Men's Rights Grumbled About By Judge: You're Not The Daddy? Well, You're A Rat For Saying So. And Keep Paying Anyway.
Just because you're not the daddy doesn't mean you don't have to pay for the kid. Yes, this still goes on. And on.
The guy asked and asked judges for a DNA test, but no judge would order one. When he wanted to establish that the child was not his, he was told, "This is not what we're here for."
Stephanie Scurlock writes at WREG that the guy, in 2009, took the child (he'd been supporting for years) to get a DNA test, and found that the kid was not biologically his. The judge wouldn't accept the results but ordered another test, and the probability that he was the father was zero percent:
Juvenile Court magistrate Nancy Kessler agreed in October to dis-establish paternity, but only after she admonished him for taking it this far."The judge stated that, 'well I find it very distasteful that you're bastardizing the child," said Bowdery.
The judge stopped the child support going forward, but Bowdery is still paying $460 a month in back pay to the mother.
He doesn't think he should have to pay that.
In fact, he believes someone owes him money. He wants the $30,000 he already paid, back.
Administrators at juvenile court denied our request for an interview on this case.
They say it's not appropriate to comment about rulings.We asked a family lawyer what are the chances of Bowdery getting his money back.
Attorney Miles Mason said, "It is very unusual and very infrequent."Mason says in a similar case, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled a man in middle Tennessee could sue his ex-wife for fraud. He won a $100,000 judgement.
"There was a very large judgement awarded against the mother but I doubt they would be able to collect in most cases," said Mason.
State representative G.A. Hardaway says he's heard from a number of fathers in his district like Bowdery.
He introduced a bill letting them file civil lawsuits against the biological fathers, but it never made it out of committee.
If feminists were truly about equal rights for all people, they'd be at the forefront complaining about this.
And P.S. The person who "bastardized this child" is the woman who had the kid out of wedlock and then stuck the paternity on this guy -- probably because he has deeper pockets than the real father (or perhaps because she has no idea who the real father is).
When you have children the way a stray dog has puppies, you are the one who should pay for it -- not some random guy you can use the state to catch up in its net. And sickeningly, as has been shown over and over, the state is only too glad to stick some random man with the payment, not making room for (or even allowing) the most basic attempts to find the truth, like a DNA test.
via ifeminists
Somehow this does not surprise me in the slightest. Courts have some of the most bullshit laws in place that this is bound to happen all the time, usually with the father never allowed to get a paternity test which should make it federal and civil fraud.
This guy should get all of his money back including court and attorney fees since the mother went after the guy either without knowing if he was the father or intentionally going after him since he had more cash than the real father.
NakkiNyan at May 13, 2013 6:15 AM
If feminists were truly about equal rights for all people, they'd be at the forefront complaining about this.
Do they even pretend so any more?
dee nile at May 13, 2013 6:33 AM
If feminists were truly about equal rights for all people, they'd be at the forefront complaining about this.
Oh, like feminists have time for trivial stuff like this...gotta make sure no man any where is having fun.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 13, 2013 6:59 AM
Just to play devil's advocate, I understand where the judges are coming from. With the caveat to all men who are accused of fathering a child: Get the paternity test right away.
You don't sit on it for years, paying child support and then decide that you want to know if you're truly the father.
With laws being what they are, a paternity test should be a matter of routine. Every time a man is told he's the father, he should get the proof. In fact, I'm ready to suggest that the dad should do it, even if he's married to the woman.
Patrick at May 13, 2013 7:04 AM
With the addendum that I happen to think he should pay the child support up until that point. If he had established that he wasn't the father right away, the woman, in theory, would have been free to pursue the child's real father. Now, she has to pursue the kid's father years after the fact.
Patrick at May 13, 2013 7:08 AM
You don't sit on it for years, paying child support and then decide that you want to know if you're truly the father.
Exactly! Because, you know, ALL women are just LIARS and only want the most money they can get from whoever they can get it from. /sarcasm
The reality is, some people are so damn irresponsible anymore and they just want someone, ANYone, to pay for their mistakes. They have yet to realize that a little personal responsibility goes a LONG way.
Flynne at May 13, 2013 7:17 AM
Well, I never said or implied that all women are liars.
Nor would it be necessarily lying if a woman tapped the wrong guy as the father. If she's been with more than one guy within a reasonable timeframe, she might mistakenly assume the wrong guy.
