Non-fathers forced to pay paternity support - your opinion?

[JasminaJ]

Ok Peter.... I feel badly for the mom because I am a mom. That is my main reason for living every day. Until my last breath. My kids have survived surgeries and illnesses. My kids and I have asthma-status asthmaticus-google it.
When you watch your child struggling to breathe on a respirator drowning in their own secretions and feel utterly f'ing helpless-all you can do is pray.
The mom-who has some criminal tendencies to be sure- has that in store for her. Her future is to watch her child die. Until you f'ing get your head to a place where you can have some compassion for other parents, lighten up. At present you remind me of my ex, a Dane from Copenhagen who doesn't give a
**** about any of the kids. Cold-blooded freak, money is all that matters to him. Back to the mom---------->
She should have to pay back the"not" dad, and her child is probably better off without him. I would hope that she will have access to other parents to support her through her very difficult and medically complicated life.
Yikes! This is obviously a hot button issue for a mom. Do you get it?
What's important, money- justice- eye for an eye- a child's life??????

[JasminaJ]

Oh- be sure and make a nice big letter "A" for her to wear on her chest- for Adultery.
And it's so nice to know you will be carrying the torch for chastity and justice.Keeping the double standard? Macho men can do as they want-women, with dying kids must be punished!! The patriarchy is safe once more!Make sure no one catches YOU in the red light district. That would be an interesting photo.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Determining what REALLY happened is not as important, ultimately, as determining an official version of events, so that decisions can be made and everyone can get on with their lives.

Well, if one can not be certain, the official version should be: We do not know. These guys can not get on with their lives - they have to pay a lot of money for something they did not do.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

We'd like this official version to be as close to the truth as possible, which is why we have rules of evidence and procedure. But we don't insist on achieving pure unadulterated (ha) truth, because that's not the real purpose of the system.

And when there is something as simple, cheap, and conclusive as a DNA test, what could be a just reason to not allow it as proof?

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

So courts rarely permit revisiting the evidence after an official verdict has been reached, or introducing new evidence. The whole purpose of the exercise is to move on, so except in cases where life and liberty are at severe risk, if you didn't bring it up the first time, they don't want to hear it.

Considering that "dead-beatism" can be punished with incarceration, I would say that liberty is at risk. Also, in these cases the ex-husband could not have brought it up the first time - he had no way of knowing then!

The Swedish legal system is in several respects different - and in my opinion in those respects far superior - to the US. legal system. In Sweden, both sides may introduce whatever they want as evidence. Neither party, nor the judge, can suppress any evidence. The sole recourse of the party against which that evidence is directed is to prove it wrong or irrelevant. This also goes for illegally obtained evidence. They can be introduced, and would in that case be weighed on their own factual merits. The illegality of their obtaining would then be dealt with in a separate criminal case. This works - cops do not want to go to jail, anymore than any other people.

Furthermore, new evidence can be (in general) introduced anytime during a case, irrespective of how many courts have heard the case. This puts both sides on their toes - they know that stuff can come back to haunt them. it also puts less of a premium of crooked lawyers being able to find reasons to suppress evidence.

Futhermore, if a case has ended with an acquittal, the DA may take the same case to higher court. The DA may there use the same evidence, or introduce new ones. However, he can not be sure that the higher court will be willing to hear the case - they have some leeway in chosing cases to hear.

All this sounds as if the Swedish courts would be hopelessly logjammed with old and new cases. However, the case backlog is actually smaller here than in USA, and things tend to go faster.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

This situation is analogous. An official version was reached -- that the husband of the mother was the father of these kids. The husband, wife, and children all lived with this official version, no problem.

The husband lived with the wrong version. The law does not currently penalize the cheating wife for her deception. If, OTOH, a woman would have to sign the name of the father immediately after giving birth under the penalty of perjury then thing would be better. People who lie in important cases which affect other people should not be supported by the legal system.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

In a situation like this, therefore, it is hardly surprising that the courts act to enforce an official version of events that was accepted by all parties, especially when everyone was happy with that official version. Just because one party discovered that the truth was different than what was originally believed, does not change the fact that the official version was working for everyone.

