
Personally, I'm unsure about using the dads income as a metric at all. When reasonable adults divorce, they figure out the terms on their own and it doesn't always mean X percentage of dads income. But when the court must, I think it would make much more sense to figure out how much the kid actually needs (insurance premiums,daycare, clothes, transportation,and a portion of housing and utilities) in a year and go from there. A dad (or mom) who has the kids only rarely or not at all should pay a larger percentage of this number, because he/she is doing less of the actual child care. As the child gets older, the amount of time spent will matter less, as the child care is less of a consideration. The advantage to this system is that there won't be quite as much incentive to "oops"a rich guy for child support, and will encourage both parents to support their kids both financially and through actually parenting. The disadvantages do suck---the state might use crazy numbers that don't account for fluctuating rent,a kid could grow up knowing that his gazillionaire dad pays as little as the state will let him, while his half siblings get to share the dads lifestyle. But that's life.
Also, the problem isn't with default judgments themselves. We should make it easier for men who aren't the dad to get a default judgment vacated once they take a paternity test. But you can't just send the message "hey, if you don't show up, you don't owe any money! Make all the babies you want!" Family court needs default judgment just like civil court.
Jenny Had A Chance at March 9, 2013 6:57 PM
Blinkered lorries for hire with a packet of crisps on the telly under a brollie on holiday with pudding. If I ever go to London, which is in England, I'll be photographed sitting on the pink kerbstone with a bottled water, here.
But that's just the kind of guy I am.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 7:04 PM
Jenny's argument calls to mind, as so many sincere arguments on this blog do, this internet classic.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 7:08 PM
Luj, what on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that married men don't go to jail if their kids don't have food or medicine or shoes? Because that would be both wrong and irrelevant. Kids don't stop needing support when their parent is unemployed. Even if the mom can pay all the kids expenses while dad is out of wor, he should still pay her back (just his portion, of course, because she's responsible for the kid, too,) when he is employed again.
Jenny Had A Chance at March 9, 2013 7:12 PM
Christ, I'd forgotten how great this blog post really is. It contends with Lisanti Bunsen's How to Talk to Your Kids About the Paris Hilton Video for best blog work of all time. Does science have a better phrase than "a psychological basis for female propellant psychosexual manipulation of the male as a natural consequence"?
No. No it does not. Also, we see Kate Moss' vulva under the finest illumination it shall ever know.
Also, here's a view of the fake water pump, the one for tourists, a half-block from Snow's pub.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 8:02 PM
Also: "These theories stress how keeping a man around saved the human species from extinction."
Checkmate, weasels.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 8:06 PM
Jim P. at March 9, 2013 8:14 PM
Ppen, lemme ask you this:
How do you pay support when you have no money?
Its not a "doesn't get to" situation, its a matter of "CAN'T".
If you can't do basic math, then do shut up.
I didn't think it was possible for someone to hold an opinion that had literally 0 merits and 100% stupidity.
-------------
Jenny: "shouldn't" and "can't" are not the same thing. If you have no job, if you have no income, you have no money to pay. If he never collects another paycheck, how would you collect payment? There is no system of laws you can justly put into place that can imprison a person for the crime of not having income. We got rid of debtors prisons a long time ago for a reason, sure I get the "welfare of the child" concerns, but when you start throwing people in jail for losing their job, the "welfare of the child" becomes a matter of, "Do we want them growing up in a system where joblessness is a potential crime?"
The fact is that you can't legislate every unpleasant situation, without frequently making things much much worse.
I would add that I would not allow those who simply "quit" their jobs to drop their obligations. Fuck those guys. But no reason to punish a person whose company goes under or downsizes etc. In the real world, children face consequences when parents lose their jobs, making the parent a criminal because of a court decree doesn't help anyone.
And as to the latter, its not so much that the higher earning dads are being penalized, as it is that the lower income earners are not being punished for earning less. By providing a sliding scale based on income, adjusted with each month's income, you ensure that fathers whose income varies from high to low (such as sales workers on commission) are not penalized during low periods, and can do more during high periods.
I don't agree with default judgements, frankly if someone does not appear for court then a bench warrant should be issued for them to compel their appearance.