Patrick at May 13, 2013 7:45 AM
The judge accuses the man of "bastardizing" the child, but no one is berating the mother for basically being a damned slut?
I'm not about slut-shaming. If a girl wants to get her freak on, so be it. But, if she gets herself knocked up or sick, then she needs to own that shit just as much as the guy does.
However, these women have no incentive to do the right thing the first time because they know that the law will always favor them. If women actually started being fined or jailed for cases like this, I damn well gauruntee that the numbers of false paternity cases would drop. But, cases like this will always be around because unfortunatly, society won't allow it to change. Today's society has sort of made single motherhood something to be proud of. There is no stigma attached to it anymore.
Sabrina at May 13, 2013 8:24 AM
in short, you get MORE of what you reward.
"Because, you know, ALL women are just LIARS and only want the most money they can get from whoever they can get it from." - Flynne
no, obviously you've got a self selected group here, doncha?
That shouldn't make it wrong to SAY SOMETHING. It shouldn't make it wrong to punish for FRAUD someone who cuckolds a guy. JUST LIKE you can punish a guy for running away from his responsibility.
except you can't punish the cuckold, can you?
The whole idea by the judge that there is such a thing as a bastard child in our society now is a laughable throwback. What percentage of children are had out of wedlock?
But IF you are going to force a person to pay child support, the DNA screen should be mandatory. NOT for everyone at birth. Essentially you are trying to establish blame, and get compensation for it... so it is only reasonable that you make SURE you are doing that to the correct person.
and it is hardly the fault of some guy that a woman got pregnant by some other guy, but either doesn't know who he is, or doesn't think he will pay. It IRKS me that we are constantly taking away responsibility from women... both because it dis-empowers them, and because the responsibility is thrown on conscientious guys.
Much of this is just the logical end of mating strategy, tho. Cat around looking for the best genes, but then settle with the one who will support you. I'm sure the evo-psych people would just nod.
Sucks to be the guy on the losing end of that proposition. I know several... one of whom is conscientiously paying for a kid he's never met, that isn't his... because he married poorly. He'd have fathered the kid, but she wouldn't allow it.
Now the kid has sired several kids himself with several different girls, and hasn't even gotten his GED.
It's a CF all the way down.
SwissArmyD at May 13, 2013 9:18 AM
You have confused "law" with "justice." When they diverge sufficiently, this will change, probably violently. Until then, we can just continue following the directions of unelected, unaccountable dictators.
Impeachment is the remedy, and it is not used often enough by the legislature.
MarkD at May 13, 2013 11:09 AM
I'm confused about why he waited this long to establish that he wasn't the child's father. If you've spent years behaving as though you ARE a child's father, I have less sympathy for this sort of thing. No backsies.
It was the right decision to allow him to disestablish paternity moving forward.
MonicaP at May 13, 2013 11:39 AM
um, this wouldn'a be backsies, MonicaP:
"A mound of paperwork shows a juvenile court judge ordered him to pay child support even before the birth.
“I didn’t do a voluntary acknowledgement. I didn’t sign the birth certificate. All I know is we legitimated the child in your name,” said Bowdery.
Bowdery asked several judges during several hearings for a DNA test, but no judge ordered one.
“I said how did I ever get put on child support and I never said this was my child and again this is not what we’re here for,” said Bowdery.
Some people fight city hall right away, and others have to be made mad...
SwissArmyD at May 13, 2013 12:26 PM
> No backsies.
Why not? The world is full of lies. By what rule are we compelled to quash them instantaneously? Why should anyone be forced to drop whatever they're doing in life and spend their resources cleaning up an accusation?
Besides, I heard* that when you work as at the fast food place as a teenager, you had your boyfriend pee in the Governor's coffee when he came through town on a Saturday-morning campaign swing.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 13, 2013 12:28 PM
Must be more of that "male privilege" I keep hearing so much about.
Interesting "Patriarchy" we have going when it seems to f**k men over wholesale whenever men's interests are in conflict with women's -- and it always has.
Jay R at May 13, 2013 12:40 PM
no, obviously you've got a self selected group here, doncha?
and
Well, I never said or implied that all women are liars.
Did you guys miss my /sarcasm tag?
Some people who have posted here blame women for everything. I was being sarcastic when I posted this: "Because, you know, ALL women are just LIARS and only want the most money they can get from whoever they can get it from."
There are a lot of women who are liars, just as there are a lot of men who are. "Oh it's okay baby, I'll take care of everything.", etc.
