There should be mandatory DNA tests at birth to determine fatherhood. If they are optional, 95% of guys will not take them.

When you think about it beyond the awkward social aspect, it's really medically important to know who the biological father is so you can catch genetic illnesses, medical patterns, etc.

Of course, I would not want to be the person who has to explain to the guy in the hospital, "Sorry, this adorable child is not your kid." :(

"But the lawyer told Pruitt his only option was to take the matter to court and that doing so might mean giving up his right to see the girl at all. It might also alert her to the truth. Pruitt didn't want to chance either possibility, so he stayed silent and kept paying."

That makes sense. I mean, if you're not going to pay child support, you shouldn't still get to play daddy. Can't be both ways. I think that's what most upsets the courts - that this is often ALL about money. It's not even that the guy doesn't want to be the child's parent anymore. They want to have all the same rights and none of the responsibilities.

Well, who wouldn't? If we could all get the state to support our kids financially, many parents would do so. Many already do.

I believe fathers like this should be able to opt out, but if they're going to, it needs to be all the way. You can't say to a kid, "I'd love to buy you those sneakers you want - or send you to college - but since you're not biologically mine, it's not my responsibility."

I think a huge part of the problem with these cases is that the "father" has been deceived by the woman. It's not about the kid in a sense. If you've loved them for 10 years, you probably will continue to love them whether the biology is there or not (adoptive dads love their kids too). But they're usually mighty pissed at the woman and don't want her getting any of the "child support" money (which sometimes goes to the kid and sometimes goes to support the woman and her lifestyle, especially if the guy has lots more money than her).

You're right, Catherine, but it's punitive towards the mother, rather than a genuine desire to no longer parent the child. The courts can't allow that. They can determine the man was tricked, and give him recourse in the form of opting out of being the father, but courts can't allow him to be the father, retain all the same rights as a father, yet remove all financial obligations to the child, which is what child support is, whether he or anyone else feels it's used appropriately.

This kind of paternity squabbling is ugly.

My brother married a gal with a 2 year old child. He did not adopt the child.

The mom had petitioned for support from the supposed father when the child was born. A paternity test later indicated that man was not the father and her suit was dropped. Apparently she was with 2 different guys at the time in question. So after the first paternity test she knew who the dad was. The bio dad was never informed of the child (the mom says it was because she found out he had a violent streak and she wanted no extended contact with him).

The woman and my brother divorced after 3 years. The kid was now 5 maybe 6 years of age. Now ex-wife moves back into her parental home and her mama (who is a champ at working any system) talks the ex-wife into sueing my brother for child support for the child.

That didn't work out for her but my bro had to pay a LOT in lawyer's fees.

I felt sorriest for the kid.

You know what I find interesting about these stories is that rarely is the fact that the mother is a lying cheating scumbag addressed. She is the one who has victimised the child. She is the one who knew the truth. She is the one who should bear the entire responsibility for her actions. To say the father should have known she was a lying cheating scumbag is disingenuous. Yes the child is innocent, and doesn't deserve the consequences of her actions, but remember it is her actions which have created the situation and the father is largely blameless for the deception.

So Matt, how do you propose punishing the Mom with minimal damage to the kid?

My wife's daughter has a son almost two years old that my wife looks after two days a week. I get home on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and look after him for an hour until his mom gets there. I couldn't love this little guy any more if he was my own bio son. Her daughter has asked us to take him if anything happened to her and I would support him until adulthood if that occurred. (His bio father doesn't acknowledge the boy, but pays support)

I can't imagine loving a child that I thought was mine and just stopping if a DNA test later proved otherwise, so I wouldn't try to get out of paying support.

However, If I were single and a woman claimed that I fathered her child, I would demand a paternity test.

I think most guys actually soldier on in these cases, simply because the outcomes are only bad or worse. That the courts force a nuclear action of either paying or not having contact with the kid, is part of the problem. The guy's responsibility is to the kid, not the kid's mother in such case, and that's why the issue is thorny. If he is paying a ton of support based on income differential, then it IS fraud.

Sadly the remedies are worse than the problem. It's not like if the court takes control of the situation any of them will be better off. The main issue is that if all this begins with deception, there are usually other issues going on. Including having to pay support for a kid that isn't yours AND that you are prevented from seeing at all by the mother.
I would think that their should be a remedy for that, but if wishes were wings...

As for the DNA testing, I'd have to disagree Amy. There are a whole bunch of legal things you have to do when the kid is born, especially with relation to the birth certificate. It forms the foundation of identity for everyone. That is the FIRST best place to establish paternity beyond doubt, and doing so will void many of these sorts of problems down the road. Since you get MORE of what you reward, it would stand to reason that you should stop allowing women to cheat in this way. You are forgetting how often this happens to guys that have been married for a while. It is the ultimate killer for them because everyone assumes the kid is his regardless of the situation, and there are women who bank on that fact. Do you hav4e to vet a woman who you've been married to for 10 years?

What's worse, to discover a cuckold when the are born, or years down the line when you notice they look exactly like the next door neighbor?

It's not like the birth DNA test would not have consequence, but requiring it would spell out the consequence to the person who will suffer it in advance. AND it is the simplest remedy for the situation, not waiting and going to family court later.

The answer here is to impose a criminal sentence on the mother, effective once the child turns 18. You then imprison her, seize her assets and compensate the 'father' for his damages. This will put an end to this practice. The reason that it continues now is that there is no downside for the woman. She wins even if her deception is discovered.

We need to start holding women accountable for their actions, because right now they're treated like minors with adult privileges.

Also if the courts are really so interested in the welfare of the child, why do they compel men to abandon them before contesting paternity? There are probably plenty of men who would wish to maintain a relationship, but don't want to keep paying the woman who'd defrauded them. The fact that the courts won't allow this puts the lie to their claims of overwhelming concern for the child. They're extorting the victims, knowing that many will be to decent to abandon a kid.

"To say the father should have known she was a lying cheating scumbag is disingenuous."

Well, yes and no... Anyone can make a bad choice, true enough. However, usually people get the kind of partner you deserve. To take the post from LauraGr as an example: look at kind of woman was her brother married. Then ask yourself: what kind of guy even dates a woman like that? He is almost certainly just a great a catch as she is.

>> So Matt, how do you propose punishing the Mom with minimal damage to the kid?

Oh go fuck yourself. Why is someone who's been victimized responsible for ensuring that someone else's child experiences 'minimal damage' in their life? By that logic, we'd be living in a police state to ensure that no child anywhere experienced even 'minimal damage'.

"It is up to men to vet the women they are with..."

Absolutely. And vice versa.

"If you live with your head up your ass about someone's ethics, that's your business, not the state's or the rest of ours."

Again, absolutely. And on that note: I don't know what other problems and suspicions and soap opera crap might have been lurking in this family, but Grandma should have just kept her nose out of it.

The article indicates that this boy still thinks the man is his dad. Maybe his helpful Grandma would be willing to clue him in.

I agree with Amy that paternity testing at birth is the wrong way to go. If a father has his doubts, he's welcome to pay for the test himself at birth, but requiring it for everyone is stupid.

Not only that, but I'd hate to be the poor family that is on the receiving end of a test that got mixed up. I just recently heard about a story where a mother gave birth to her baby and it was taken away from her for three days due to an incorrect drug test. She didn't get her baby back until she demanded that they retest the baby and her and prove that it was a mistake, and she was in fact NOT on any drugs.

"I believe fathers like this should be able to opt out, but if they're going to, it needs to be all the way."
LS, most fathers feel the same way. The problem is in 99% of the cases. when Mom kicks him out or divorces him. They easily block him being anything other than an ATM machine. So all Responsibility and no rights: IS what is the current norm for Fathers.

"It's not like the birth DNA test would not have consequence, but requiring it would spell out the consequence to the person who will suffer it in advance. AND it is the simplest remedy for the situation, not waiting and going to family court later."

Exactly. But taxpayers shouldn't pay for it, and you know we would if testing was mandated at birth. This shouldn't be something we legislate. People do have a personal responsibility to choose reliable partners in the first place, and if you mess that up, it shouldn't become a problem for the rest of us.

I believe you can buy DNA kits at the local drugstore now. So any man with an inking of doubt can easily have one performed without the mother even knowing. One of my friends did this, and turns out, he WAS the father (as Maury says).

Women who purposely do this should be punished, but most are going to claim they didn't know the child wasn't their husband's. Cheating doesn't automatically equate to committing paternity fraud. And often in these relationships there has been cheating on both sides. Therein lies the problem.

I'd say having your child learn that you cheated, and losing his/her father, would be a punishment in itself. These crimes have a way of settling out where they should. Just imagine how much the child will hate her for this. Perhaps it's not the kind of vengeance the man wants to see, but it will last long after any child support does.

Karl, you're funny. Why wouldn't the mother then just keep on having kids? You're draconian sense incentivizes just that behavior.

Under US federal law, there are no retroactive child support payments. So even if you discover fraud you would only be allowed to stop future payments. And if you prove that you aren't the bio-dad, you have no rights to visitation.

There is a classic case in CA where the state mistakenly declared a man to be the father of a child because he had the same name as the real father. Once the error was discovered (he was arrested after a routine traffic stop for failure to pay child support) he still had his wages garnished until he paid over $40K in "arrearages". The federal laws prevented the Judge in this case from correcting the obvious miscarriage of justice. The law truly is an ass.

For those who say, we can't punish the Mother without punishing the child, which is forbidden.
You are giving a free pass to single Mothers to commit any crime, and get off scott free.
The Mother murders someone, can't punish her without it affecting the innocent child so, what do you do?

Angie:
"I agree with Amy that paternity testing at birth is the wrong way to go. If a father has his doubts, he's welcome to pay for the test himself at birth, but requiring it for everyone is stupid."

The problem with that is that the honest mother will be morally outraged if the father requests it, and the lying mother will be outraged if the father requests it. In both cases, the mother acts the same way and the father is likely to trust her. Basically, what you see is that, all along the way, the state is sanctioning fraud.

Here, how about this compromise: no father's name ever appears on a birth certificate until the father is tested. There is no acknowledgement of paternity option (because, really, how can he know?). The person requesting the test can pay for it.

Fair?

-Jut

We're going to have to disagree here, Amy. It should be mandatory at birth.

I love my wife, and I have zero doubt that our kids are mine and hers. It is about justice.

It is a travesty to allow punishment of the innocent under any scenario. Slavery was abolished. Look, if you want to continue this injustice, be up front about it. Change the 13th Amendment to read that involuntary servitude is allowed if a man acknowledges paternity whether it is true or not.

Why not force the biological fathers to financially support their children?

I guess principles are difficult. That's why we don't see them much anymore.

I was trying to find more about the case I cited and instead found an excellent article about mistaken paternity: http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/injustice-by-default/singlepage

After the kind of morning we had, I'm sort of hoping to learn I'm not the biological mother.

Getting the money back? Maybe. The mom can get money from the sperm donor. Abandoning the child he raised? Shithead move. Man doens't deserve bio kids-or any other kind either. What a fucking asshole. Gma sounds like a real bitch, too. I guarantee if somehow tomorrow we found out my kids had been switched at birth, I would be keeping these kids and my mom and rest of family would love them just as much. The kid hasn't changed.