------------
"This is not the common law standard"
Common law predates the possibility for blood/dna testing.
Time to change the law to reflect the changes in technology that provide definitive proof.
"You're still on the hook" if you call that justice, I call your opinion functionally retarded. There is no basis for justice in your assertion. Its so bad it doesn't even merit an answer.
Robert at March 10, 2013 12:09 PM
No, you are refusing to acknowledge emotional realities. If you have been the father for a child for five, seven, eight or more years without complaint, then all of a sudden you were to step away like they never existed you are a damaged person. And the kid will probably be damaged as well.
Then the other side is how is it justice, if you can find the bio father 8 years later, to say bio dad you are on the hook for child support for the past 8 years and on a going forward basis out of the blue.
That is twice as fucked up.
Jim P. at March 10, 2013 12:46 PM
"For."
I want a birth certificate to be a record of scientific fact, not a legal fiction.
Michelle at March 10, 2013 2:43 PM
> I want a birth certificate to be a record
> of scientific fact, not a legal fiction.
In the cases most titillating to the commenters here, such a record would note only that a particular man wasn't the father, leaving approximately 3,500,000,000 "fictions" unexplored... For every baby born today.
The kind of "science" you seek is much more easily performed at conception. I presume you'd be against "certification" in that context.
I think people in this thread are getting cranked about two different things: Infidelity and failure of divorced & absent fathers to answer their responsibilities. It's a turbocharged, hyperfocused anger loop.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 10, 2013 2:58 PM
Michele, want in one hand. Adopted kids (many of whom know full well they're adopted) need birth certificates to serve their actual purpose,as legal documents. If you need a bone marrow transplant,you need a document of scientific fact. If you need to get a kid enrolled in school,or or you need a learners permit, or a passport you need a a document of legal fact---you need a birth certificate to prove when and where you were born and (for kids) who is legally responsible for you, not whose DNA you contain. The school district, DMV and customs don't give two farts about who a kids bioparents are;they have no reason to.
Jenny Had A Chance at March 10, 2013 3:14 PM
"In the cases most titillating to the commenters here, such a record would note only that a particular man wasn't the father..."
True.
And yes, I'm not a proponent of conception certification. And I got the gist of the thread. My concerns are not for the parents, biological or presumed.
The birth certificate is used in ways that impact children, and the adults they become - more than it should, in my opinion. But because it matters, make it accurate, dammit - by providing scientifically accurate information, or by changing the wording to reflect the nature of the information being recorded.
...and now I am going out for the evening, phone off, glass raised.
Michelle at March 10, 2013 3:28 PM
>> To encourage mature relationships is "Justifying every act of fraud there ever was because the world made me no promises."
Fraud is fraud. Your arguments are basically that fraud is justified if the victim is stupid or naive, which is a completely moronic point of view.
Assholio at March 10, 2013 3:59 PM
> Your arguments are basically that
Never translate... Makes you look dishonest. Everything I've argued is on this page in black and white.
> fraud is justified if the victim is stupid
> or naive
Fraud is not a term of the romantic arts. Again, you're asking us to regard this as a commercial transaction: I'm guessing the X-ray Specs left your heart badly broken.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 10, 2013 6:10 PM
Jenny, I posted my response before your comment registered on my computer - I did not knowingly disregard your point.
"Birth certificates" and the paternity laws that preceded them (and many of those that have followed) flow from a time before DNA tests were available.
The "actual purpose" of a birth certificate will be no less served by using factually accurate wording.
~~~~
Folks, can we please put the kid first in this equation? Can we treat this, an American human being's first legal document, with the dignity appropriate to recognition of an American's constitutional right to a relationship with one's family?
Michelle at March 10, 2013 9:12 PM
Michelle, I am thinking of the kids first. A kid doesn't need the school secretary, the softball coach, and the DMV clerk knowing who his bioparents are unless he and/or his parents (his real, legal parents)choose to share that info. I suppose I'd be okay with adding the word "legal" in front of the words "mother" and "father"on the birth certificate, but that seems stupidly unnecessary---everyone at this point should understand that a legal document picked up at the county courthouse deals with legal realities,and that while bioparents are usually legal parents, they are not automatically so.