The version was working for the husband because - and solely because - he was decieved. There are many types of cases when misinformation is cause for change of legal status, why not this?

BTW: You seem to be most interested in how the legal system is now, I am more interested in how is should be. The latter should have been clear from post#1. You also seem to consider suppression of demonstrable truth as something acceptable.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

And it is also not at all uncommon, in real practice, for a husband and father to not really be the genetic father of his children. There are strong social policy reasons, for the permanence and preservation of the basic family unit, for maintaining the traditional relationship despite genetic truth.

In the Morgan Wise case, the judge took away visitation rights from MW for his real, genetic daugther. So much for "preservation of the basic family unit". Furthermore, this was a family based on a sham. The law should not be about preserving faulty marriages.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

For that reason, no court would be willing to create a precedent whereby the basic family unit with paternal responsibilities, already under strain in modern times, can be challenged and dissolved because the kids aren't really the father's. It would be disastrous.

I think that you are, quite simply put, wrong. Consider these cases I googled out:

http://paternityfraud.com/pf_cases_won.html

Originally Posted by Adam Sage

Husband makes cheating wife pay for time spent raising lover's child

The London Times, London, U.K., from Adam Sage in Paris, May 3, 2005

A FRENCHMAN has won a ground-breaking ruling against his former wife and her lover, ordering them to pay back the money that he had spent on bringing up a child he had mistakenly assumed to be his own.

The man, named as G in the ruling, was awarded €23,000 (£15,600) after a DNA test revealed that he was not the father of the 13-year-old child, Astrid.

He had raised her as his own daughter, paying for her food, clothing, toys, schoolbooks and holidays, the Caen Appeal Court in Normandy said. It added that his former wife, B, from Cherbourg, had always had doubts about the identity of Astrid's father: she was unsure whether it was her husband or her lover.

The judges said that she had committed a "fault" by failing to tell her husband that she had been having an affair at the time of the conception and that she did not know whose daughter Astrid was.

Originally Posted by AP

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 1, 2004

SEOUL, South Korea -- A South Korean court ordered a woman to pay her husband $42,380 in compensation for having a baby with another man, a judge said Monday.

The 26-year-old woman told her husband in February 2002 she was pregnant with his baby, and demanded that they marry. The baby was born in November 2002.

"The man had used condoms whenever they had sex, but he agreed to marry, thinking that one of the condoms didn't work," said Hong Joong-pyo, a judge at the Seoul Family Court.

But the man's suspicion grew when relatives complained that "the baby didn't look like him at all," Hong said.

When the husband confronted his wife with a DNA test that showed the baby was not his, the woman argued that the baby must have been switched at hospital. When the husband moved to sue the hospital, the woman confessed to having been pregnant with another man's baby, Hong said.

Hong also nullified the marriage in his ruling Thursday.

The wife said she was sexually assaulted by the baby's real father, but the court rejected her argument for lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by CCRC

(Carnell) Smith knows the subject of paternity fraud well. He led the team for the new Georgia paternity fraud law passed in May, 2002, releasing "duped dads" from child support payments for children proven by DNA not to be theirs biologically. Smith finally won his own paternity fraud case after a four-year legal fight including a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, Carnell, his wife Lisa Smith, and child have now been released from a long nightmare.

The Carnell Smith in this snippet was a victim of this thing - he was made to pay for a child concieved while he was doing military service overseas. He fought for a new law, and got declared non-father.

Originally Posted by Glenn Sacks

Appeal Court to LA County: 'We Won't Sully our Hands' Enforcing False Paternity Judgments

The Second District Court of Appeal recently dealt a devastating blow to the efforts of Los Angeles County and others to collect child support based on false paternity judgments. In County of Los Angeles v. Navarro, Manuel Navarro was trapped into a default judgment because he did not learn of the paternity proceedings against him before the time limits to contest the judgment had run out. In an opinion dripping with contempt, Justice Rubin wrote:

"By strict application of the law, appellant should be denied relief....Sometimes even more important policies than the finality of judgments are at stake, however...the County...should not enforce child-support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not ask the courts to assist it in doing so...We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result. We say no to the County, and we reverse."