My MAIN point was, again, the IRRESPONSIBILITY that people seem to think they are entitled to get away with. Did you not see that part of my post?
Flynne at May 13, 2013 12:46 PM
> Did you guys miss my /sarcasm tag?
Dear Angel, after years of this, I'm beginning to realize exactly how difficult it is for some people here to comprehend irony in rhetoric.
If you casually let it slip that you were on the shuttle in 1997, no matter how obvious it is that you're kidding, someone here will ask why you didn't warn people before the Colombia tragedy. They'll be pissed at you.
This kind of credulity is something I never experienced when I was working for Governor Schwarzenegger in Sacramento.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 13, 2013 12:59 PM
@ MonicaP.
Sometimes new info comes up that you didn't suspect before.
It would be the same thing as if a husband had had an affair 5 years ago, the wife doesn't suspect or find out until now. So tough, she cannot get mad or change the marital situation because of a distant past event. No backsies.
With any legal matter if one side of the court case wants to delay, even the simplest things can take years. Often gets used with adopting a child where one parent still wants it, if the longer the case is delayed the more likely the judge will say, we can't disrupt childs lifeit bonded with adopted family.
@Patrick there is also the problem of the man not finding out he is the supposid father until much later after a summary judement has been made. Then he owes years of back pay plus fines. Making affording a lawyer, iffy.
Joe J at May 13, 2013 1:00 PM
Even "real fathers" should not have to pay the support either, unless they formally agreed to have a child with you (AKA "married" you) before you made the choices to bear and keep that child.
Responsibility belongs to the one who has those choices. It is wrong for the law to presume that agreeing to have sex is agreement to support an unnecessary child.
jdgalt at May 13, 2013 1:01 PM
Seems like the states have a pretty big incentive to collect child support.
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm
Meloni at May 13, 2013 1:09 PM
"With laws being what they are, a paternity test should be a matter of routine. Every time a man is told he's the father, he should get the proof. "
Like this is ever going to happen without an nuclear exchange. Patrick, this just shows how little you know about straight women. Your rights as a father and as a man are nothing against her right to be impliciltly believed and never, ever questioned in so misogynisitic a way! You cad!! You brute!!!
"No backsies."
Fraud if fraud and there isn't a statute of limitations. The fruadster mother should be twisted for every dime she got out of him.
And for those who think he should just put up with it for the child's sake; you're just as much the father as he is. If you think it's so important that the mother get help supporting the child - you can jump right in!
Jim at May 13, 2013 1:46 PM
And, yet again, NO ONE brings up the possibility of men campaigning for better male birth control - namely, Vasalgel and Pro-Vas.
Do American men WANT it? I'm guessing they don't, really.
What it all comes down to is that we Americans decided, years ago, that it was just plain wrong for out-of-wedlock children (or children of divorce) to get kicked to the curb, if only for the selfish reason that poverty breeds crime.
This meant, of course, that eventually society would start demanding that BOTH parents be made to pay child support whenever possible and not the taxpayers.
Does anyone really have a problem with that? Especially since even men's rights' activists (MRAs) would pay less in taxes if they weren't supporting other men's children? Sure, they'd still have to pay for their OWN children, but who cares?
Or, to put it another way, once you're born, you have rights, whether your father wanted you or not. (Of course, women shouldn't be able to give up kids for adoption if the fathers want custody, but very often, they don't want it anyway.)
BTW, even women who don't WANT child support are often forced by U.S. law to accept it, so it's not necessarily about "women's rights" coming first.
Of course, there are still problems, such as making sure the child support money actually gets spent on the kid or saved for the kid's future schooling/training. Nor did I say that a mother shouldn't have to pay child support when the father wants custody, even if she'd prefer to give up the kid for adoption. Just that children, once they arrive, should be supported, and that the support should come from the parents whenever possible, if only so taxpayers don't have to pick up the slack. Not to mention that if men were allowed to abandon their out-of-wedlock children on the grounds that "she lied and tricked me into fatherhood, your Honor" any man could claim that, true or not.
Again, does anyone really have a problem with that?
(Obviously, convincing dimwitted adults not to breed even when they WANT to breed is a very different and complicated matter.)
Finally, while I can't imagine single men, especially, flocking to their doctors' offices once RISUG becomes available in the U.S. (after all, they're already under a lot of pressure to use condoms), it'll be very interesting to see how this affects judges' decisions in family courts
lenona at May 13, 2013 2:05 PM
jdgalt "It is wrong for the law to presume that agreeing to have sex is agreement to support an unnecessary child."