And anyway, a child's first legal document is almost always as scientifically accurate as possible already. Children who are adopted as infants are still issued a birth certificate with the names of the bioparents, if the bioparents are around---obviously, there's sometimes not a father available to be listed, and occasionally not a mother, like the baby found in the subway. It's just not anyone else's business, so that document usually stays sealed until the kid requests otherwise. We may need to pull down some red tape regarding unsealing these documents but that's another story.
But dealing with kids who aren't adopted,okay, it's definitely better that the right dad be listed. Fraud is a crime. We're all agreed there. But why should every parent have to clear him or herself of fraud at all, especially when the right dad is listed the vast majority of the time? Usually one needs probable cause to demand a DNA sample from a suspect. Is simply giving birth probable cause?
Jenny Had A Chance at March 11, 2013 7:37 AM
Oh, and please show me where in the constitution we're guaranteed a right to a relationship with our families, biological or otherwise? Personally, I consider my right to not have a relationship with some of my family covered under "pursuit of happiness".
Jenny Had A Chance at March 11, 2013 7:45 AM
@ Jim P "No, you are refusing to acknowledge emotional realities. If you have been the father for a child for five, seven, eight or more years without complaint, then all of a sudden you were to step away like they never existed you are a damaged person. And the kid will probably be damaged as well."
The emotional realities is, society has deemed it perfectly acceptable through divorce to some extent seperate father and child. Sometimes with visitation interference, or moving away, it is practically complete seperation. That is the reality, the court and society deems this acceptable.
For some men divorce is also when they find out or recieve clues that the kid isn't theirs. Sometimes the Mother in some divorce/custody argument informs the husband he never was the bio dad, but it's too late for him to legally do anything about that.
Joe J at March 11, 2013 7:48 AM
"Just like most men are not domestic abusers,and thus don't need to be 'evaluated' before marriage or before being granted visitation with their kids, most women are not lying horrible sluts who need to be cleared of fraud immediately after giving birth."
However, the Duluth Model, upon which most state laws are based, assumes that all men are domestic abusers. And that's what this is all really about. What's being proposed is attempting to fix a wrong with a wrong, but given that the original wrong is unlikely to be fixed anytime soon (Congress just passed an even more aggressively beefed-up version of VAWA), the MRAs feel that there is no other path to take. Consider: If I cheat on my wife and get another woman pregnant, she can divorce me, potentially get the court to mandate that I provide her with support, and be free of my obligation to the child I created outside of the marriage. However, if she cheats on me and has a child with another man, I don't have those same options. As her husband, I am the presumptive father regardless. I can divorce her, but because I was married to her when the child was conceive, I'm still on the hook for that child that isn't mine. That's what this is all about.
When a system makes no effort to prevent its provisions from being used fraudulantly, the fraudsters are pretty quick to exploit it. We all know that financial systems can't survive very long when they become vehicles for widespread fraud, due to loss of credibility. The same is true of legal systems, but it seems like no one in the legal profession wants to admit that.
Cousin Dave at March 11, 2013 8:16 AM
Hi Jenny. In response to your question about the constitution - the Bill of Rights prohibits the federal or state governments from legally severing one's relationship to family, biological or otherwise, without due process.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, in a portion known as “the takings clause” declares, “No person shall be... deprived of …liberty, or property, without due process of law…” The Fourteenth Amendment provides what is known as the Due Process Clause, which Wikipedia succinctly explains: “where an individual is facing a deprivation of life, liberty, or property, procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.”
The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys notes:
It has long been recognized that children are persons with rights protected by the United States Constitution. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13 (1967) (stating that "neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone").
The realm of personal family life is a fundamental interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982)
[...] also see Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that a child's interest in continued companionship and society of parents is a cognizable liberty interest);
[...] This fundamental right belonging to both parents and children also has been explicitly recognized by states other than California. See, e.g., Reist v. Bay Circuit Judge, 241 N.W.2d 55, 62 (Mich. 1976) (holding that the rights of parent and child in their "fundamental human relationship" are encompassed within the term "liberty"); Espinoza v. O'Dell, 633 P.2d 455 (Colo. 1981) (recognizing liberty interest in mutual relationship between child and parent). (Some citations omitted.)