As a result of Navarro, tens of thousands of men who are currently paying child support for children who are not theirs can file to have their false paternity judgments set aside.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


My previous post became too long, so I had to chop it into two pieces. Here comes the 2nd:

I could cite more examples, but I think that I have proved you factually wrong already. Truth and justice sometimes do prevail, and men are not further forced to provide for children that are not theirs.

Originally Posted by Epee Pox

So, given the ultimate policy preferences of the system, it is hardly surprising that this one individual was treated this way. His policy preference, that one should only be responsible for children created with his seed, is trumped by the societal policy for permanence of the family relationship that he and his children have lived with their whole lives.

I feel for the guy, but I have a hard time seeing how he'd ever win.

The law got changed in Georgia, why could it not be changed in Texas also? I found while googling that paternity fraud legislation is being discussed or introduced in several states, so a win for him is not unthinkable in the future.

Laws which not only allow, but also reward, fraud and deception are unjust.

The legal system should not be in the business of holding together fake families.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

And it's so nice to know you will be carrying the torch for chastity and justice.

Chastity - no. I have not written anything about not having sex. I have meant that cheating sex by married people leading to children should not be supported by the legal system, quite the contrary.
Justice - yes. I think of this as an issue of justice for the wronged man and the child prevented from knowing its true identity, and I am not about to be shamed for that.

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

Keeping the double standard? Macho men can do as they want-women, with dying kids must be punished!!

If you would have read my previous posts a bit more carefully, you would have noticed that I have advocated that the philanderer (a man!) should be forced to pay up. The mother of the boy with CF would not be punished if her ex-husbands money would stop coming, she would stop having money which should not have been hers in the first place!

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

The patriarchy is safe once more!Make sure no one catches YOU in the red light district. That would be an interesting photo.

If I were to impregnate a prostitute, everyone would have the right to chastise me, and I should be made responsible for the kid. However, I will never do that.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

Ok Peter.... I feel badly for the mom because I am a mom.

So presumably, you are OK with me feeling with the guy because I am a guy?

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

That is my main reason for living every day. Until my last breath. My kids have survived surgeries and illnesses. My kids and I have asthma-status asthmaticus-google it.
When you watch your child struggling to breathe on a respirator drowning in their own secretions and feel utterly f'ing helpless-all you can do is pray.
The mom-who has some criminal tendencies to be sure- has that in store for her. Her future is to watch her child die. Until you f'ing get your head to a place where you can have some compassion for other parents, lighten up.

The ex-husband of the mother to the CF kid was not a parent to that kid. He had taken care of the kid anyway, so he had done more than his share.

BTW: My kids have both been sick, and have major surgery done to them. Does not change a thing in this regard.

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

At present you remind me of my ex, a Dane from Copenhagen who doesn't give a **** about any of the kids. Cold-blooded freak, money is all that matters to him.

Did that Dane father the kids, or adopt them? If so, he should be responsible. If neither, you have no moral reason to demand him to take care of them.

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

Back to the mom---------->
She should have to pay back the "not" dad, and her child is probably better off without him.

Here we agree!

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

I would hope that she will have access to other parents to support her through her very difficult and medically complicated life.

Sure she should have access to some other parent! How hard can it be to remember those that one has had sex with, and get them DNA tested? Sheesh.

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

Yikes! This is obviously a hot button issue for a mom. Do you get it?

A hot-button issue does not absolve you from the duty to think clearly, and as dispassionately as possible.

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

What's important, money- justice- eye for an eye- a child's life??????

It is not eye for an eye, it is dollar for a dollar. Or rather, not having to pay even more dollars in addition to those she has unjustly garnered so far. As you pointed out yourself, the CF will kill him - no amount of money or parental care will change that.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

When the original law was established hundreds of years ago, paternity could be in some rare cases disproved, but never conclusively proved. Now, paternity can be both conclusively disproved and proved. A huge change, and it should be reflected in law.