They take that one step furtur, they other way. Even in cases where the "Father" was an unconsenting child, he still owes money to his rapist.
Joe J at May 13, 2013 2:10 PM
I dated a guy whose ex-girlfriend told him she was pregnantwith his child, then put another guy's name on the birth certificate so she could deny him visitation. He had to pay for his own paternity test to prove he was the father.
Also she was 19 and this was her third child. Guess who was supporting the first two? (Taxpayers.)
Sosij at May 13, 2013 2:22 PM
The link I posted above describes how the U.S. states receive incentive funds for the collection of child support.
The argument here usually centers around reproductive responsibilities, but is anybody else disturbed by the fact that the state ultimately decides who gets to see the kids and how frequently, and they actually have a monetary incentive to limit visitation to one parent, thereby increasing the child support that must be paid, and the amount of incentive the state receives?
This could also be a contributor to the difficulties men have in contesting paternity. If paternity has already been established in the eyes of the law (biology be damned), then the state actually loses money if they lose that child support. At least until they find another sucker to rope in.
Meloni at May 13, 2013 2:25 PM
Quite frankly, its crap like this I wish hackers would focus on, hack the state data bases, make it so the local judges and state legislators are put on for child support, and those sex offender registries that no one can get off of even if they are innocent
lujlp at May 13, 2013 2:57 PM
> Even "real fathers" should not have to pay the
> support either, unless they formally agreed to
> have a child with you (AKA "married" you) before
> you made the choices to bear and keep that child.
An idiot man shows up here to say that once or twice a year. I always wonder if they were raised by wolves or something.
"Formally," you say?
There's no more formal way for a man to affirm that he wants a woman to be pregnant than squirting his man-goo into her. That's formal as Hell.
The formality of this behavior supersedes any verbal or contractual obligations; it's more formal than the most elegant treaties ever signed & witnessed in Vienna, Utrecht, or Copenhagen. Even wearing a tuxedo doesn't make it any more formal... And yes, I've tried it.
> Responsibility belongs to the one who has
> those choices.
Oh, Kitten, the squirty-squirty choice is always with the man, isn't it? When, like me, you've left a fertile young wench in a sweating, dizzy, post-coital fuzzstorm of satiation and recharged desires, spanking her immortal soul into a renewed appreciation of life's connections and possibilities, you've made all the choices.
It's just bizarre, and not amusing, that any man old enough to type a blog comment could think that his own desperate impulses towards fatherhood should incur, in a woman, a responsibility to have painful and (sometimes) risky surgery to end pregnancy.
I mean, what are the surgeries in masculine life which we can compare?
Raised by wolves? In a den in a forest? What was it like?
Stay home, mister. Stay home on Saturday night and do your nails.
Grr.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 13, 2013 3:01 PM
I just heard that song "All I Wanna Do Is Make Love To You.
Oh, oh maybe that's how it happened...the woman just wanted the baby her husband couldn't give her and it's all so beautiful...
I really hate that song.
Pricklypear at May 13, 2013 3:28 PM
"Oh, Kitten, the squirty-squirty choice is always with the man, isn't it?"
Oh, Crid, the gals at planned parenthood et. al might disagree. Her body, her choice and all that. Except when its the state's choice via socialized medicine of course.
Anyway, SF v Alabama in 90s ruled that a man his responsible for his "man-goo" no matter how or when it was extracted.
http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html
Sio at May 13, 2013 3:56 PM
Why should anyone be forced to drop whatever they're doing in life and spend their resources cleaning up an accusation?
Just the way it is. I had to do it in a court of law (not related to paternity). It cost a fortune. I was compelled because, as a US citizen, I agree to follow US laws, and simply not showing up in court isn't an option.
MonicaP at May 13, 2013 4:01 PM
Some people fight city hall right away, and others have to be made mad..
What I mean is, was this just financial or was he behaving like the child's father in emotional ways? It's not clear. If the child considered him a father and he was behaving like one, then I have a harder time buying his rage now. It seems like the mother made him mad about something and he decided to go to court.
Not defending the mother here. She's clearly in the wrong.
MonicaP at May 13, 2013 4:19 PM
Is it any wonder that one feature of all religions is controlling female sexuality?
