A Victory for Non-DNA Fathers in Tennessee
I just heard from State Senator Stacey Campfield : “Did you see the state supreme court decision? Non- DNA fathers can sue for back child support.” Here is the info from Stacey’s blog:
The State Supreme court has just ruled unanimously a person mislead into believing they are the father of a child may sue the mother for back payments made if it is later found they are not the biological father of that child.
I tried to pass a piece of watered down legislation a few years ago when the Democrats were in power that would have allowed the non biological father to stop making future payments on their non child. It went down in spectacular flames.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a man who was misled into thinking he had fathered a son and ordered that he be awarded more than $25,000 for child support, medical expenses and insurance premiums he had paid.
In a unanimous ruling published Monday, the court said Tennessee law allows a former spouse to pursue a fraud claim against a mother who misrepresented the identity of a child’s biological father.
The case stemmed from a Maury County lawsuit filed in 2008 by Chadwick Craig against his ex-wife, Tina Marie Hodge. Craig sued when paternity tests showed he wasn’t the father of Hodge’s teenage son.
The Supreme Court ruling overturns an appellate court decision that found refunding the support to Craig wasn’t allowed under state law.
Finally, some justice for men, may it spread across the land.
It seems a grim victory though. One of the cases in which justice – always worth pursuing – isn’t fit for rejoicing.
But it’s a start.
Of course Mr. Haber is referring to the human aspect. That being: a child raised and then rejected by a man seeking to detach himself from the moral and human dimensions of fatherhood, though the child is not at fault. For the child is being rejected.
If this happens at birth, the damage to the child and the wallet has not yet taken place, and the ruling is irrelevant. So let’s be clear about both the ethical and practical consequences for the few cases to which this law actually applies, when parenting and financial support adequate to justify court costs apply: this is diminishing fatherhood to an option determined by urinating on a stick, with society likely picking up the costs whenever a man who has been in a child’s life decides to rescind any commitment he has made to the child he has presumably bonded with and loved.
Never mind the adults: anyone with some maturity knows that adults make all sorts of arrangements and emotional compromises in their relationships with each other. The same is not supposed to be true of parents and children. One would hope that men who agree to parent and then do so substantially will view that obligation — to the child — as one they will not punitively rescind out of vengeance against a former lover or wife. That’s hardly empowering for men, unless one’s view of the gender sets a very low ethical default. It diminishes the role of men’s presence in children’s lives and of the bonds of fatherhood in general.
The law that requires men to support children they have acknowledged as their own is a difficult law to comprehend when one hasn’t, luckily, had to think it through (let alone experience such horrifying rejection as a child). But the choice to abandon responsibility to a child one has claimed as one’s own — and then followed through on that claim, emotionally and financially — seems antithetical to male honor, which I happen to believe in.
So it is okay for the women to lie about the paternity of the child.
Of course! Women should have options, men should have obligations. Welcome to the American feminazi police state.
While I agree with much of what you say regarding the unfortunate effects on the child, I do take issue with some of your choice in wording and what those words imply.
You say: “But the choice to abandon responsibility to a child one has claimed as one’s own — and then followed through on that claim, emotionally and financially…”
This man did not “claim” the child. He did not willingly adopt the child, or agree to give this woman’s child by another man his name and support. He was fraudulently told it was his child. This responsibility was thrust upon him.
One would assume that, believing the child was his own, he would have come to bond with it and love it. But family dynamics and relationships are not always so rosy.
Precisely what feminist shrikes like Gloria Allred have been saying. “Oh, the poor child! Better to defraud a man than to have a child suffer.” Of course, it was the mother and her paramour-du jour who are responsible, but let’s not let that get in the way of what is right. Let’s sentimentalize the issue to keep an innocent man under the burden of another’s deceipt.
Simple solution: DNA paternity test at birth so the kid is spared the emotional injury of what his mother did. Let him/her grow up without the unnecessary fiction that his mother’s sucker of a husband had anything to do with his or her existence. Much cleaner that way, don’t you agree? If nationally mandated, it also helps keep Mom honest if not entirely honorable.
There are reports that negative paternity tests may be as high as 25% of those tested. Obviously, this is not a random figure as the tests are done for some reason. This is a better result than that of the court in Texas that acknowledged that the man was not the father of three children his wife had conceived during a long affair but still required that he support them.