"Oh go fuck yourself. Why is someone who's been victimized responsible for ensuring that someone else's child experiences 'minimal damage' in their life? By that logic, we'd be living in a police state to ensure that no child anywhere experienced even 'minimal damage'"

Why? Because we don't punish kids for the sins of the parents. Also, we expect adults to be responsible for their actions. You lived with, married, and fucked a woman for that many years, don't come crying to us that you didn't really know her at all. Your ineptitude doesn't interest us at all.

"The problem with that is that the honest mother will be morally outraged if the father requests it, and the lying mother will be outraged if the father requests it. In both cases, the mother acts the same way and the father is likely to trust her. Basically, what you see is that, all along the way, the state is sanctioning fraud."

The state isn't sanctioning anything. There simply aren't enough courts or laws to deal with the endlessly diverse ways people can harm each other. Life is full of risks. One of which is that you may choose a lying scoundrel as a partner. It's not the state's business to protect you from this. It's not the state's business to assume, first and foremost, that every couple must be lying to each other.

We're losing rights and freedoms all the time, everywhere, by the state's intrusions, specifically from the assumption that everyone must be a terrorist. It's crazy to invite this overreaching attitude into our hospital nurseries!

Let's force people to be responsible for their own lives. If you want to test your baby at birth, go down to the drugstore and get a test. How simple is that? It's just a swab that you send off. The honest or dishonest mother never needs to know.

momof4: "Why? Because we don't punish kids for the sins of the parents."

Wait, which is the punishment? If the kid learns the truth, or if we continue to lie to it? Telling the child the truth is "punishment"?

LS: "Let's force people to be responsible for their own lives."

Agreed. Punish the liars and let the duped person off the hook. If you don't do that, you don't believe what you just said. Because this whole debate is about what role the government plays in the personal disputes of people who are romantically involved. And, I agree: this is not an arena in which the government can play any sort of productive role.

-Jut

And, LS, yes, the Court is sanctioning lies. When they say that they do not care who the real father is and that the duped father still has to pay, they are sanctioning the fraud with the force of law. They are saying that they do not care what the truth is.
-Jut

Jut, I've already said that I think men in this situation should be able to opt out of paying child support. I was addressing mandatory testing.

It's extremely unfortunate for the child, but I agree that it's a situation of the mother's making.

But, as I said, if a guy is going to cease paying child support, he shouldn't continue the father role. That isn't fair either. From a legal perspective, a victim should be compensated if he/she suffers damage. A man can (or should be able) to go to court and say, I was deceived that this was my child, and now I'm suffering from this because I don't want to raise a child that's not genetically mine.

But he can't go to court and say, I was deceived, yet now I have a loving mutually rewarding relationship with a child who isn't genetically mine and which I wish to continue to parent. Where's the "damage" there? What are his losses? At that point, it's essentially an adoption - a situation which the family court views favorably as a gain not a loss.

Is it so inconceivable that the mother should be forced to give back the money, go after the biological father, and have the man that's been acting as surrogate to continue to have visitation?

(Of course, this man doesn't seem to want to do that, even if he could...which makes him a loser, but my scenario is "hypothetically speaking.")

Suppose a guy is led to believe he's the father...but isn't. Yes, the woman should give back the child support, yes, the real dad should pay up...and if he's no longer around, well, she needs to find other options, like every other single mother has to.

But why, since his emotional investment in the child has been ongoing, should he not be allowed to continue to play daddy? Or at least, have liberal visitation with his psuedo-daughter...unless his name is Woody Allen, in which case he must undergo castration first.

You see, he has invested more than just money in this child, contrary to what LS seems to think. He has given of his time and himself...and maybe you can't attach a dollar figure to it, but it's a considerable investment in the child's well-being. Why is this not even being recognized?

And if the real father was unaware of the possibility that the child was his, then he can step up, too. We'll right a book about it: "Heather Has Two Daddies...and one Mommy."

LS, I agree. Rights should follow responsibilities. If he wants to opt-out, he should have no rights. Any "visitation" he receives should be at the whim of the mother (just as it would be with any unrelated person.

Patrick: "You see, he has invested more than just money in this child, contrary to what LS seems to think. He has given of his time and himself...and maybe you can't attach a dollar figure to it, but it's a considerable investment in the child's well-being. Why is this not even being recognized?"

I think it is recognized. The problem is: some guys will run and some guys will still want to stay. Those are two different scenarios that can't easily be addressed simultaneously. But Patrick, the government only really cares about the money. That is why they enforce child support, but not visitation. That is why they berate men who want to opt out by stressing "there is more to being a father than the money and it is punishing the child if you want to cut off contact; so stick around for the child's sake (and get out your checkbook, by the way)."

-Jut

"Is it so inconceivable that the mother should be forced to give back the money, go after the biological father, and have the man that's been acting as surrogate to continue to have visitation?"

It's not inconceivable, but I think that would be a personal arrangement worked out between the mother, him, the bio-dad, and possibly the child. If he's not going to support his "child", then the court shouldn't recognize him as the legal father.

It's way too complicated, and the real problem is that it wreaks of punitive intent. He gets to enjoy still being the dad, scott free, while mom has to struggle financially. Courts just aren't going to want to engage in that.

Plus, how is a dad going to continue being a dad, yet say to his child, "I won't support you because you're not genetically 'mine'?" That just extends the emotional agony for the child.

Either walk away, in a legal sense, or adopt the child. It's not fair to be a quasi-father.

Gary G said:

I was trying to find more about the case I cited and instead found an excellent article about mistaken paternity
__________________________

Um, that wasn't a "mistake." That was fraud committed against Tony Pierce.

Re tests at birth: If a man WANTS to have a test done but not a DNA test first, for whatever reason, shouldn't it be easy enough to find out, discreetly, the child's blood type, which may or may not be compatible with his own? (I realize that even if they were incompatible, he'd have to get a DNA test anyway, for legal reasons, but it would help to have a "polite" avenue to make headway at first - after all, IF he confirms the unhappy news with a simple comparison, his wife won't have a leg to stand on. However, comparing blood types cannot prove you ARE the father.)

In December of 2009, at Glenn Sacks site, Pankaj (normally a pretty strong supporter of men's rights, IIRC) said, surprisingly:

"These are the direct consequences of mandatory DNA testing - see if you like it

1. "Cost of independent DNA testing will rise.

2. "DNA reports WILL be falsified - either on purpose or due to the sheer incompetence of the testers - thus eliminating any doubts a man holds and thus reduce the chance he would actually check for himself.

3. "When a father overcomes his false faith in govt issued DNA report, pays the elevated cost of DNA testing - and finds out that the govt issued DNA report was wrong - now he still has to go to court and fight a long drawn out battle over the DNA report. And as you might know - govt is very willing to accept failure and incompetence on its system.

"cough..CSEA.. cough.. TSA.. cough .. CPS..

4. "And given that the govt has shown its willingness to use DNA as a basis for determine obligations of CS (child support)... yeah things
will work perfectly, right?

"Delusional.. that is what this idea is. I would say be careful what you are wishing for - you might get it."

(end of post)

BTW, ever heard of the outrageous New Mexico case of Viola Treviño? Her ex-husband, Steve Barreras, was forced to pay her $20,000 over 5 years to support a baby that never EXISTED - before the courts decided to force Treviño to produce the child! In 2004, she even kidnapped a 5-year-old stranger, briefly, to pose as her daughter!

(Treviño may be out of jail by now - I'm not sure. She pleaded guilty in 2008. You can see Youtube videos of her - one I remember showed her with the kidnapped child.)

And this is as good a time as any to mention that tests on invisible methods of male birth control are due to start in the U.S. next year. At least, the men who use them will know immediately that there's a chance, at least, that the wife is cheating when she says she's pregnant.

More details here, if you like (very informative)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.obituaries/browse_thread/thread/3a6effce7a8726a0/9fe9af86f95655c8?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=lenona+graphic#9fe9af86f95655c8

Thanks LS, for addressing some of Jut's comment,

and as for this part:
"Here, how about this compromise: no father's name ever appears on a birth certificate until the father is tested. There is no acknowledgement of paternity option (because, really, how can he know?). The person requesting the test can pay for it.

Fair?"

Fair to who? The people who make bad partner decisions? So, when you have a child, and trust your wife, you think you should have to pay for a test to prove that your name belongs on your child's birth certificate?

How about there doesn't need to be a compromise. If a man has suspicions, he's welcome to pay for a test. If my husband asked me for a test when our baby is due in May, I wouldn't be outraged; I would just think "wow, this isn't the man I married, when did he become an insecure weiner?" But the test would show he's the father, and he would be the one looking like an ass. However, this wouldn't happen because we both chose each other wisely and trust each other.

We were also trying for a baby, so maybe that makes a difference. He wants to be and is ready to be a father.

If a man doesn't want to be and is trying hard not to be a father, perhaps he is hoping the child isn't his. In which case, it's still his choice to have a paternity test done at his own expense. Like LS said, the mother doesn't have to know, if he's too scared of "outraging" her.

And also, I want to be clear that I'm speaking strictly about mandatory paternity testing, not how or who should be paying child support or how the legal system handles cases. I'm just saying that mandatory testing is not the answer.

I think we should just switch to a matrilinear culture.

That way the DNA test would be the natural way to go if a woman or man wanted to claim either paternal rights or obligations.

Men and women both might think just a little bit more before they spread either their legs or their seed.

Of course, if they did that now, there wouldn't be as much of a problem anyway.

Either walk away, in a legal sense, or adopt the child. It's not fair to be a quasi-father.

Agreed. The court is never going to have the capacity to make this sort of situation fair for everyone involved. If you made a terrible mistake in your choice of partner, there's only so much the legal system can do. And I say this as someone who is currently being screwed over the by the legal system. I understand its limits. The law doesn't care how we feel about anything, nor should it.

As for mandatory DNA testing: Who should pay for this? How do you enforce it if the parents don't want it? How do you enforce it in the case of home births? What happens in cases when the tests are wrong?

Angie: "If my husband asked me for a test when our baby is due in May, I wouldn't be outraged; I would just think "wow, this isn't the man I married, when did he become an insecure weiner?" But the test would show he's the father, and he would be the one looking like an ass. However, this wouldn't happen because we both chose each other wisely and trust each other."

Yes, and it is exactly this attitude that allows women to engage in fraud. The lying woman would say the exact same thing to guilt the suspicious man into finding out the truth. And, she has every incentive to lie. That is why it should be taken out the man's hands. Only mandatory testing before a father's name is put on the birth certificate will eliminate (or greatly reduce) fraud.

But, an acknowledgement of paternity as an unchallengeable document is REALLY stupid idea. No man can KNOW; he can TRUST, but unless she is not out of your sight, complete knowledge is impossible. But, we will take fundamentally unreliable evidence as CONCLUSIVE proof when better knowledge is available. That is foolish.