~end quote~
Source: http://www.adoptionattorneys.org/information/children_rights.htm
Children have a liberty right to a relationship with biological family, and a property right in the financial support that children often receive from family members. For example, although adoption laws vary by state, it is an established norm that the government will not randomly or impersonally deny a child’s liberty by taking away a child’s legal rights to receive support from biological family, or a biological parent's right to nurture that child, without due process.
Given the consequences that can flow from how the birth certificate is used, I think it's in a child's best interests to have the document be factually accurate. Save the legal fictions for the next piece of paperwork.
Michelle at March 11, 2013 8:53 AM
Jenny, its quite clear you have no idea how child support (CS) works
Take the case of my mother and her Ex and my half brother. My moms ex paid her child support directly, the state forced its way is. You see for every dollar THEY 'collect' the state gets matching funds from the Feds. And by paying my mom directly he was cheating them out of their money.
So even though they had an amicable arrangment he had to start paying the state. So he payed the state more than he paid her, she got less than she used to get, administrative costs of transffering money around, to the cost of nearly TEN THOUSAND in fees by the time my brother turned 18.
His new higher rate was based on his tax returns rather than his salary as he worked overtime, all the time. So he decided to stop working so much overtime and petitioned for a reduced judgement and more physical time. My mother supported his request and offered no objection.
The courts told him no, and should he fall behind on his payments he would be jailed and have his licence revoked and his passport confiscated.
Jailed for not working overtime.
That is how CS works
lujlp at March 11, 2013 12:33 PM
Oh, several years later when they had a falling out about his schooling and he filed an emergency order to gain temporary custody until a hearing, 14 months down the road, he still had to pay her child support even though he had custody and could no longer work as many hours.
She ofcourse gave him the money back right away once she got it, it was for the kids after all. But there are hunndereds of men who have custody who are still paying child support to their ex'es
lujlp at March 11, 2013 12:38 PM
One correction the ten grand, wasnt just in fees, it was the cost of the fees placed into the interest baring savings account his dad set up of his college fund
lujlp at March 11, 2013 12:52 PM
Any discussion of child support and what is/is not fair reminds me of my youth. My parents set up the system the one cuts, the other chooses for dividing things fairly for my older brother and I. He considered it the epitomy of unfairness, since he no longer automatically got the larger share.
I feel the current system is so skewed that even the thought of using a fair system scares too many. And nop one sees it from the other sides perspective since they have no chance of choosing which side.
Joe J at March 11, 2013 12:56 PM
"Children who are adopted as infants are still issued a birth certificate with the names of the bioparents, if the bioparents are around---obviously, there's sometimes not a father available to be listed, and occasionally not a mother, like the baby found in the subway. It's just not anyone else's business, so that document usually stays sealed until the kid requests otherwise. We may need to pull down some red tape regarding unsealing these documents but that's another story."
Jenny, I think that statement is at best inaccurate. My internet search pulled up records from the governments of many US states regarding the still in place laws mandating sealed records for original birth certificates, even for open adoptions. So the birth certificate remains sealed even when the kid - or later, adopted adult - requests access.
This piece by Bastard Nation is representative of the nature of what I found online:
"Adult adoptees in all but four states and two commonwealths in the United States (Kansas, Alaska, Oregon, Alabama, Puerto Rico and the U.S.Virgin Islands) and in all Canadian provinces are forbidden unconditional access to their original birth certificates. Outmoded Depression-era laws create “amended” birth certificates that replace the names of the adoptee’s biological parents with those of the adoptive parents as well as frequently falsify other birth information. The adoptee’s original birth certificate and records of adoption are permanently sealed in closed records states by laws passed largely after World War II. These laws are a relic of the culture of shame that stigmatized infertility, out-of-wedlock birth and adoption. Even those adoptees now being raised in open adoptions, in which there is some contact between birth and adoptive families, are not allowed access to their original birth records when they reach adulthood."
http://www.bastards.org/bb-open-records-why-its-an-issue/
I stand by my call to make the Birth Certificate factually accurate - and also universally available to the people named on that certificate, especially the person whose birth and biological parentage is recorded. If that requires a DNA test of the purported biological parents, so be it.