Tina wrote, “But the choice to abandon responsibility to a child one has claimed as one’s own — and then followed through on that claim, emotionally and financially — seems antithetical to male honor, which I happen to believe in.”
“Happen to believe in”? Of course you do! You’re a girl and YOU BENEFIT from the current situation and YOUR definition of “male honor”! Can you say “hypocritical and self-serving”? I knew you could.
Your definition of “male honor” isn’t any different from “spineless doormat”. How about YOU believing in the honor of WOMEN, e.g. not cheating on your husband, not lying about who the father of your child is, and not hiding your injustice to MEN behind cries of “It’s for the CHIIIIIIIILLLLLDREN”?
Excepting in this particular case, the child…once learning the man was not his father, decided to abandon the man. The child decided to sever the relationship with the man.
But in either event, this child-welfare argument as it applies to financial matters is rather silly. Justice is not suspended because someone happens to be a parent. If a parent gets a speeding ticket, should they be exempt…because paying the ticket deprives the innocent child of potential welfare? If the mother defrauds a business partner, should she not be required to repay? If she’s a business owner and defrauds he customers…she’s exempt because her child, who would suffer, is innocent?
Women believe their immune to these sorts of scenarios, so they have little empathy for men…and rationalize their selfish preferences away. Yet the reverse can indeed occur. Though played for fun, and we should take our moral queues from Hollywood… Consider the movie Overboard with Goldie Hawn…
A man’s wife dies in childbirth. Soon after he comes across a woman just recovering from an accident but has amnesia. He convinces her that they are married and that the child is hers. She raises the child. A few years later the whole story unravels. A divorce, and the father being the biological parent gets primary custody. He tells the court, he sorry…he defrauded the woman…but he only did it in the best interest of the child.
So the woman should now pay 15 years of child support? Under penalty of imprisonment? Voluntarily…maybe…but required under state sanction?
Do we see the affront to the human dignity of the victim twice victimized?
Crickey! Where to start?
“With society likely picking up the costs.” As opposed to society picking up the costs whenever a single Mamma decides to get knocked up.
“Moral and human dimensions of fatherhood.” As opposed to the genetic dimensions.
“A child raised and then rejected by a man.” Happens to men all the time, it’s called divorce.
“This is diminishing fatherhood to an option determined by urinating on a stick.” As opposed to some tart just saying it is so.
“Men who agree to parent.” I’m sure that was a typo, I’ll fix that for you, men who were fraudulently tricked and misled to parent.
“That’s hardly empowering for men.” Of course slumming around and passing off another man’s seed is well within the bounds of empowerment.
It is not for you, Tina, to tell men what is honorable or not.
Where is the womans honor in this case?
“That being: a child raised and then rejected by a man seeking to detach himself from the moral and human dimensions of fatherhood, though the child is not at fault. For the child is being rejected.”
Tina Trent has set up a false premise here. The child is NOT being rejected. The man’s FINANCIAL OBLIGATION is being refuted.
Any child with half a brain over the age of five would understand this, if explained to him or her. The question is, would the mother in this case, allow such a thing to happen without the requisite drama? The non-bio father could, in fact, continue a relationship with the child but it would not be based on a FALSE PREMISE, which wasn’t any relationship at all.
And about that male honor? The female didn’t act honorably in lying here. Are you saying only men should have honor? When we did it like that, women didn’t get to vote, own property or hold jobs (among other things). Go back to all that and, sure, men can return to being “honorable” as if it’s 1623. Until then, deal with equality under the law.
While there will some unfortunate cases like this one (with an already teenage child) what this will do is set a precedent. Wives/partners of men will think twice now before being unfaithful and then fraudulently pushing the responsibility of the illigitimate child onto her husband if they know they are just a DNA test away from having to repay all that money.
This will hopefully keep things honest from the start, which would be better for everyone in the longterm.
How on earth does this do any damage to the child? The article does not say that the child does not have any contact with the cheated man and no longer receives any love from him. Are you saying that the only way for a man to show love to a child is to be an ATM machine? That the only way for men to be responsible is to bring money and there is no non monetary aspect to it? How hypocritical can you get? And what is the amount of 25000? I don’t think that is too much for the woman to give back. Plus a woman who cheats obviously has enough sources of money to take care of the financial needs of a kid on her own.
Bottom line, Tina:
Unless you’ve seen some stars in the east recently, there’s damn few women that don’t know exactly how many men they have slept with in the window of opportunity for conception of a child.