And, the attitude that the man should be held responsible for making a stupid choice in mating with a lying person basically blames the victim. If that is the standard, let's let Madoff out of jail then, because it is really those stupid investors that are to blame for giving him their money. They need to take responsibility for their choices.

-Jut

I think that some people are confusing the underlying issues w/ their own assumptions about the type of people and relationships involved.

There's no evidence that only a certain cohort of people engage in this behavior, or that women who do are somehow conspicuous and can be easily avoided. Nor do we know what their financial situation is, or their ability to pay compensation. We can't even infer what sort of relationships, if any, the affected men have with these kids. So most of the conjecture regarding how difficult it would be to penalize women who defraud men in this way is unfounded.

Paternity fraud can be treated similarly to other types of fraud and coercion. The material circumstances of the perpetrator aren't relevant to the determination of whether they had committed the fraud and can face penalties. There's no reason that a woman found guilty of this crime can't face criminal charges and be forced to pay compensation under a sentencing agreement.

Keep in mind that the victims have often paid tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to these women. They've likely been kept from the opportunity to have their own children, and to pursue other relationships. Many have experienced significant harm as the result of having been deceived over so many years.

Why? Because we don't punish kids for the sins of the parents. -momof4

Really? I seem to recall all sorts of crimes for which parents are punished monitarily and criminally which results in punishing the kids in some form or another

Also, we expect adults to be responsible for their actions. -momof4

Unless they are women who commited paternity fruad, because punishing them would punish the kids

Plus, how is a dad going to continue being a dad, yet say to his child, "I won't support you because you're not genetically 'mine'?" - LS

This line of thought assumes that men are fucking incompitant morons who are incapable of deciding how best to spend money for the welfare of thier kids without the mom making the desion as a 'better', 'smarter' proxy

there is an angle on this that I haven't really seen discussed, regardless of our individual opinions...

the reason a government has an interest in a correct birth certificate, is the single basis of this document to establish your identity.

That is why when you adopt or change your name there is a big todo in court, because you are modifying your identity. Legally your identity is what allows you to be a citizen, and inherit property.

On this I disagree with Glenn that having some sort of test would be detrimental to a guys proof that the kid is his.

The way it is RIGHT NOW, we go on the word of the mother at the birth. the mother can put ANYONE'S name on the birth certificate, and the state will assume that is the father.

So right now there is no evidence, only one person's word. From that point an identity is built. It doesn't matter if she is planning a cuckold, and the guy is standing right there, or if she is alone and picks a name from the phonebook like Joe E. Smith... what ends up on the birth certificate, along with a filing fee becomes law.

There is more checking of identities to make sure that a baby isn't stolen out of the hospital, than to establish paternity.

This shouldn't rest on if the guy is worried or suspicious, or has never even heard of the mother, or is even better impotent, and incapable of having kids.

You're there in the hospital getting a name on a birth certificate which is a legal document, there shouldn't be much problem with the hospital certifying relations there. There doesn't have to be any database or anything, just that the hospital tests this is the mother, this is the father.

Would it make it uncomfortable for a lying mother? Whose problem is that?

Would it incentivize the figuring out of who precisely are the parents so that they support the kid?

Isn't that what we want?

Or is it better in all cases to simply find some guy and make him pay regardless? Is it better when a woman can simply say "I don;t know" and make the state pick up the tab? That happens now, sometimes.

"There's no evidence that only a certain cohort of people engage in this behavior, or that women who do are somehow conspicuous and can be easily avoided. Nor do we know what their financial situation is, or their ability to pay compensation. We can't even infer what sort of relationships, if any, the affected men have with these kids. So most of the conjecture regarding how difficult it would be to penalize women who defraud men in this way is unfounded."

All true, so imagine what the court is facing. Maybe this mother is just a lying harlot, or maybe she and her husband were swingers. Maybe he also had a string of lovers (which she has evidence to show), and so did she (which he has evidence to show). Maybe he abused her, so she ran into another man's arms. Maybe she abused him. The possibilities are endless.

All things considered, the court, and taxpayers, are far better off not making moral judgements. Some of you are too naively dependent on the legal system to right all wrongs and punish all moral failings. It simply doesn't work that way.

"This line of thought assumes that men are fucking incompitant morons who are incapable of deciding how best to spend money for the welfare of thier kids without the mom making the desion as a 'better', 'smarter' proxy"

Fine. Take your quasi-kid out to dinner, or pay for that skateboard he wants. Tell him you're his dad only emotionally, since he's not really "yours" and you're punishing his mom. Spend your money however you like, but don't expect the courts to award you visitation or legal rights if you're not willing to legally support your child.

Fact is, a guy can't go before a judge and say that he'd like to continue being a parent without supporting his child and not be viewed as an asshole. The judge is just going to think, "She may have cheated, but I can see why. This guy is a jerk! They deserve each other. And the poor kid deserves better than both of them."

As an adopted child myself, I totally understand the bonds that form between non-biologically related people. Bottom line, if a man FEELS like a father, he IS a father, no matter what the circumstances were in his child's creation.

And if he truly feels like a father, he'll step up and do what's best for his child, even if it's unfair.

'Only mandatory testing before a father's name is put on the birth certificate will eliminate (or greatly reduce) fraud.'

You know what else would? KNOWING WHO YOU FUCK! Lirs don't lie once. Or even a few times. Much like the TSA grope-downs, I would (were I to have anymore kids, which I'm not) go to jail before I'd let the government take my kid's DNA or mine either. Talk about an intrusion on our right to privacy! Oh, but the government wouldn't do anything with it, other than tell some dad that may or may not want to know that a kid is or isn't his biologically? Sure, right they wouldn't.

Also, blood type isn't binary (Meaning an A mom and B dad don't always make an AB kid, etc). So no, blood type testing can't tell you that you aren't the father. It can say there is more or less likelihood that you are, sometimes, but that's it. I know that's not what they teach in high school science when we all type ourselves for fun, but it's true.

And luj, I never said don't make the mom pay the money back, did I? In fact, I clearly said that the bio dad needs to be gone after for support. Nice jump saying I'm against consequences for the mom, though. I'm against screwing the kid up, which a man he's known as dad disappearing will damn sure do.

You people are all too serious for me.

How come nobody is bringing up the greatest paternity hoax of all time? No, I'm not talking about "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" (Though it is more entertaining). The immaculate conception which made a saint out of a liar (if you believe that human babies can only come from shagging that is).

"Not every guy wants to know whether he's been cheated on, although most probably do. It is up to men to vet the women they are with -- and ideally, before having sex with them."

True, but I think that the child's right to know if they're genetically pre-disposed to a certain disease trumps the husband's desire to keep the blinders on. Having an accurate medical history might turn out to be important for the child 30 or 40 years down the line--maybe when he/she is trying to have kids of his/her own, so it would be valuable to at least have that information on file SOMEWHERE. I like the idea of mandatory DNA testing for this reason.

momof4, thank you, for all of your comments.

A woman's moral obligation to tell the truth, does not absolve a man of his moral obligation to vet his mates, to require a paternity test in a timely fashion, and not to create a primary bond with a child if he considers abandoning the child to be an option.

Shannon, I favor a child's access to their medical history, but if I understand correctly, a paternity test does not accomplish this - nothing can force bio-dad to show up, talk, tell the truth, or guarantee that he knows the relevant history. Genetics testing however may give us all access to enlightening information, and I think all that's needed for that, is the individual.

"There should be mandatory DNA tests at birth to determine fatherhood."

No. What we need is not more laws. Not every guy wants to know whether he's been cheated on, although most probably do. It is up to men to vet the women they are with -- and ideally, before having sex with them. If you live with your head up your ass about someone's ethics, that's your business, not the state's or the rest of ours.

That is the apotheosis of delusional.

You are in no position whatsoever to presume what most men want. And as for vetting women...wow. Just wow! How the F does a man vet a woman for her willingness to cheat on him?!

If a woman openly acts like a slut, then it's easy. Women, bless their pink little hearts, are smarter than that. Read "Women's Infidelity" by Michelle Langley and start being a tad more honest with yourself.

WOW!

Mandatory DNA at birth on the federal level is absolutely needed.

I don't think paternity tests should be required. I do, however, think the prospective father should have the right to a paternity test before being legally mandated to provide support. Meaning, while there is no legal mandate to test, that a woman cannot extract money from the man on the basis of her word alone, unless he agrees because he wants to be the father regardless of biology (my children are adopted, so if my wife and I ever divorced and she got custody I'd pay child support on the basis that I legally agreed to be the father).

I believe mandatory testing is a potential violation of privacy, but I also think it is a violation of one's rights to have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars over decades on the basis of a woman's word alone. I doubt women would like their ex-husbands or any man for that matter to have that much power over them.

"And if he truly feels like a father, he'll step up and do what's best for his child, even if it's unfair. "

How about we make it unfair to the lying cheating dirtbag? Give him full custody if he wants it, make her pay child support, and give him all options regarding visitation. The child is better off then if he just left, and the guilty one is punished.

> his moral obligation to vet his mates, to
> require a paternity test in a timely fashion,
> and not to create a primary bond with a child
> if he considers abandoning the child to be an
> option.

Um...

My balls are "timely".

Seriously, do you REALLY think the strength of families and fatherhood will be improved by explaining to men —particularly those less adept at identifying sincere affection— that there's a sunset clause for their expectations of fidelity and integrity in these most central matters of attachment?

So, that. I think you're wrong, GOOFY wrong.

And I think yours is the most heartlessly promiscuous use of the verb "bond" this blog has seen since goofball commenter DuWayne left our little salon a few years ago. Like him, you have weird ideas about love for children. And we can talk about that, but I want to club you with the practicalities first.

You're thinking like a lawyer. Like a carpenter would in a surgical theater, like a gardener would in an abattoir. It's not the venue.

(Dinner with my favorite couple and their toddler tonight. Nothing clarifies like a righteous example.)

"You know what else would? KNOWING WHO YOU FUCK! Lirs don't lie once. Or even a few times.

Momof4 is EXACTLY right.

"

Except she's not. Sometimes, lying cheating scumbags, only lie about certain things which are very difficult to ascertain. Just like sociopaths who are really very charming in person. And if she can can lie to herself, then that makes her deception even more convincing.

"Nathaniel Branden told me that people will tell you what they're all about -- if you're willing to listen. You look at a person's character -- the things they do when they know no one's looking."

Yeah, lets screw a significant percentage of the population (male or female) because they are too stupid or too desperate to match your due diligence, which so far has proven to be exceptional.

Or just trusting for that matter.

"Cheating doesn't automatically equate to committing paternity fraud."

Yes, it does. She just doesn't have the guts to face the potential fallout by telling the truth. The woman knows the potential is there because she slept with someone other than the man she is claiming to be the father. Unless she was drugged, raped and doesnt remember it, then she knows the chance is there and should disclose it. She's playing russian roulette and all the responsibility is on her. Anything else is blaming the victim. On top of that we toss equality under the law out the door and put the child victim ahead of the "father" victim all while robbing peter to pay paul. If marriage and/or having kids with someone is a suicide pact, no-fault divorce or divorce of any kind should be abolished. The courts/gov will never do that because they make too much money currently.