It is a huge change--but I'm still not convinced the current system should be jettisoned entirely.

Incontestability of parentage of a child born in a marriage has a number of purposes, beyond requiring continued support by a father. (Indeed, that was probably among the least important of the original purposes--due to the scarcity of divorce--though it is likely the driving factor in most current instances).

Stability of the family--both while the marriage lasts, and later for inheritence purposes are also important--and remain so today (IMHO). What you seem to be proposing--paternity to be solely genetic, and a "father" who it turns out was not the actual father has no further responsibilities, but also no rights with regard to the child would open up problems with inheritence, as well.

Under such a system, presumably, to be consistent, you would be in favor of DNA tests being ordered where disgruntled relatives wanted to make sure that a "child" was biologically the father's when his will or insurance policy made the child a beneficiary. Similarly, should DNA tests be required when there is a disptue in the family of how to treat the father (for instance medically, if he is incompetent, or for his burial)?

{snip}
3. The child. He/she is innocent, but is not disadvantaged since there are two providers/caregivers.{snip}

I disagree that a child who finds out that his parent is not his parent, and this is abandoned by the parent emotionally and financially is not disadvantaged. YMMV.

{from 2nd post}

So, if person A helps person B beyond the call of duty for a few years, then person B should have a legal claim on even more help? Strange. Can you cite any other relation where the law is like this?

I wouldn't couch it as 1 person helping another beyond the call of duty--because as far as that person knows, he has the duty. I'd call it operating under a mistake, and being forced, after a long period of time of operating under a mistake, of continuing to so operate.

The quickest thing to come in mind for a similiar situation occurs in real property law--for instance adverse possession. (Not sure if this concept exists in Sweden)--where a person in open possession of another person's land who treats it as his own can actually receive title after a period of years (ranging from 5-30, depending on the State, in the US). Easement law as well--where a person can be given a right to use a portion of another's property either because of long usage, or because it is necessary to the enjoyment of his own property.

Also, in contract--the concept of estoppel means that if a person knows (or in some cases, suspects) the situation is one thing, but acts as if it is another, he can be prevented from arguing that the situation is different than how he has treated it. (This obviously would not apply to a father who had no idea that he had been cuckolded).

{snip}You appear to be working under the opinion that years of caregiving should, in and of itself and beyond the genetic link, carry legal weight. I do not agree in the least, and it would be conducive to further discussion if you stated whether I have described your opinion correctly, and if so, explain why you hold that opinion.

I don't think it is the caregiving itself that gives rise to legal weight (so I agree your kindergarten teachers should never have a claim to custody ). However, what I give weight to is a longstanding parental relationship acknowledged (even if mistakenly) by the father.

Part of our disagreement may be the relative weight we assign to genetics in family relationships--I think that genetics alone, are insufficient to define a "family" and that a father is defined more by the relationship he has with a child. In many (if not most) situations like this where the child is not biologically the father's, my feeling is that the putative father is much more the "real father" of the child than the biological father, and that this becomes more and more true as time passes. YMMV.

Part of the purpose of the rule is to prevent post-hoc testing because it is so corrosive to the family relationship. Most of these tests are done in the context of divorce. What the incontestability of paternity in this context does is prevent a child from copletely losing a father--both financially and emotionally--indeed, it in essence prevents the child (or the father) from finding out, because there is no reason to do the test at all. Personally, I think it much more problematic that a father could lose all contact with a child based on the mother's actions than a person would be forced to pay support for a child which is not actually his (but which he had always believed to be and treated as his own). Again, YMMV.

Part of your position seems to be an feeling that child support is somehow "unfair" and a burden on the father in general--which I think is a different issue. Personally, (at least in the US), I think child custody and support issues are a mess--though I'm not sure how to fix it. Also, you seem to imply that child custody payments are an "unfair benefit" to the mother--when they are (at least they are supposed to be) purely for the benefit of the child.