I will submit to you that there is an absolute and unequivocal moral obligation on women to be absolutely truthful as regards paternity. Any woman who does not has committed an offense not only against the man she is lying to (And a lie by omission is still a damnable lie), but to her own child. As such any woman who does this is scum of the lowest order, at lest ten flights down and still digging lower than whale shit.
Such vile villainy cries out to heaven to be punished. Now – if you find repaying the money she defrauded a man out of to be too onerous, what do you suggest should be her punishment? What should be her penance? What should be her recompense to the man she wronged, and to the child she wronged?
Hint: Shame only works on people who have any, and I will assert that any woman who would tell such a despicable lie has demonstrated that she does not.
The triumphal return of the Gonzman after being absent from the Internet, presumably due to depression issues once again.
He makes great points, but his required hero worship eclipses them. His gigantic ego overwhelms his skill at rhetoric.
Opposition to his ego is already announced. Now threaten me in some way, Gonzman.
Good to see you’re not off the face of the world, Gonz. If you’re still checking the old email, I sent you something for the column you were going to write. Otherwise hit me up on IM.
Pay no attention to the insecure twit.
A small victory in a tiny corner of American may spread so that one day fathers have a chance for justice in America.
I am so grateful, so relieved, that a few justices could find the courage defend justice against the corruption of feminist discrimination.
To the justices, should they ever see this:
You have done a great service to human rights this day. Men are commonly seen as little more than ATM machines, hardly human, undeserving of rights. Today you have shown that it is NOT OKAY to assign paternity to the man who is not the father, and does not want to be. You have made a huge positive impact on this wrongfully defrauded man’s life.
Thank you!!
The opinion is worth reading, IMO. I found it to be well reasoned. One interesting point is that the court implied, I think, that if the young man were still a minor, they might have ruled differently.
Here’s a link to the opinion: http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/hodgetmopn.pdf
This is just, and encouraging.
That is good news, and I am glad to hear it! (made my day).
Thanks for passing that along!
Oh, my. It is on one level a very good thing. On another level it’s ineffably sad. If I were to find out today or tomorrow that my son [and therefore my grandchildren by him] was not my genetic offspring, what would that mean? I loved him and cared for him and nurtured him and now he’s an adult with children of his own. What would it do to our relationship? Nothing, I hope, but still . . .
His mother and I have been divorced for many years, but I had no reason then nor any reason now to suspect or believe that either of our children together were not ‘mine’, and in a very real sense they still would be even if not genetically.
How sad for the ‘father’ in this case. And how wrong of the mother.
Yes, but can the man also sue the State and it’s Gestapo agents for the fraudulent enforcement actions, as well as all the money the state has taken? And will the State bring criminal charges of fraud and perjury against the mother? And furthermor, will the State provide legal assistance in the civil fraud case against the mother?
When that happens, THEN justice will be back in play.
“former spouse”!!! So it’s true even if the couple were married?!
Is there any website providing reliable legal status on a state-by-state basis, including any lawsuits that may be in progress at the appellate level and any bills that may be before the legislature?
It’s a start, but it’s only a step in a mile-long journey.
In ancient Rome, a man, after child birth, was only responsible for child support if he picked up and held the child. That is, if he publicly recognized the child as his own.
That is no longer the case today. In fact, all a girl has to do is write down some guy’s name on a birth certificate. The court will contact him, but if he blows it off, like I don’t know this girl, I’ve never met her, I’ve never been to bed with her. If he does not respond to the court summons and demand a paternity test, once the court rules on paternity, he is fully, legally responsible for child support–that’s 20% of every paycheck for 18 years.
You always know who the mother is. You never know who the father is.
What I know is this. As long as I remain single, I am only responsible for child support for children I conceive. And you’re damn right I’ll respond to a court summons and demand a paternity test.
I’m a man. I fully understand that every time I engage is a sexual relationship a child could be the result. I accept my responsibilities without question, and I will raise and support every child I conceive, after a paternity test.
But if I get married, then I’m legally responsible for every child she conceives. No way am I going to make that deal. The court does not allow evidence of any kind to question paternity in a marriage situation.
So, why get married? There is no reason. Presumptive paternity, no fault divorce, abortion on demand render the marriage contract null and void from the very beginning.