Mandated DNA testing is absolute idiocy and does not solve the problem properly. It makes it easy on all involved (blame the government not me for being paranoid!) and lets the gov get one more hand in the cookie jar regarding our lives.

The solution is to promote a society that shames women who lie about this and/or teach men to "trust but verify" and get their kids tested discretely or openly (their choice).

Finding a man with ethics and screwing up is hardly much to worry about since your boyfriend can't saddle you with a kid that isn't yours (or did they not cover that at CalTech?). The presumtion of paternity gives your sex free license to say 'till death do us part and still go sperm shopping as you please. So spare me your exalted background listening to internet gossip.

Nathaniel Brandon can tell you anything he likes...I'm sure if someone is famous enough, you're more than willing to swallow it.

There are a number of men who just want a kid and don't care who the father is? Good. Then they won't care about the DNA results. And they're called chumps (or cuckolds, if you prefer).

Women have rights and men have responsibilities. Your "ethics" are so transparent you could sell them for Saran Wrap.

I totally get how upsetting it must be to find out that the child you thought you fathered, wasn't yours anyway. I understand the resentment towards the mother. I really do.

But I can't fathom how you could abondon the kid you have raised. I have two kids - they're 5 and 7 and I haven't lived with their mother since they were 1 and 2 (the 5 year old will be 6 shortly). I know my ex wasn't faithful. But no amount of genetic testing will ever change the fact that I am the father of my two girls. Nothing will ever make me stop loving them. Nothing will change that they call me dad, that it is me they run to when they are scared, that I held them when they had nightmares, that I'm the dumb f**k that gets too angry and yell and feel horrible for days or weeks. They are my kids and I will be their father until I'm dust and then some. How anyone could just leave the kids they raised is so beyond me.

Don't get me wrong; I think the mothers who do this are nasty bitches. Not defending them what so ever. But breaking the heart of a kid that thinks you're the dad? I don't get it.

OK. So it is the guy's responsibility to vet the woman before having a kid and know she won't cheat. The state should not be involved. Thus, it should be the woman's job to vet the guy to make sure he will stick around and willfully pay. The government should not get involved in making sure the guy pays.

> But breaking the heart of a kid that thinks
> you're the dad? I don't get it.

The short answer goes like this: People want what they want. And what a lot of guys want it a little genetic continuity. And / or, they want their children to see in practical terms that these most fundamental relationships cannot be based on deceit.

You may think these men are wrong about both those things... But you don't get to make that judgment call for them.


> So it is the guy's responsibility to vet the
> woman before having a kid and know she won't
> cheat. The state should not be involved. Thus,
> it should be the woman's job to vet the guy
> to make sure he will stick around and
> willfully pay.

Damn. Nice comment, dude.

" It's far easier to attack me than it is to take responsibility for being a gullible ass."

You know, I'd respect that response a lot more if it took into account the fact that most people are not as smart as you are. In fact a sizable percentage of the population can be considered Stupid by any standard. How many of them should we throw under the bus because,"They should have done more research?" And please tell me when being gullible or stupid made you automatically responsible for the willfull misdeeds of another? Criminal or otherwise?

OK, I don't think it is realistic to expect men to be psychic and know ahead of time the wives will cheat.

I don't think Momof4's hospital-switching analogy is a good one, because it takes out the deceit factor... a better analogy would be the baby died at birth so the husband switches in his bastard child who happens to be exactly the same age, but now I'm getting bizarre...

However I think there is something seriously wrong with a guy who raises a kid and then says "Fuck you, I hate you now" to the kid. (Though I think we all understand why he would say that to the WIFE). And yeah, the wife is at fault for the scenario... that doesn't change the fact that he's responsible for his reaction. His relationship with the kid is separate from his relationship with the wife.

I know a guy this happened to. He ended up getting custody actually.

Damn, just wrote a long comment and somehow it disappeared.

I think NicoleK has a good point here. Your children aren't to blame for what their mother did. Did she screw someone else and screw you over at the same time? Go ahead and dispise her. She's a bitch. Does that make the kid that loves you a bastard? It does seem like some guys think that. I heartily disagreee. Once you accept a child as your own, you have a responsibility to that kid - a responsibilty that outweighs what you want for yourself.

The love between a father and child should not depend on what anyone else does. Not even the mother. So go ahead; hate the mother if you want, but take care of your kids. They need their father.

> They need their father.

And she should choose him wisely, as if her integrity were never more important.

>>>This line of thought assumes that men are fucking incompitant morons who are incapable of deciding how best to spend money for the welfare of thier kids without the mom making the desion as a 'better', 'smarter' proxy

Bingo. Monetary payments to mom is not all encompassing of 'supporting a child'. As a matter of fact, a mother who has put herself in the situation of having one man be the father of a child she bore from another man is, quite likely, a bad judge of how to spend child support money (I'll bet mom has an enormous closet of clothes and shoes).

Also, the 'you either pay the mom child support or you walk away completely' is draconian and not in the best interest of the child or the non biological father. But it is perfect for the mom in helping to hold him emotionally hostage for continued pay offs. Super idea!

In this day and age, a father does not equal a gay who got his rocks of one evening with his GF/wife/stranger. Which is not to say genetics mean nothing.....but as a child who grew up with a non biological father, he was a father through and through. Those who discount him because I did not share his genes, how illogical can you be?

The guy in the story is a royal asshole, plain and simple. How are you a father to a child for that many years then just walk away because the woman lied to you? Did he at least try to work with the mom to see if an arrangement could be made? Or was it a case shameful case of 'Junior, you don't have my genes so F off'?

Can the guy even legally keep in contact with the kid once the DNA test says he isn't the father? Does he have any legal right as a parent other than to write a check to his ex?

"Mandatory DNA at birth on the federal level is absolutely needed."

Yeah, let's get the screeners from Homeland Security to come in every nursery and mess with our babies. They can fondle them and check for explosives while they're at it.

Again, DNA kits are now available at the drugstore. If a guy is too cheap to go pick one up to alleviate any concerns he might have, then don't ask me to feel sorry for him years down the road.

And don't expect ME to pay for the damn test! Why? There are millions of men and women who DON'T cheat, who give birth to babies that belong to them, so what a phenomenal waste of taxpayer dollars that would be!

Hysterical much LS? All that is needed is for a nurse to take a cotton swap and rub it on the inside of the babies mouth. The test only costs like 300 bucks and it might actually save taxpayers money in the long run by reducing drawn out divorces between long married couples. Custody battles take a lot of court time. Time in court=taxpayer money.

No it wouldn't save us any money because these occurences are in the minority. $300 per test for every baby in America is going to save us money by preventing the few cases where this would be an issue? That's nuts.

If you don't trust your partner, that's your problem, not the taxpayers. Truly. Some guys here apparently don't trust any women, so they'll be buying lots of tests, but that's because they don't know how to judge good character from bad or have trust issues in general, none of which is the taxpayer's responsibility.

Besides, there is an easy solution. Men can pay for their own testing. Save themselves money on future legal fees if that's their concern. It isn't the taxpayers concern, and we need to be cutting laws and expenses in this country, not adding more.

So if the guy trusts his partner and is wrong he is a moron but if the guy dosnt trust his partner he has issues? Also the "few" cases are anywhere between a few hundred thousand and a couple of million. Im sure if we did mandatory dna tests at birth it would both reduce legal fees and welfare money spent.

Wow, a lot of arguing that "good people don't do bad things". Is that like "honest people never lie"?

OK, I'll stop the snark. I know that people are arguing the example at hand, but the larger issue on required DNA testing isn't cuckolding, though I remember something like one out twelve children born into marriages aren't the husband's. It's the 40% out-of-wedlock births where the State pushes the woman to identify the father on the birth certificate for the purpose 1) to make sure the State doesn't pay and 2) to collect percent matching funds from the Feds on every dollar of child support collected (which is why child support usually goes through a state agency as much as to make sure it's paid). This leads to a lot of men misidentified as the father (from "I don't like the father, but I like him" to "well, the other guy does make more money" to "where's the phone book").

Do I think mandatory DNA testing across the board, no, do I think in all cases out-of-wedlock, yes. Only in that before child support can be assigned the purported father has the absolute power to require DNA testing with no time limit. In most states I believe that limit to be 60-90 days after birth to contest. The "agreeing to be on the birth certificate does not mean" what she implies, it means you failed to contest. After you weren't notified (notification can be done through a newspaper or letter, varies, and if you don't see it or get it, too bad.)

As for this guy, if I raised a boy for 14 years he's my son. Screw the DNA. But boy would I be mad at the ex.

momof4: "Also, blood type isn't binary (Meaning an A mom and B dad don't always make an AB kid, etc). So no, blood type testing can't tell you that you aren't the father. It can say there is more or less likelihood that you are, sometimes, but that's it. I know that's not what they teach in high school science when we all type ourselves for fun, but it's true."

Huh? is that what you really meant to say, or the reverse?

If I am O- and my wife is O-, then there is no way in hell that any of our children will be anything other than O-. If the child is O, or AB, I know for damn sure it is not mine. If it is O-, I know that it is possibly mine, but that is it.

LS:It isn't the taxpayers concern, and we need to be cutting laws and expenses in this country, not adding more.

Yes, The Former Banker has it right. It is not the government's role. They should be taken out of the equation altogether and the whole child support industry should be abolished. We need less government.

-Jut

Sorry for being end quote challenged. It goes after certificate.

You know, sometimes I watch the Maury shows, where they reveal the daddies, and the funny thing to me is that some of those babies look exactly like the dads, who are up there swearing it's not their baby.

You can tell a lot by features. When I was pregnant with my daughter, my ex got some paranoia that it wasn't his baby, since his sperm count has always been low, and I'd had a male friend around at the time. He "teased" me about this enough that I realized he had doubts.

So, I told him I'd agree to a DNA test if he was really that concerned, but once our daughter was born, not only did she have his blood type A+, she looked just like him! His baby pictures could've been hers. There was absolutely no need to pursue testing.

True, in some cases, the similarities wouldn't be as apparent, but then some common sense is in order. If you and your wife both have blue eyes, and your baby is brown-eyed, then you might want to buy a test (though I read recently that is still genetically possible). Or, if the blood type combination doesn't add up. Or, as in this case, your mother keeps saying your child doesn't have even ONE feature that's yours.

Most children resemble both their parents in enough regards that their parentage is fairly obvious. I think some men just choose to live in denial.

Never seen this much late-night traffic on this blog before.

But Amy, Think of the child!!! (!)

Besides, it's not fair to ask anyone to do anything difficult or nuanced or fundamentally human, ever.

In our society.

Today.

Because it's not compassionate or sustainable.

LS,

Did a quick check on the genetic question. Yep, two blue-eyes can give a brown-eye. Two curlies straight hair, two cleft-chins no cleft chin. Has to do with copying errors, for one thing, the combination of the two gene sets, and more. Genetics only mean likely, not absolutely.

As for blood types, two O's, only O. After that, no. Only the O's. A's and B's, any combination including O. Two ABs, only some combination of A and B. Because A is AO or AA, B is BB or BO. So blood typing is not certain in anyway on parentage, even if both parents are O, unless one is O and one is AB and baby is O.