Jeff Guinn at May 13, 2013 4:36 PM
> Just the way it is.
You take weird pleasure in saying things like that... In situations where completely synthetic and procedural trouble is happening to someone (else), you'll make comments to convey detached resignation to what's happening, with a blank face and motionless poster, as if there's nothing to be done, or even said, because things could never be better. It's nutty. It's Soviet. It means something about you, and we're left to guess what it is.
I can imagine any number of situations, including this one, where someone might not contest an accusation immediately, but decide later that time and circumstances demand explicit denial. A bloggy (BUS-bloggy-but-real-life) acquaintance went through this a few years ago.
> I really hate that song.
I'm guessing P-pear is NOT talking about the Muddy Waters tune.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 13, 2013 5:27 PM
Poster was supposed to be posture.
I mean, listen, the guy for whatever reason tried to help the woman and her boy out...
...Help A LITTLE BIT. $30K from a distant stranger has nothing to do with fatherhood, which is what the boy deserved from his actual father. I didn't follow the link. Perhaps he realized that he might have been the father if things had only been a little different. But if this was just an act of pity or charity that needed to come to an end, why should he be on the hook?
IIRC, Cosby went through a case like this very publicly... On exactly the same week that his son was murdered.
Tough planet, just brutal.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 13, 2013 5:48 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/05/mens-rights-gru.html#comment-3707194">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]$30K from a distant stranger has nothing to do with fatherhood, which is what the boy deserved from his actual father.
Important point not made in the piece.
Amy Alkon at May 13, 2013 7:22 PM
Nah, Crid, I think this one might be from Heart. It's about the glory of picking up a hitchhiker and fucking his brains out for the pure purpose of getting pregnant.
"Please, please understand
I'm in love with another man
And what he couldn't give me
Is the one little thing that you can..." or words to that effect.
Hate, hate, hate that song.
Pricklypear at May 13, 2013 7:45 PM
I always thought she was talking about herpes.
Meloni at May 13, 2013 9:02 PM
It is my understanding that for birth certificates and for filing claims for support from the state (any state, even though child welfare law is passed on a state-by-state basis), paternity is "established" by asking the birth mother to name the biological father.
Is there any organized effort to pass legislation to require a state government to prove biological paternity before ordering child support in instances where a man has not stepped forward to assert paternity (either by being present to put his name on the birth certificate, being married to the birth mother, or otherwise)?
Michelle at May 13, 2013 10:00 PM
"Is it any wonder that one feature of all religions is controlling female sexuality?"
Power grab, plain and simple.
As far as the article, if you've been raising the kid since toddlerhood for more than a year, you should be the defacto father.
The kid doesn't know any different. And all this BS about paternity and payments is supposed to be in the best interests of the child. Or so they say.
wtf at May 14, 2013 10:37 AM
You mean the child he has been claiming isnt his since before he was even born?
He should just continue to support him cause the courts were too lazy/greedy/indifferent to take care of it at the time of birth?
Tell you what, whay dont we force you to pay support for a year or two and legally deny you the right to refuse and then after your money has been raising him for a year or two we ask if your willing to do it vollentariy now as you've been the defacto father?
Sound like a plan?
lujlp at May 14, 2013 11:23 AM
> if you've been raising the kid since toddlerhood
> for more than a year, you should be the defacto
> father.
[1.] Why? If my brother buys a car, and I courteously make the first two payments, why am I obligated to pay the rest? Ain't my car.
[2.] IIUC, he wasn't "raising the kid," he was just cutting some checks.
[3.] De Facto is two words.
[4.] Yer Canadian.
[5.] Why a year? What if it were 11 months and 25 days? If he was a week under the deadline, would he NOT be responsible for a child who was, in fact, NOT his?
> The kid doesn't know any different.
[6.] The fact that the kid's interests should be our first consideration doesn't allow society to assign the masculine responsibility for those interests in a flippant, offhand, most-convenient way.
Furthermore, [6a.], doing would demonstrate the bankruptcy of our concern for family well-being, rather than ennobling it.
[7.] You're a girl.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 14, 2013 3:31 PM
And you're an asshole. Whats your point?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs
1. We aren't talking about a car. We're talking about a living breathing child that will miss the person who has been acting in a father capacity for the last who knows how long.
2. The payments are made for the best interests of the child. Or supposed to be anyway. Whether or not the mother uses them to screw the father is none of the child's concern. All the child knows is that he misses the parent figure.