It is issues like this--where no matter what happens, people are unhappy, and there is often no fair or good answer--that have made me stay as far away from possible from the practice of family law.

--Philistine

{Sorry for the length }

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by JasminaJ

Oh- be sure and make a nice big letter "A" for her to wear on her chest- for Adultery.
And it's so nice to know you will be carrying the torch for chastity and justice.Keeping the double standard? Macho men can do as they want-women, with dying kids must be punished!! The patriarchy is safe once more!Make sure no one catches YOU in the red light district. That would be an interesting photo.

Hey... it's beyond a bolden "A" for the mother. She had absolutely no sense to screw around while married and even less to get pregnant. Twice! Women who use their reproductive wiles to injure and steal from men deserve the complications they end up with in their lives. Worse than the abuse to her husband is that the pulling and tugging of kids like heartstrings (by both of them) is a true crime.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Hey... it's beyond a bolden "A" for the mother.

Naah, losing an income should be enough. However, I will point out that there is a precedent for public shaming of doers of ill deeds in US. laws - Kanka laws.

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

She had absolutely no sense to screw around while married and even less to get pregnant. Twice!

Well, the woman in the first case, Wanda Fryar, did it thrice. Otherwise I agree - marital infidelity should not be considered a good thing. That obviously also goes for men doing it.

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Women who use their reproductive wiles to injure and steal from men deserve the complications they end up with in their lives. Worse than the abuse to her husband is that the pulling and tugging of kids like heartstrings (by both of them) is a true crime.

I agree. Men who reproduce out of their marriages should also get dinged.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[lindajdunn]

I am female and my opinion is not an option in the poll.

Let's try a different angle:

Babies swapped at birth.

You go through a divorce and discover that DNA testing reveals that NEITHER ONE OF YOU is the parent of your child. More, a search of the hospital records reveals that your biological child and the biological parents of your children died in a plane crash.

Should the state take the child from your custody and place it in foster care?

Should either or both parents be able to walk away with no obligations to the child?

I believe that a parent who discovers he/she is not the parent of that child should be able to walk away post-divorce with only ONE requirement: to provide monetary payment for psychological counseling for the child as the child is going to need that and to be present during those counseling sessions until the court-ordered counselor says you can cease attending (but never for more than 1 year). I also think that if you walk away, you forfeit ALL rights. You can't change your mind after the legal paperwork is signed unless you want to legally adopt the child later. OTOH, once you make a decision to parent a child that is not legally yours, you assume all obligations. The trick here, thus, is: when does the non-biological parent learn that the child is not his?

Note that with today's technology, many non-biological parents KNOW they're not biological parents and thus there would need to be evidence that the parent did not know in advance that the child is not his.

BTW -- I once had a next door neighbor whose first child had dark hair, second child was a brunette, and third child was a redhead. When the fourth child was bi-racial, the father realized he'd been had. He fought for custody of the first three.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

I am female and my opinion is not an option in the poll.

I hit "post" button too fast when I wrote the options. Option #6 should read: "I am female. I am undecided on the topic." If this not what you are referring to, then I do not understand you - how could an opinion be something else than yes, no, or undecided? Not even Inq has said that the poll is flawed!

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Let's try a different angle:


Babies swapped at birth.

You go through a divorce and discover that DNA testing reveals that NEITHER ONE OF YOU is the parent of your child. More, a search of the hospital records reveals that your biological child and the biological parents of your children died in a plane crash.

Should the state take the child from your custody and place it in foster care?

Should either or both parents be able to walk away with no obligations to the child?

This unfortunate case is different than the one I started the thread about, since it does not involve any trickery on either part, and it is perfectly symmetrical. I will have to think it over.

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

I believe that a parent who discovers he/she is not the parent of that child should be able to walk away post-divorce with only ONE requirement: to provide monetary payment for psychological counseling for the child as the child is going to need that and to be present during those counseling sessions until the court-ordered counselor says you can cease attending (but never for more than 1 year).