And you can't be assured by looks if you have a brother or uncle.

How come nobody is bringing up the greatest paternity hoax of all time? No, I'm not talking about "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" (Though it is more entertaining). The immaculate conception which made a saint out of a liar (if you believe that human babies can only come from shagging that is).

Posted by: Abersouth at December 1, 2011 5:55 PM
______________________________

I find it bizarre that most Bible skeptics (and I'm certainly one of them) would rather believe that Mary was a cheat than believe that JOSEPH was the father. I can only assume this is because the general public prefers sordid stories to non-sordid. After all, if no angel spoke to Joseph, why WOULDN'T he "put her away," unless there never was any controversy in the first place?

Assuming Jesus ever existed, that is.....

It reminds me of George Burns in the movie "Oh, God!" when, in answer to the question "was Jesus your son" says: “Christ was my son. Buddha was my son. Mohammed. Moses. You. The man who said there was no room at the inn was my son…”

OK. So it is the guy's responsibility to vet the woman before having a kid and know she won't cheat. The state should not be involved. Thus, it should be the woman's job to vet the guy to make sure he will stick around and willfully pay. The government should not get involved in making sure the guy pays.

Posted by: The Former Banker
______________________

Except that we Americans believe in not throwing out-of-wedlock children to the curb, if only for the selfish reason that poverty breeds crime. We also believe in putting the rights of the taxpayer over the rights of the dad, so there's clearly a reason to make sure taxpayers DON'T have to pay for such children - as much as possible, anyway.

That's interesting, Arial. Genetics is a fascinating field.

Do you mean because the mother might have slept with the brother or uncle too?

I'm really against basing government policy on these white trash scenarios. I grew up in the deep south, and there was surely a lot of inbreeding, but thankfully, we had no way of knowing back then.

Really, the people who go on Maury are the kind who shouldn't be having children in the first place. Testing isn't going to help much, as they're supported by the state anyway. Why should taxpayers care which moron is the real daddy?

One of the problems is that the guys here are making it sound like the fathers are always so innocent and faithful themselves. I'm sure some are, but it's more likely that if a man lacks the maturity to choose his partners wisely, he probably lacks the maturity to stay monogamous himself. There's often cheating on both sides, at various stages, in these relationships, so punishing the mother on moral grounds (because she's a "lying cheat") would be hypocritical in many cases.

Jesper, will you marry me?

"However I think there is something seriously wrong with a guy who raises a kid and then says "Fuck you, I hate you now" to the kid."

I agree. However, when a person is victimised, you don't get to dictate how they deal with it. Some men will stay, some will go. Some will be willing to support the kid, of their own will, without a court order. And some will be unable to look at the child without being constantly reminded of the mother's treachery.

"One of the problems is that the guys here are making it sound like the fathers are always so innocent and faithful themselves. I'm sure some are, but it's more likely that if a man lacks the maturity to choose his partners wisely, he probably lacks the maturity to stay monogamous himself. There's often cheating on both sides, at various stages, in these relationships, so punishing the mother on moral grounds (because she's a "lying cheat") would be hypocritical in many cases. "

The difference is that a lying cheating scumbad husband cannot not dupe his wife into believing his love child is hers, while a lying cheating scumbag wife can dupe her husband.

"The difference is that a lying cheating scumbad husband cannot not dupe his wife into believing his love child is hers, while a lying cheating scumbag wife can dupe her husband."

You've got to prove "duping." If a woman is cheating, she may indeed have no idea whose kid it is, or she may genuinely believe it's the husband's.

My point is just that this Scarlet-letter type branding of the woman is unwarranted, and the "victimhood" of the man isn't so clear cut in cases where there's been infidelity on both sides.

Too many people commenting on this entry who are speaking through their open wounds instead of by using their brains.

This is it. So a bunch of people here got screwed over by a woman once (or twice or 12 times) and want everyone in America to make sure it never happens again.

I do not favor any law requiring a DNA test, but I do counsel EVERY expecting father to have the test done before agreeing to paternity. There is to much at stake long term, and the issue is resolved right from the start.

"Huh? is that what you really meant to say, or the reverse?

If I am O- and my wife is O-, then there is no way in hell that any of our children will be anything other than O-. If the child is O, or AB, I know for damn sure it is not mine. If it is O-, I know that it is possibly mine, but that is it."

I said what I meant and you are not correct. Do some research, study some science and genetics. The incorrect info is still out there, but we do know different now.

"a better analogy would be the baby died at birth so the husband switches in his bastard child who happens to be exactly the same age, but now I'm getting bizarre...'"

Still, how could you raise that baby years, then dump it in the orphanage once you found out? only an asshole could.

"Also the "few" cases are anywhere between a few hundred thousand and a couple of million"

Cite please? Because surely you aren't the sort to just make up a number for your argument.

LS,

The brother or uncle (of the husband) was a joke on the "you can tell by how the child looks" given I had just written on genetics above that.

And I wouldn't base government policy on any white trash scenarios, either.

I agree with Matt as to who can dupe whom, but with you on the branding where there are issues created by both sides. Infidelity is just one among many that may cause a spouse to stray.

Inbreeding is common in a number of cultures, isolated groups, or groups not mobile. So it wasn't just a Southern problem by any means. First cousin marriage is allowed in 19 states and DC, with five having restrictions to make sure no progeny. And 12 aren't Southern.

Now if you mean the other kind of inbreeding, yuck.

"My point is just that this Scarlet-letter type branding of the woman is unwarranted, and the "victimhood" of the man isn't so clear cut in cases where there's been infidelity on both sides."

Ah right back to victim blaming. He cheated so he's as guilty as her? Stop making excuses for the lying cheating scumbag who committed fraud against her partner. There is no excuse.

momof4,

The rhesus factor does make it even more interesting, because it's ++, +-, and --. Any with a plus is a +. So two O- (OO--) can only yield OO--. If A with B and one +, every damn blood type can come out.

momof4: "I said what I meant and you are not correct. Do some research, study some science and genetics. The incorrect info is still out there, but we do know different now."

Okay, and I think YOU are not correct.

In my scaenario (two O- people), you are saying that ANY blood type is possible? Because if there is one that is not possible, then it would be possible to know if I am not the father of an offspring that has that blood type. That would refute your statement.

Just a simple question.

-Jut

"Momof4 had it. You go by a person's behavior, judged over time, to find out who they are; you don't just trust or not trust."

So how much time does it take? What if she's fundamentally a good person who fucked up once and got scared? What if she's not a lying cheating scumbag in general? What if she gets pregnent before he's had time to finish vetting her? What if she's really good at deception? What if he's blinded by love? What if he's stupid? Still his fault for not knowing better?

By the way I agree with you in principle, I just don't think it can be done in many circumstances, and thus is not a proper standard by which to judge his culpability in the matter.

So because a man's cheating doesn't have the consequence of pregnacy, it's a "better" kind of cheating?

These relationship are usually dysfunctional, and it's rarely one-sided. Fraud is knowingly passing another man's child off as someone else's. Unless there's evidence that the mother knows for sure who the biological father is, the most she can be accused of is not coming clean about an affair. But I'll bet that many of the fathers have had affairs too, and didn't run home and confess.

And, as I said, from a legal perspective, a man is either suffering damages or not.

If he doesn't want to raise another men's child, he has a legitimate cause for damage. He shouldn't be forced to do so against his will.

But if he loves the child and wants to continue raising him or her, it's kind of weird to claim damages. He's GAINED a loving parent-child relationship, just as one would in an adoption, so only an asshole would go to court and try to get compensation or relief from supporting his child.

My father could go to the state and demand all the money he spent on me through the years back, since I'm not biologically his, but that would be an absurd premise.

These fathers need to direct their anger at the mothers, not the kids. This is an interpersonal dynamic between the couple involved, and no court can really solve it for them.

Our family court system is focused on making sure the parents can effectively co-parent, no matter what bad things they've done to each other in the past. It's water under the bridge. Going forward, they have this child (or children) together, and they need to show each other respect and civility.

So, if a man is going to stay the dad in this situation, he needs to try to let go of the anger he feels over this betrayal - maybe by realizing that, no matter what the circumstances of conception, the child has enriched his life and will continue to do so.

So how much time does it take? What if she's fundamentally a good person who fucked up once and got scared? What if she's not a lying cheating scumbag in general? What if she gets pregnent before he's had time to finish vetting her? What if she's really good at deception? What if he's blinded by love? What if he's stupid? Still his fault for not knowing better?

None of this is anything the courts are equipped to handle. The legal system can't protect us from every mistake we make, least of all being blinded by love.

And how would you go about getting back-pay from a mother if it's shown, say, 10 years later, that the kid is not his? If these people have been pooling their resources and sharing their lives for a decade, exactly what kind of math is necessary to sort out how much she owes? If they went to Disney World when the kid was 5, do we make her pay for 1/3 of the airfare bill and make him show receipts for all the snow cones he bought?

The best the courts should be able to do in this situation is allow the guy to walk away from the situation with no further financial obligation, if he so chooses. If he chooses to not be the kid's father financially, then he should have no parenting rights whatsoever. It's one or the other.

As for making DNA tests mandatory: I bet few of the people suggesting this would consider themselves liberals, but this is exactly the sort of thing that liberals get slapped around for by libertarians and conservatives. If you want mandatory DNA testing, then you are identifying a personal problem that you want the government to save you from, and insisting that the taxpayers save you from yourself. You're creating a raft of other problems for people who never wanted your "help" in the first place.

MonicaP: "If you want mandatory DNA testing, then you are identifying a personal problem that you want the government to save you from, and insisting that the taxpayers save you from yourself. You're creating a raft of other problems for people who never wanted your "help" in the first place."

Not entirely. I did say mandatory testing, but I modified that to testing before a father's name is put on a birth certificate. And, we are talking about a LEGAL DOCUMENT that many taxpayers and the government rely upon. What is on there affects rights of other people. It is not strictly a personal problem. besides, is it too much to ask that OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS be, I don't know, accurate?
-Jut

Insisting that DNA testing be done before the name goes on the certificate in effect makes it mandatory.

The main consequences for a man's name being on the birth certificate when he's not actually the father are to the man and child in question, not to society as a whole. LS is right. When DNA tests are so cheap in the stores, it makes no sense for public to be burdened with proving parentage. If a guy thinks he might not be, then he can handle the matter himself.

I'm adopted, and my birth certificate has my adoptive parents' names on it. So the birth certificates of millions of adopted people are not genetically accurate.

To add: It seems like what people really want here is a way for a man to be made whole after such a deception, which is not something the law can do. People get stuck on the money and legal issues because there's no way for the law to heal the emotional scars of having a significant part of your life be based on a lie. We like to pretend that if we just give him back all the money he paid and make that bitch suffer, then all will be right in his world. But in the end. he has still lost the life he thought he had, and he's never getting that back.

Adding all these new laws to the mix in some hopeless quest to make everything fair and right only causes more problems in the end.