3.I chose a year because it would seen a long enough time in the child's memory. Consult a child psychologist if you're that anal.
4. Did I mention you're an asshole?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs
Queen Canuck at May 14, 2013 3:52 PM
And a bigot?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=white+america+eminem+dirty&oq=white+a&gs_l=youtube.1.3.0l10.4458.7808.0.10184.7.7.0.0.0.0.228.1224.0j5j2.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.Zc1lw1YI8uE
Queen Canuck at May 14, 2013 3:54 PM
And just for fun....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Y3L0s1m2o
Queen Canuck at May 14, 2013 3:56 PM
> We're talking about a living breathing child
No, we're talking about the assignment of responsibility for the child's well-being. Ain't my car, ain't my baby. The fact that the car needs a buy and a baby needs a father got nuthin' to do with me. Ain't mine.
> Whether or not the mother uses them to screw
> the father is none of the child's concern.
That a child has interests doesn't mean others don't.
> I chose a year because it would seen a long
> enough time in the child's memory.
I asked what if it were 11 months and twenty five days. And noted again that this man hadn't been a part of the child's life, or memories, in any meaningful way.
> Consult a child psychologist if you're
> that anal.
They're in court to establish just these details; those verges where abstractions coalesce into meaning.
> Did I mention you're an asshole?
Yes, but it didn't sting, because you're Canadian, and I've never followed one of your links.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 14, 2013 4:07 PM
"No, we're talking about the assignment of responsibility for the child's well-being."
Exactly dooood.
Note that I didn't make any specific reference to the article, but instead made a general point.
If you've been living with the child's mother for more than a year,(as expressed in Ontario family law, btw, which is what I'm going by...I know I know!! It's not American law therefore it's irrelevant...Canadians couldn't possibly be dealing with custody and support disputes!!!!) you've assumed father status, at least as far as the child is concerned. To stop acting the father solely due to financial concerns is cruel; of course, I would expect a neanderthal like you to say otherwise.
"That a child has interests doesn't mean others don't."
The child's interests outweigh your own the minute you move in with the mother. You've said so yourself.
"I asked what......"
That's nice, when you post I'm more interested in annoying you rather than answering your questions. Everyone needs a hobby. And before you say I don't annoy, remember that you attacked me this time...
"and I've never followed one of your links."
Well we've already proved that isn't so, would you like me to put it in black and white?
I'm very glad you're so proud to be American Crid. Explain this. Just outta curiosity you understand....a big brave verbose jackass like you should love to take a crack at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn14_y2euzM
Queen Canuck at May 14, 2013 4:56 PM
"Sound like a plan?"
Luj, the minute you move in with the mother, the child'd interests outweigh yours.
If you don't want to get stuck with support payments, don't date a woman with kids, and don't live with her for years before you decide you don't want to be a daddy.
It's not like your girlfriend hid her kids in the closet for three years and then sprung them on you. Similarly, it's not a huge surprise when your wife turns out to be a whore.
At least, it won't be if you have a brain in your head.
wtf at May 14, 2013 5:03 PM
> I didn't make any specific reference to the
> article, but instead made a general point.
I judge your general point to be wrong.
> If you've been living with the child's mother
> for more than a year
It matters not a whit, but I don't see anything from the linked piece to suggest that he moved in with the woman.
> You've said so yourself.
Cite? (Explicitly: Nope, I never said anything of the kind.)
BTW-- If I move in with my brother, am I responsible for his car payments, even if I don't know how to drive?
> we've already proved that isn't so
Nope. I've never followed one of your links. I could tell from the start they were going to be to something obnoxious. Are they different every time?
> I'm very glad you're so proud to be American
Well, it's actually more about being proud of not needing to visit blogs of other countries and pretend to be one of the citizens.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 14, 2013 7:40 PM
I look at it that if you (in a father/husband role) are there at birth and don't object within a short time after (2-3) months, you are on the hook as if you were the biological father. That has pretty much been common law forever.
Now if the state is contacting you after the birth that you were not at, the state should be required to establish biological paternity. It should be an evidentiary requirement. Just like the Fifth Amendment says No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Jim P. at May 14, 2013 8:06 PM
> That has pretty much been common law forever.
I didn't know this.
Have we established that the guy in fact lived in the home?... Or that he ever had a directly fatherly relationship with the kid?