Michelle at March 11, 2013 1:33 PM
> And nop one sees it from the other sides
> perspective since they have no chance of
> choosing which side.
That was really nicely put. Seriously, I'm gonna steal that metaphor someday.
But I also think that "fairness" isn't our highest concern when dealing with kids. And that the guys who are so rabidly desperate for mandatory genetic testing aren't concerned with even-steven, either. They're detached, frightened and quibbling for every possible advantage... They think they'll need it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2013 11:56 PM
When you have a known- practically guaranteed loss rate (90%) when heading into a supposid fair court, any supposid advantage is one tiny step closer to fairness.
And with feminstst hyjacking the term, best interests for the child to mean whatever Mom wants regardless of the harm it may do to the child. it is one baby step closer to fairness.
Remeber this is the same fair courts which considerers giving custody of the child to the multiply convicted pedophile while in jail surrounded by murderers child abusers and other scum, rather than to the never accused of a crime victim, and the loving and stable grandparents who fight in court for said child. Sound sick, well it happens if the pedophile is a woman.
Joe J at March 12, 2013 7:19 AM
> When you have a known- practically guaranteed
> loss rate (90%) when heading into a supposid
> fair court
When you get to court with a woman who lies about paternity, you've made too many mistakes to whine about percentages.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 12, 2013 1:17 PM
Hardly, since with the way the system is set up, a woman can claim paternity of a man she has never met.
Joe J at March 12, 2013 2:15 PM
I once claimed to be United States
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 12, 2013 4:36 PM
I have read through several threads on this blog, and have been so educated by Crid that it's just amazing. What have I learned, you ask? Well, I've learned that Crid, if female, is the worst kind of harridan that no male should ever allow to spend more than 10-12 seconds in the same room with him, and if male is a white knight/mangina of unimaginable proportions. If confined in a room with him, I'm pretty sure I'd later face charges for trying to break his face.
Many (most) states do maintain child support policies that are frankly unfair to fathers, either in forcing support payments to bastards who bear no relationship to their indentured manservants, or in the amount of child support ordered and the near impossibility of getting child support orders modified when the man has a change in his circumstances.
Any child support order - let me repeat that - any child support order that results in the custodial parent and child have a significantly better standard of living than the non-custodial child support-paying parent is unfair and should be ignored. (After all, if the family were still intact, all would have the same living standard - why does separation/divorce justify a change in that equilibrium?) How can that be done?
Divest yourself of any real and personal property that can be seized, and conceal by whatever means the proceeds of that divestiture. Then stop working, providing thereby no income stream that can be garnisheed. You will lose whatever the state can take away, and perhaps do some jail time intermittently, but you will still have your self respect. You will be freed of the financial burden that otherwise will ruin your enjoyment of life if not ruin your life itself. "But look what I'd have to give up", you say. To which I'd respond "Do you want to be freed from an unfair order that indentures you? Well, freedom isn't free! It never has been."
When the above example of civil disobedience becomes the standard response to unfair child support orders, and the cells are so full of child support "scofflaws" that burglars are being turned loose and every child is on the wallet of the state - then support orders will become more reasonable. Freedom isn't free - if you're not willing to pay the price for your freedom, spare me your lamentations about how unfairly you are being treated.
Uno Hu at August 28, 2014 4:04 PM
"If you don't trust a woman to tell you the truth about paternity, don't fuck her."
Oh great victim-blaming argument there. "If someone lies to you and defrauds you, it's entirely your fault you stupid idiot." Funny how only men get told this.
"This is childish, defensive, irresponsible, naive, and silly. The rest of the world made you no promises about love or anything else; We do not insure you for your errors of judgment, nor should we."
So when lenona gets defrauded by someone, I hope the courts say this to lenona and sends them on their way empty-handed. There's no better way to teach you a lesson about making such crazy statements than to cook you in your own sauce.
Jacquelope at April 10, 2016 9:47 PM
Leave a comment