This appears to be one of those issues where women tend to circle the wagons, and will go to all lengths to rationalize some reason that the woman in question shouldn't be accountable. So instead the man is at fault. He's a loser, a cheater, stupid and naive, so it doesn't matter what's happened to him because his life had no value to begin with. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! - and by 'children' they mean women.

The argument here seems to be that since these women are successful at deceiving men, and can carry out the deception over an extended period of time, that the culpability actually transfers to the man.

I still don't understand why it is that these women can't be punished. If I were a fertility specialist who deliberately, and deceptively, inseminated women's eggs with my sperm, no one would argue that I should be immune from punishment because I was successful. The court wouldn't put much weight on the fact that I have kids. I'd probably be given a prison sentence and spend the rest of my life paying compensation. So why can't these women do the same? Wait until the kid is 18 before mandating payments if you're concerned about their welfare, and throw in a custody review while you're at it - maybe they should be living with someone else. But it's perfectly appropriate to pursue criminal charges against the mother.

it doesn't matter what's happened to him because his life had no value to begin with. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Well, that was dramatic. Clearly, we're suggesting the man should be shot and left to rot in a dark alley. (That was sarcasm.)

The argument here seems to be that since these women are successful at deceiving men, and can carry out the deception over an extended period of time, that the culpability actually transfers to the man.

No. The argument is that all of the suggestions I have heard for punishing her end up punishing someone who had nothing to do with it, and forcing society at large to pay for the mistake.

Wait until the kid is 18 before mandating payments

I actually think this is fine, except for, how would we determine how much is appropriate? As I said above, how do you determine how much money this guy paid on the child alone? Assuming she didn't trick him into marrying her, half of everything is hers, no matter what happens with the child. What if she helped him through law school, or he spent a year unemployed? What kind of accounting system do you recommend to determine how much she owes him? Do they have to try and figure out how much the kid ate in groceries? And how do you prove she lied and wasn't just wrong?

MonicaP: "The main consequences for a man's name being on the birth certificate when he's not actually the father are to the man and child in question, not to society as a whole."

And, the father's other relatives and offspring who might be affected by laws of inheritance, not to mention the child's claims on the biological father's estate and his other relatives.

But, if you are saying that the impact is so small, take it off entirely. Why do we need to know who the father is? That is a personal matter between father and child. You can't have it both ways. (Actually you can, which is why we are having this conversation. You already have it both ways and some of us think that it is unfair and intellectually dishonest.)

Amy: "Monica is right. If you want to test the kid's DNA, it'll take you a couple of swabs, a few shekels, and a wait for the mail to come. If you would like to know if your child is biologically yours, have at it."

Yeah, but that gives you no recourse in Court. If it did, if it allowed you to bring an action to modify the birth certificate, I would say, "fine." But, because the government says that they do not care what the truth is, this is not good enough.

-Jut

Actually, it would be cheaper to just make it mandatory in any custodial/support proceeding.

" What if she gets pregnent before he's had time to finish vetting her"

There is a glaringly simple solution to that little problem, and that's keep it in your pants till you know her. Fucking doesn't have to come first in a relationship, you know. And the rest of society doesnt have to organize itself to protect you if you decide to put it first.

Momof4

The internet says that there are 4 million+ babies born in the USA per year. Wiki says paternity fraud is 3.7%. That's 148,000 paternity fraud cases per year. Seems like a hell of a lot of people to me.

"I'm adopted, and my birth certificate has my adoptive parents' names on it. So the birth certificates of millions of adopted people are not genetically accurate." MonicaP...

This is true, AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAD TO GO THROUGH COURT TO DO SO.

I thought that the government shouldn't care who you are, or had no interest in knowing who your parents are?

Birth certificate is the important legal document in establishing your identity. I would think establishing physically who the parents are would be important for that.

Additionally: "To add: It seems like what people really want here is a way for a man to be made whole after such a deception." MonicaP

Remember the saw about how you get more of what you reward and less of what you don't? If there is no punishment or downside for one party in this mess, why should they stop when they are incentivized to keep doing it?

Why ISN'T it fraud when a woman lies about who the father of her child is? Isn't fraud criminal?

For a married couple, the caselaw is such that whatever kid the wife has, the husband is LEGALLY assumed to be the father. It should be punishable if that is not true. What is the logical argument against that?

"And, the father's other relatives and offspring who might be affected by laws of inheritance, not to mention the child's claims on the biological father's estate and his other relatives."

That's a stretch. My cousins must be pretty pissed that I was included in my grandparent's will, since I'm not a biological relative.

Children need a father and a mother. Requiring a DNA test before a name goes on a birth certificate would inhibit that process. We'd end up with MORE fatherless children, which is not what society needs.

Not to mention, there are cases where women are abandoned by the bio-dad during pregnancy and may end up marrying or choosing to be with someone else before birth. I know of a case like this. The new husband put his name on the birth certificate, fully knowing he wasn't the bio-dad, but by CHOICE. He raised the child to an adult, and is still his father.

What would happen in those cases? Would he be denied? Would the bio-dad have to be tracked down to sign off?

Monica is right. Removing the child support and reeasing the father from future responsibility is the best the court can do. It's not anti-male. I also don't believe men who have lied to their wives about cheating for 10-15 years should go to jail. Or pay her back every penny she might've spent being in the relationship, even though it was based on a lie.

Romance is a risky playground. There is the chance of being hurt and betrayed at almost every turn. And some things just can't be made whole again, as Monica points out. The court can't reset the clock.

And a guy especially can't ask for that at the same time he asks to continue being the child's parent. If he's doing that, then he is essentially adopting the child. It is a choice then, as much as my father made a choice to adopt me. It might not have been a choice at first, but it becomes one, and there's simply no way to choose fatherhood without assuming the same responsibilities that all other fathers have.

* — * — * — * — *

> the rest of society doesnt have to organize
> itself to protect you if you decide to put
> it first.

* — * — * — * — *

"Why ISN'T it fraud when a woman lies about who the father of her child is? Isn't fraud criminal?

For a married couple, the caselaw is such that whatever kid the wife has, the husband is LEGALLY assumed to be the father. It should be punishable if that is not true. What is the logical argument against that."

I'm not suggesting that cases of aggregious fraud shouldn't be prosecuted somehow, but that kind of fraud is very tough to prove, and it should be.

You'd have to prove the mother KNEW FOR CERTAIN the baby wasn't his, and passed it off as his.

Otherwise, all you can prove is that she cheated. Actually, you might not even be able to prove that. What if they were swingers? She could claim he knew all along - that he was there, even, and approved at the time. She might claim she was drugged and was raped while unconscious.

In short, it would be very difficult to prove fraud, and very easy for a mother to avoid being prosecuted for fraud. And even if you do prove she lied about having an affair, what is a reasonable punishment for her that doesn't also punish the child, as well as any other children in the family?

Like I said, if a man lies to a woman for years about his cheating, I don't think he should go to jail or lose custody rights to his kids either. Even if it turns out he had a baby with another woman - and invested marital money towards the child's support or his mistress - I don't think he should go to jail or lose parental rights.

It's "fraud", but we don't usually prosecute people for being lying jerks in their personal lives.

Interestingly, LS, all your arguments are resolved by a DNA test at birth.

IF such a thing happens, and the kid isn't fathered by who she thinks, claims or wants it to be, THE GUY SIGNING on the the dotted line gets to make a CHOICE. If he signs, he's on the hook. if not, then not.

There is no further investment, emotional or monetary that is required, unless he chooses to do so.

Importantly now there is a HUGE disincentive for a woman to cheat in this way, because it will be exposed immediately, along with all the fallout of that.

In your example LS, the woman doesn't know FOR SURE. She does know FOR SURE that she was cheating. Right there is reasonable doubt.

but we don't have to even go down that road, because when she gets the birth cert. there will be a reckoning of who fathered the kid. The husband then has a choice to make.

In our original case, I don't agree with what the guy did all those years after the fact, but the fact was that he was married to her for 10 years prior. If there is a moment to find out about fidelity that is it, and this by necessity needs to be painful for a cheating wife, to make it not worth doing.

There are many diverse ways in which people lie and cheat on each other, no doubt, but in this particular case there is a simple remedy. Thids covers swingers, it covers everyone.

If unmarried people have a kid, the woman can SUE the guy for paternity, and if it is proven, he has to pay. This is law now. Why should it be different if you are married?

"I understand the resentment towards the mother. I really do.

But I can't fathom how you could abondon the kid you have raised."

Jesper, your second sentence there contradicts your first. There are plenty of men who have been abandoned by their family/kids due to the mother. Men who've lost their bio kids. While it would hurt me and the kid, I would abandon a kid not mine in many circumstances if I have no say or having a say will make me a wage slave to the mother or state.

LS: "It's "fraud", but we don't usually prosecute people for being lying jerks in their personal lives."

Except that this lie leads to a loss of resources aka theft.

The main consequences for a man's name being on the birth certificate when he's not actually the father are to the man and child in question, not to society as a whole.

Only within marriage, which is, disgustingly, only 60% of the time. And in the other 40%, the purported father is not allowed unencumbered access to the child. Look up "maternal gatekeeping", much, much more prevalent than the other.

As for family court, 80% of primary child custody goes to the mother (you can call it joint if you like but it isn't), and the stay-at-home dad faces something like 50/50 or less. No offense to the women here, but the laws and family court are heavily weighted towards women's needs, not the children's. If an ex-wife interferes significantly with visitation, the courts react slowly if at all, if the ex-husband is slow to pay child support, the courts act swiftly. The courts do not monitor expenditures by the mother to see if such is being spent on the children. BTW, in the 20% where husbands have custody, women are by far the bigger deadbeats on child support, and before you use a 1950s lens, most deadbeat dads are in the same situation as the deadbeat moms: they don't have the money because family courts are often unrealistic in child support.

The system is broken and it will only be fixed by a sincere effort at transparency and equal consideration of both parents, and the needs of the children which is an equal participation of both parents in their lives. Not obliging either parents' hatred of the other.

The best voices on this is that of the second wives (really, don't go with the he left her for the second, women initiate divorce about 66% of the time and it isn't for infidelity). They experience their earnings going for child support, they see the breaking of visitation rules, and they see all the other crap. My bio-mother has, and I have through a paternal uncle.

(Crid - I'm not ignoring your comment - I will respond late tonight or early in the am. -M)

Amy:"There's plenty to worry about, Zorro. In my early 20s, a guy screwed me out of a good bit of money. I sure learned my lesson, not to live in wishfulthinkingland. Pregnancy isn't the only cost that can be imposed."

You can't compare losing money you gave away willingly to a gold digger to paternity fraud. Pregnancy leads to an 18 year (or more in some states) financial obligation. An obligation that if you don't meet it (say due to hard times no fault of your own) you can lose your property, licenses, your liberty. A debt that federal law says CAN NEVER BE forgiven, it must be paid off. Thats debt slavery created through an act of fraud.

> will respond late tonight

No!! Now!


> Thats debt slavery created through an
> act of fraud.

Kinda aggressive, but i see what you're getting at. This shows the absolute insanity, INSANITY, of the feminine urge to reproduce. Whatever else the women making these arguments have going on in their lives, it's hard to regard them as intellectually present... best case, they're Shermer's exemplars.