(I'd still think what's happening to him is wrong, but you all seem so certain that he did....)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 14, 2013 11:29 PM
Ok, for those of you who havent been paying attention
HE IS NOT THE FATHER
HE HAS BEEN DISPUTING PATERNITY SINCE BEFORE THE KID WAS BORN
HE IS NOT LIVING WITH THE MOTHER, NOR HAS HE BEEN SINCE BEFORE THE KID WAS BORN
lujlp at May 15, 2013 6:50 AM
"I judge your general point to be wrong."
That's nice, I judge your brainwaves to be wrong. Somethins not firing right up there, me thinks.
"Well, it's actually more about being proud of not needing to visit blogs of other countries and pretend to be one of the citizens."
Knew you were a chicken ya big pink pussy. You runnin a'sceered? Be back later to provide the links so you can see what a big fat liar and hypocrite you are. And unless you're a retarded child with amnesia, we've already covered this.
"Ok, for those of you who haven't been paying attention....."
So what, it's the kid's fault his mother is a whore? He shoulda ran fast and far; it's not like if he took his head out of his ass he couldn't figure it out.
"I look at it that if you (in a father/husband role) are there at birth and don't object within a short time after (2-3) months, you are on the hook as if you were the biological father. That has pretty much been common law forever."
Nuff said.
Queen Canuck at May 15, 2013 7:27 AM
Nuff said?
So we're all just going to ignore the fact that the guy has been objecting at EVERY SINGLE COURT HEARING SINCE BEFORE THE KID WAS BORN?
lujlp at May 15, 2013 9:04 AM
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2013/05/08/walter-sharpe-strikes-out-wrongly-tagged-with-child-support-court-rules-he-has-no-recourse/
"Walter Sharpe Strikes Out; Wrongly Tagged with Child Support, Court Rules He Has No Recourse"
First quarter:
May 8th, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Here’s the law on child support in Pennsylvania as I understand it: the agency charged with establishing paternity can act negligently and even maliciously and pay no penalty for it; but if a father misses a court date, he can be made to pay child support for a child who’s not his and thrown in jail for not doing so; and, once the outrageous behavior of the child support agency comes to light, the father has no recourse in either state or federal court. Those are fair conclusions to draw from the case of Walter Andre Sharpe about whom Glenn Sacks first wrote here (Fathers and Families, 11/20/08).
Back in 2001, Walter Andre Sharpe got a letter from Dauphin County Domestic Relations. It said he was the father of an 11 year old girl by a mother who lived in Harrisburg. But Sharpe had only been to Harrisburg once in his life and then only to buy a car. He knew he’d never been in a sexual relationship there. So he ignored the letter, and of course didn’t show up in court on the day of the hearing that resulted in an order of paternity against him, an order to begin paying child support for the girl and an order to pay over $5,000 in arrears.
Now, it turns out that there is an Andre Sharpe who was in fact the girl’s father. And he too got a letter from Domestic Relations and he too ignored it. But nothing happened to the Andre Sharpe whose DNA was shared by the girl. For reasons that aren’t clear, Dauphin County decided that, in the absence of any evidence, Walter Sharpe should be the one to pay. Two men were noticed to appear; neither did, but somehow Walter Sharpe drew the black bean.
Soon enough, he informed Dauphin County that he couldn’t be the father and would be happy to prove it via genetic testing. The county wasn’t interested; it had a judge’s signature on an order and that’s all it wanted. But county malfeasance didn’t end there, not by a long shot. Domestic Relations workers went so far as to alter their database, substituting Andre Sharpe’s date of birth, social security number and residence for those of Walter Sharpe. I assume they did that just to make their records look more consistent with their claims in court.......
(snip)
lenona at May 15, 2013 10:48 AM
Consider yourself educated.
I am not denying that. I am trying to get a framework set up.
From Free Dictionary:
So now let's get to the rest. The judge is complaining that she has to follow the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rules. The judge needs to be impeached.
Jim P. at May 15, 2013 7:48 PM
> Consider yourself educated.
By you?
> So now let's get to the rest.
I missed the part you said was educational, the part where any unmarried man present in the home in early times was consider by common law to be the father.
Or were you looking for wiggle room with "husband/father role".
Have you met Raddy? You guys could hang.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at May 15, 2013 11:36 PM
Musta had a slow day.
You asking for links to provide proof that you do read the links just proves you do follow my links in the first place.
*uncrosses eyes*
Queen Canuck at May 16, 2013 6:57 PM
Leave a comment