Since the mother was the one at fault in the case described in the threadstart, why should her ex-husband pay for a consequence of her faults?

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

I also think that if you walk away, you forfeit ALL rights. You can't change your mind after the legal paperwork is signed unless you want to legally adopt the child later.

This is perfectly OK with me.

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

OTOH, once you make a decision to parent a child that is not legally yours, you assume all obligations.

Here I differ. Obligations assumed under ignorance which is due to another interested party (here- the biological mother) should never carry legal or moral weight.

This is the direct analogy to the case of a live-in child care professional who finds out that she has not been payed for her services. She should have the right to get back payment, but not child custody. Both the child care professional and the cuckolded husband have taken care in the upbringing of the child, both have been tricked, and neither have contributed their genes to the child. Identical in all important respects.

Furthermore: If the mother has made her husband accept responsibility for her children, which are not his either genetically or by adoption, the husband should be legally or morally bound by that acceptance even if it was done knowingly by the husband. No one should have the right to assume that an agreement that they have managed to extract from someone else, which was not rightful in the first place, should have any enforceable permanence.

A direct analogy: Imagine that I manage to talk you into fixing my weapons without pay, and you agree to do so for no compensation. Halfway through, you decide that you have better thing to do with your time. Should I then have the right to force you to continue doing armoury work for me?

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

The trick here, thus, is: when does the non-biological parent learn that the child is not his?

Well, in one of the cases that I read about, a guy came back from military service, and his wife had given birth to a child at such a time so that the child was concieved when he was abroad. A divorce ensued, and he was initially forced to pay paternity support. Where is the justice in that? He then lobbied for a new law, which later passed the state congress. He was officially deregistered as father, and did not have to continue paying.

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Note that with today's technology, many non-biological parents KNOW they're not biological parents and thus there would need to be evidence that the parent did not know in advance that the child is not his.

As explained above, not in my book.

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

BTW -- I once had a next door neighbor whose first child had dark hair, second child was a brunette, and third child was a redhead. When the fourth child was bi-racial, the father realized he'd been had. He fought for custody of the first three.

Which hair color did he have himself? Why on earth should he fight for custody for those who where not his biological children?

I heard (2nd hand) of a case of a man who became suspicious that the 25-year old gal born in his at that time ended marriage actually was his daughter. Up until then he had been the poster man for good caring father to her. He announced that if she turned out to be his genetic daughter all would be as usual, but if she turned out to someone elses dauther he would break all contact, since their relation in that case had been a sham. She was distraught, and wanted him to accept her no matter what. I got no information whatsoever about the exwife/mother in the case. At the time of the case being told to me, the man was fighting a court battle to enforce a DNA testing of himself, his exwife, and the young woman which he offered to pay entirely out of his own pocket. I never heard how that court case went.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Epee_Pox]

All other things aside, I have a problem with the position that the child defaults to becoming the state's responsibility in certain circumstances.

I think that responsibility is firstly that of the parents.

If the parents cannot fulfill their obligations, then responsibility is shared by their families.

If family cannot meet the needs, then responsibility is shared by the immediate community.

If community cannot meet the needs, then responsibility is shared by the local government.

If local government cannot do it (hard to imagine how), only then should the burden be shared by the whole country.

If, as Peter argues, it is unfair to impose obligations on the non-genetic parent, then it is equally unfair to impose obligations on those who are even more unrelated to the child. It would be proper to impose obligations first on those with closer ties to the child, and whose own lives are more directly affected by how the child is raised.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!




I hit "post" button too fast when I wrote the options. Option #6 should read: "I am female. I am undecided on the topic." If this not what you are referring to, then I do not understand you - how could an opinion be something else than yes, no, or undecided? Not even Inq has said that the poll is flawed!

I'm not undecided. I just think the answer is "it depends". If no deception occurred, then the answer is no, he doesn't get a get out of child support free card. When you take on the responsibility for raising a child regardless of biology, then you should not bail out over something you knew about from the beginning. If deception occurred, then th