Golly... I wish someone could come up with a catchy description of this phenomenon!

We are really getting to the complexity. That is a good thing.

If you truly believe that men and women are equal, under the law and for the benefit of the children, then all the societal bullshit should be set aside. neither parent is better, only different.

Mothers physically abuse children about 1.75 times more than fathers, including after children are in school (so no "they're stuck with the chil'ren" isn't an excuse, why should it be unless women are infants themselves?. Most men or women would not excuse the reverse. The myth of "men come home from work and abuse more" is just that, a societal myth). That men abuse women more is true by how you define it, but that men start it more isn't (lesbian studies of violence put the lie to that). Now, why do I bring this up? Because it is an underlying reason that women get primary custody in 80% of the divorces where children are involved. Go to divorce lawyer sites, you're going to see "overwhelming male abuse of women is bullshit but it's a handy tool".

I have to go pick up a child from school, so I'll expand on the travesty of inequality by family courts and society in general regarding treating women as less than equal adults.

Amy,

You're dealing from hindsight, which is made much easier if you didn't marry. If you had (and I don't know you're history so I may deserve a bite for assuming) then the State gets involved and it gets Kafka after that for men (she ran up $50K in debt without me knowing and my child isn't mine, but I'm responsible for both because it's for the children and she should live up to her accustomed standard).

My wife ran up well over $35K in debt by card without me knowing (it isn't always in things you notice, like furniture and big screen TVs, and she got the mail, but I now get the mail), however I, making 86% of the income, would be responsible for 100% of the debt if I divorced her (after all the law sees us as a unit, the man being the economic side). I vetted her, period, after my divorce from the first wife, and she me. She was extremely careful of money when on her own, but women tend to get looser when having a husband. I was rising from the top 5% to 2%, so her expectation was understandable but not excusable.

I still love her, but you can't tell who people are except over time and circumstance. I know, I know, but I'll wait. People change.

BTW, in conservancy, they cull the males. We just do it differently.

All of these arguments are extreme efforts to avoid personal responsibility on the guy's part. These cases we're reading about wouldn't need to happen today. Not because taxpayers could pay for testing of EVERY AMERICAN BABY (when we're going to hell financially, for Chrissakes!), but because the guy - any guy - can have a test done himself.

My friend did it. He's an atty, who slept with a woman who seemed a little shady to him. So he, being an intelligent guy, bought a test kit and confirmed that the baby was, in fact, his. He didn't marry her because he didn't trust her (note to those who claim to need protection from people you married). He didn't whine that the government should have protected him from his own romantic mistake. He took steps to protect himself, and it was so simple that she never even knew he did it!

Yet, that's not good enough for many here. They don't think it's fair that a guy would need to buy his own test kit at the local drugstore. No, it's better that EVERYONE be tested at taxpayer expense, even people who have no doubts about their partner's fidelity or desire to have their newborn tested. In our warped, government-dependent society, this somehow makes more sense than an individual addressing his own concerns. We'd rather inconvenience and burden everyone else.

Misguided people always want government to step in on the off chance that someone is lying, conspiring, or not doing what they're supposed to do - in other words, go on witchhunts or digging expeditions to look for wrongdoing. That's pretty much how government functions now, thanks to these idiots pushing for laws every time something unfortunate happens somewhere to someone.

Yet, we're all much better off - with much more freedom and privacy - when government presumes that people are doing what they should be doing, and only steps in when it becomes glaringly apparent that there's a problem, not before.

My first hubby the douchebag left ME with a lot of debt. It was in both our names, but he didn't give a rats ass so I ended up having to pay it all off. The only debtor I DIDN'T have to pay was the IRS thanks to the innocent spouse form. Men aren't the only ones who get screwed. I was young, I was really stupid and naive, and I learned a lot.

"Why ISN'T it fraud when a woman lies about who the father of her child is? Isn't fraud criminal?"

Why isn't it fraud when woman pads her bra till the wedding night, or a man says he has a big one, or is really good at giving head? People lie in relationships, and others lose out when they do-sometimes monetarily, sometimes in other ways. It's rarely the court's business.

"If unmarried people have a kid, the woman can SUE the guy for paternity, and if it is proven, he has to pay. This is law now. Why should it be different if you are married?"

For the same reason that married people don't have to prove they have the right to be in their spouses hospital room, the same reason that they inherit automatically, the same reason that they can't be forced to testify against each other. Because that's what marriage IS, legally, in this country. You enter into that contract, you assume responsibility for any kids made in that couple, as well as the right to inherit and make medical decisions. One simple piece of paper, lots of legal problems automatically addressed. The vast majority of married people would prefer to keep this as it is.

so... LS, who said anything about taxpayers? I had to foot the bill for all the tests done to my kids when they were born, and I had to pay for the birth certificate, no taxpayers there.

And momof4, I'd say there is a slight difference between footing the bill for 18 years+ of life and a padded bra... An entire LIFE's difference.

You are acting like an entire life is equivalent to a simple lie.

Everybody is talking about the kid, but who gets screwed the most, probably the kid. And who has the most to gain?

For LS's friend the Atty? He hadn't been married to her for 10 years when he found out, now had he? AND he IS a lawyer, while many people [including me] are financially devastated paying them.

"you assume responsibility for any kids made in that couple" momof4

OK. But then THAT WOULDN'T BE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IS IT?

The Kid WASN'T made in that couple, it was made OUTSIDE. So why is the husband on the hook for it?

A man shouldn't have to pay for kids that are not his unless he AGREES to, and getting married ISN'T the agreement to have kids that aren't yours.

I can't really see why you are arguing AGAINST proof. Against knowing the truth. Except for the part where it was bad news for the mother. That there would be consequence for this particular action.

Taxpayers aren't paying for this any more than they already do when some chica pumps out 15 kids by 3 fathers, none of whom would be paying for them. You can't get blood form a stone. But it WOULD prevent the government going after some guy pulled from a phonebook and put on the birth cert. It would damn sure incentivize everyone to make sure the correct person was on the birth certificate, since it is already assumed that he is on the hook to provide for the kid.

As I said before there are certainly all sorts of cheats and other lies that happen between couples, but this includes a 3rd person, their entire life, AND their identity, they are not even in the same ballpark. Stick with the one question and don't equivocate.

"All of these arguments are extreme efforts to avoid personal responsibility on the guy's part."

No it's about equal responsibility. One of the tests is reversing the subject of the argument without changing verb or object. If it doesn't make sense...

It's one thing to turn to government when there's no easy solution, but, in this case, test kits are available. Why don't you guys demand that the taxpayers buy your condoms while you're at it?

Plus, no one has apparently considered the potential impact of the government collecting DNA from every baby and father in America. What a nice little database that could become.

Think about it. Mothers won't be included, just men. And I'm sure there'll ultimately be ways to use your DNA to prove other things beside paternity - where you were, who you cheated with, what crimes you may have committed...

It'll all be for the public good though.

Here's the test kit available at your local pharmacy. You get the results in two business days after arrival at the lab, which is probably a lot quicker than the gov would do it:

http://www.dnatesting.com/

LS: "All of these arguments are extreme efforts to avoid personal responsibility on the guy's part."

Oh, I thought they were extreme efforts to ABSOLVE the lying woman of personal responsibility for fraud.

LS: "In our warped, government-dependent society, this somehow makes more sense than an individual addressing his own concerns."

Don't you see that this IS a government concern? I would be happy to take your position if the government had not set up a massive beauracracy that is devoted to enforcing child support orders against men in favor of women. If you get rid of that system, then I really would not care what the birth certificate says.

But, most people will start feeling sorry for the woman who gets abandoned by a deadbeat and DEMAND that the government step in.

You can have it one way, or the other, but not both.

-Jut

Well, Jut, I never demanded the gov step in. Yet, I see why they do it, which is to try to prevent the taxpayers from shouldering the burden of fatherless children.

However, this is kind of the reverse situation. Here, you have a man willing to be a father, and we're going to endeavor to undo this relationship and leave the child fatherless and likely supported by the state. So, in no way is this in the state's or taxpayer's interest.

Which is precisely why the gov would probably strive to make it in the state's interest to collect and store DNA samples. Of course, it would be under the guise of fighting crime. Now, we can legitimately collect DNA samples from almost every male and all children in the country!

That's a scary thought to me, and it should be to you guys pushing for this unnecessary government intrusion. Just because gov has unfairly intruded in one area, doesn't mean we bend over and say, "Intrude us all then, so it's FAIR!"

Also, what about the rights of men not to know? I can imagine several scenarios where a man, and/or a couple, might choose to remain oblivious. Perhaps, they broke up for a time, and both saw other people, but they love each other and have committed to making it work. Maybe they already have other children together and don't want this one to feel different. How reasonable is it to mandate that the state force people to know when they're not even asking to know?

If a man wants to know, he can now find out. That test kit is apparently accepted by courts if it comes to that. The federal government doesn't need to be involved.

> I would be happy to take your position if the
> government had not set up a massive beauracracy
> that is devoted to enforcing child support orders

There's been a failure of performance at a personal level. This is regrettable for many reasons, and one of them is that these bureaucracies appear to service weak spirits.

We might be OK with that, if these three conditions were met:

[1.] If taxes paid only by weak spirits could sustain the bureaucracies. (But no, the expense is borne by all.)

[2.] If the bureaucracies had no power in the lives of strongly spirited, decent people. (But no, authority creeps forward in all circumstances.)

[3.] If the weak people felt some shame for requiring this intrusion into their affairs. (But no, the weak people call it "justice", and complain that they can't get enough.)

The whining of fathers (and mothers) who've been 'Screwed, man!' in family court is distinctively pathetic. They'll say they'd never have started the romantic adventure if they'd known the outcome could be so bad... As if something new in human history had happened to them, as if adult love had a reputation for steady fulfillment.

Pathetic, pathetic. Pathetic because it thinks of civilization as a service, rather than as a collective enterprise.

Pathetic pathetic pathetic. Because these people are so obviously crying out for the stern parenting they needed in their own childhood, but didn't receive. They think the part they missed is what life, and other people, are all about. (Meanwhile, the rest of us have better uses for our tax dollars and our interpersonal judgment, so we pay a clown to wear a black robe and keep the weak people out of our way.)

DON'T FUCK UP MARRIAGE. If you do, weep privately.

But don't.

Crid, following up on your reply to my previous comment: I don't think govenment can improve fatherhood.

I do think a child is better off not forming a primary bond with a guy who knows he does not want to parent a child unless it is his biological offspring.

What the government can do to encourage men to get a DNA test sooner rather than later, is not refund child support payments made under an assumption the guy did not take the steps necessary to validate.

Bonds! Bonds! Biological offspring!

The wickedness of our psychotherapeutic age is that people using these bloodless words think they know what they're talking about. There's a price to be paid for sending people to college when they probably shouldn't go.

Bonds!

Bonding!

Where's that guy Christopher? He says things like that too. ("Interesting", he would say.) But not everything is a data point to be collated. We ARE talking about the souls and parents of children.

> What the government can do to encourage men
> to get a DNA test

No. Men who want them can get them. LS is precisely if not not narrowly correct: Families have a right not to worry about this too much.

Government can't do intimacy, period.

Ever see a Daddy-graft? Outside of adoption, I mean? A successful Brady? It's gorgeous when it takes.

LS gave great reasons for not making DNA testing compulsory. I agree with him.

And I stand by my point.

> I stand by my point.

You're a lawyer, right?

It's ludicrous to describe "requir[ing] a paternity test in a timely fashion" as a "moral obligation".

And it's cosmically clumsy to imagine a "primary bond" as fungible currency in family life... No matter how much it means to a child.

Your description of these things as chits to be traded (or traded away) speaks mostly of well-remunerated participation in that marketplace of monsters, the family court.

Fuggit. Leave me out of it. If you, counselor –or the dickless men who want to whine about how they (and their families) have been done wrong in these venues– come knocking on my door to sell your complaints, you'll find no buyer.

Momof4: "Why isn't it fraud when woman pads her bra till the wedding night, or a man says he has a big one, or is really good at giving head?"

So now you're comparing bra/boxers stuffing and "could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch" to responsibility for a child. Look, I'll buy into these arguments the second you make abortion due to rape illegal.

"Look, I'll buy into these arguments the second you make abortion due to rape illegal."

Interestingly, I've said here many times the rape exception to abortion is simply a product of the madonna/whore view of women. If it's a bbay it's wrong to kill it no matter what, and if it's not a baby it's okay to kill it no matter why. And I think all abortion should be illegal.

"I do think a child is better off not forming a primary bond with a guy who knows he does not want to parent a child unless it is his biological offspring."

Sometimes, the best things that happen to us start out as the "worst things that could happen" to us. And what we think we know before raising a child usually amounts to nothing.

I was thinking about this last night, and within my circle of friends, there are at least 3 whose eldest child is not biologically their husbands.

Not that it's a secret. Their husbands have always known this. They chose to be dads - two of them before the baby was born and one shortly after. The biological dads bailed on these kids, not believing they had what it took to be parents at the time, and they were probably right.

Yet, it's not uncommon for mothers, in this situation, to develop startling clarity and discernment. They can suddenly tell a good partner from a bad one. Perhaps because building a stable family becomes critical and urgent.

They've all gone on to have biological children with these men and stay married long past many of my other friends, who might not have chosen as well or appreciate their partners as much.

Again, I would hate to see anything that would inhibit this particular scenario, as it's worked well for all involved, including the bio-dads, who were able to escape the responsibility.

> not uncommon for mothers, in this situation,
> to develop startling clarity and discernment.

Too motherfucking late.

It's not uncommon for distracted skydivers, plunging at terminal velocity, to experience fresh insight about the nuances of aerodynamic inhibition.

It's not uncommon for scuba divers, sucking the last breath from their tanks at a hundred feet, to....

etc.

Agreed, Crid, but, as they say, better late than never. Some of the guys here claim they still can't do it without the state's help.

> as they say, better late than never.

Not really. There's our distracted skydiver, wishing he'd threaded the lines of his chute with BOTH hands while packing it, like they did during instruction, instead of holding coffee in one hand and flirting with that blond. That planet just gets closer and closer. His awareness of this approaching globe, while now keen, ain't good for much.

> Some of the guys here claim they still can't
> do it without the state's help.

Yes, and they should be discouraged from saying that. I don't see your point. When you say "do it"....

"Do it" meant choose a stable partner they can trust. There was a whole discussion earlier about how tough that was, which is why they wanted the government to perform DNA tests.

Her (LS is a woman)...and so do I! (Agree.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at December 3, 2011 6:42 PM

Thank you for the correction. Later in the day I flashed on that mistake - my brain pulled up LS's full screen name, and memory of a conversation we had at around ceder time a year or two prior. We've disagreed thoroughly on some other points about child-related issues - as I have with momof4. One of the things I appreciate about this blog is the opportunity to think things out with other people, both over time and in writing.

~~~~~

> I stand by my point.

>>You're a lawyer, right?

>>It's ludicrous to describe "requir[ing] a >>paternity test in a timely fashion" as a "moral >>obligation".

>>And it's cosmically clumsy to imagine a >>"primary bond" as fungible currency in family >>life... No matter how much it means to a child.

>>Your description of these things as chits to be >>traded (or traded away) speaks mostly of well-remunerated
>>participation in that marketplace of monsters, >>the family court.

>>Fuggit. Leave me out of it. If you, counselor >>–or the dickless men who want to whine about >>how they (and their families) have been done >>wrong in these venues– come knocking on my door >>to sell your complaints, you'll find no buyer.

>me/ Crid

In answer:

Yes, I am a lawyer. As for "well remunerated," I have never been paid for the work I've done as a guardian ad litem, or for any legal work I've done concerning kids. And you're reaching, but I don't know for what or for what reason.

"Ludicrous?" Please elaborate. Use of italics and bold font are not substance that support a point.

I agree that a primary bond is not "fungible currency." And I've never claimed otherwise.

I do think that walking away from a child is likely to be worse for the child emotionally after the child has bonded with the adult.

Here is what I am saying: Man up. To the adult who is inclined to walk away from a child who is not biologically his, man up and require a DNA test - and pay for it. To the adult who had sex with a woman he doesn't trust, or had sex with a woman he trusted, but who is later found to be untrustworthy, he and only he should be on the hook for the prior financial investment he made in that child.

As far as I can tell, that's the best way the courts can leave "you," Tax Payer, "out of it," when a man turns to the courts for assistance in these cases.

I wrote something long and mean.

Sio: "Jesper, your second sentence there contradicts your first. There are plenty of men who have been abandoned by their family/kids due to the mother. Men who've lost their bio kids. While it would hurt me and the kid, I would abandon a kid not mine in many circumstances if I have no say or having a say will make me a wage slave to the mother or state."

There's nothing in what I wrote that is contradictionary. I think the mother is nasty, but that doesn't make it right to leave the kids behind.

Maybe the rules are different where I live, but a wage slave to the mother? Seriously?

But I'll tell you why I don't get it. I didn't become a father by a night spend in bed with my ex. I didn't become a father the moment my first kid was born. I became one slowly. Holding her, comforting her, changing her, giving her baths, watching her grow, seeing her first smiles, listening to her when she crawled, bottle feeding her, her tiny little body lying warm and safe in my arms as she drank the formula, cozy and protected and knowing it, her arm starting to twitch as she fell asleep, knowing that right here, nothing would harm her. It's not even responsibilty. It's the purest kind of utter affection and love and the wish for for her (and her younger sister) to be safe, to grow up and not depend on me anymore. Why anyone would leave that is just beyond me. Nothing you can say will make me understand. Losing a bit of money, losing dignity, losing whatever, none of it matters. I can carry everything that matters in my world in my arms (though not for long, now that they're 7 and 5) and you'll never make me understand how anyone could leave that.

Aw, that's beautiful, Jesper. And very true for those of us who bond with our children, but I suppose we must make allowances for those who don't (I'll save Crid the trouble and add, "F--K allowances!")

I'm surmising the guy in this case wasn't around this kid that much. Sounds like the parents weren't living together, so maybe he never bonded very deeply anyway, and now that tests prove the kid isn't biologically his, he sees no reason to try. No good will come from forcing him.

But I can't imagine raising a child from infancy, as you describe so eloquently, and walking away. I can't even imagine doing that to my 12 week old puppy (which I adopted knowing full well we aren't blood relations).

Something tells me if Jespers wife up and decided to leave him, informed him that the kids wernt his, used the courts to prevent him from ever seeing them based on the fact that he wasnt the bio dad with spurious claims of abuse and insinuations of molestation he wouldnt have a problem protesting forking over cash to a woman who could have him jailed for violating a restraining order by sending birthday presents in the mail

And another thing, while its very comendable you are so strong emotionally, you cant reaaly pass judgement on those who wake up one day and find every last one of those wonderful memories to be nothing but lie

It doesn't sound like Jesper has to worry about that, but I bet he would still want to support his daughters because he would still love them, no matter how nasty the ex might become. Child support is to keep a roof over the children's heads and food in their stomachs. It is not a good thing to use to punish the ex, even if it seems like the only "weapon" available.

I get guys' frustrations with that, but it's better to take the high road, particularly where kids are concerned. The thing is, they grow up in a few short years, and then it'll be hard to explain why you didn't pay child support because you were trying to hurt their mom the way she was hurting you. That just makes a dad sound selfish.

Let the ex dig her own grave. Anybody that angry and manipulative usually will. Children eventually see through all that, and, in the end, they'll remember and respect the parent who behaved like an adult.

> I suppose we must make allowances for
> those who don't

No. No. No.

For the kids, maybe... But for the monsters who put them in such conditions of pain and vulnerability? Anything but an allowance.

Your presumption on this point is prototypical of your response to these issues.

And wickedly telling besides.

P-p-p-p 'path to the bone.

What do you propose, Crid - that we force these fathers to continue being fathers, even when it's proven that they aren't biologically related? From a financial sense, that's what we're doing apparently.

I agree a guy would be a cold, heartless jerk to walk away from a child he's already raised for years. But then, that's telling, isn't it? By no longer wanting to parent, he's revealed himself as unfit to parent.

lujlp: "Something tells me if Jespers wife up and decided to leave him, informed him that the kids wernt his, used the courts to prevent him from ever seeing them based on the fact that he wasnt the bio dad with spurious claims of abuse and insinuations of molestation he wouldnt have a problem protesting forking over cash to a woman who could have him jailed for violating a restraining order by sending birthday presents in the mail"

Well, probably, the system works different here. If she tried that, she would most likely lose the kids. Second, I'd have countless witnesses, including her closest family, vehemently denying anything like that ever happened. Third, it wouldn't make me stop loving my children.

"And another thing, while its very comendable you are so strong emotionally, you cant reaaly pass judgement on those who wake up one day and find every last one of those wonderful memories to be nothing but lie"

My marriage was a lie. Everything about was and I was basically a piece of equipment my ex used for as long as she wanted and then discarded when she was done. It was hurtful, degrading and by far the worst that has happened to me. But my children are no lie. No matter what genetic testing might prove. I know their mother wasn't faithful, but there's no need to test anything. Those kids are mine. The love proves it. Genes are just mechanics.

Oh, and just for the record - I do get along with their mother now and we cooperate really, really well. I'll never set foot in her home and neither will she visit mine, but we can talk like adults, without fighting or even bickering.

But my children are no lie

Again that is comendable of you, but not everybody would react the same way.

And I'm sure most people think they would do the same, but you can neer truly predict how someone will react

> What do you propose

That we hold adults to standards, sometimes through government power but more certainly (and productively) when operating beyond it.

That we remember other adults are not our Mommies and Daddies, and that (as we've seen here) legalistic impulses are more often bloodless and corrupt than helpful and nourishing.

That we dole sympathies first to the most vulnerable, disregarding any pornographic fascination some of us (ahem) might feel for adults whose incompetents propels misery into oncoming generations.

Stuff like that. I got more if you need it. Try those first, though.

Incompetence. Sorry.

(REALLY sorry).