I have an education, I have a job, I have a career, I earn a salary. She has an education, she has a job, she has a career, she earns a salary. She can buy her own house. I did. If she wants to get together and have sex, great. I like sex. I like sex a lot. Let’s meet at a hotel, as long as she fronts half the bill.
The modern American girl cannot deal with that kind of relationship. I look upon that as not my problem. It’s called true equality.
And now she doesn’t like it. I don’t care. This is what she wanted, or at least that’s what she said.
She got everything she wanted, equal rights, equal education, equal opportunity, equal employment. Now she’s on her own. Live with it.
There is absolutely no way I am ever going to pay child support for another man’s bastard. She can go and get knocked up by some boy in a bar any time she wants, but I’m not going to pay for it.
This is reality. The modern American girl cannot handle it. She’s lost in the feminist world of promiscuity, birth control and abortion.
I just do my job. I go to work. She has no access to my property, my money, unless I grant it to her, and I don’t need her to perform sweat equity for me. I can handle that all on my own, thank you very much.
Now I’m just waiting for the day when mothers will be beld accountable for perjury and falsifcation of documents. Going through a divorce is a nerve racking ordeal only intensified by judges who over look fraud and perjury by the mother who was caught lying multiple times by even the judge only to be granted custody even though the hhsband was a stay at home dad and she had an affair, still ongoing, with a married woman in the marital bed.
If the situation were reversed hands doen the woman gets custody but because it wasnt the father who was stay at home for 6 years gets nothing but the bills and child support he hasto pay while the mother claims to be tbe wounded party to all in public. Where is the equal before the law in this instance? Think it doesnt happen? Guess again. It happened to me and I’m still trying to figure out how it happened. 22 years of marriage and the ex committs adultry with another wpman, finally admits to it under oath after lying and filing fraudulent paperwork with the court and she still gets custody and a free ride. Sooooo everyone is equal under the law unless youre a man in family court then there is absolutely NO WAY, you get justice no matter how good your case or what the mother has done. Pretty sad co sidering i got custody of my two older ones in the 80′s because the ex ljed and was found out. But that was in louisianna. So basically they were mlre advanced than Missouri. I’ll compare my facrs with anyone fiction any day of the week. With evidence to back everything up!
“… seems antithetical to male honor, which I happen to believe in.”
——-
Tina Trent above says this like she should be applauded (wild standing applause for her on the old Oprah show). She doesn’t have to do a thing, unlike the men whose honor she “believes in” – read: whom she is going to shame if they don’t serve her in the way she “believes in”. And I’m sure lots of men will line up to enforce the “little lady’s” wishes.
I see this all the time in women today. On the one hand, the man better fulfill his traditional duties, or she is going to enforce it by shaming him and manipulating other guys with chivalry to enforce this.
On the other hand, everything better be exactly equal – or more than equal – if it’s something she wants in society. Otherwise, she may wildly spin her arms like helicopters while loudly screaming and crying and then lay on her back on the floor kicking at everything. Even a few tears are generally enough to manipulate most men.
What would be great would be for men to realize all of the crying (while peaking through splayed fingers to see if he’s buying it), shaming tactics, appeals to chivalry, manipulation of emotions and other manipulation that women engage in, but it’s never going to happen for the bulk of them. Women are successfully working things from both sides.
Oh, I forgot about sexual manipulation. Women can get absolutely rich off this, like billionaire rich (example: Patricia Klug). With sex, or just the correctly applied prospect of it, you can cleanly separate lots of men from their money.
From the reactions I’ve seen from women who have attempted to manipulate me with shame or appeals to chivalry or the prospect of sex, I believe that there are not too many men who really see women for that they are. These tactics work on men, and women can be very surprised if you know exactly what they are doing.
Anyone who doubts this should read “The Manipulated Man” by Esther Vilar.
This is a victory only for the demon Nephilim and for those they control with hate in their hearts toward little children and their mothers
A house divided against itself can not stand
The real Christian has joy in his heart toward a baby God has presented to him to bring up in the ways of Jesus reject the demon Nephilim
What’s the phrase: “Men should love women as Christ loved the church”? For the real meaning, see my earlier comment to Tina Trent’s manipulative shaming attempt.
“Men should love women as Christ loved the church.” Who is the church? In the beginning only Jews were part of the church . Then came the great revelation of God’s plan. This is why Mitt Romney is preaching great evil when he say it is ok to murder the innocent baby in the womb if innocent baby is the product of rape or incest.
In our day the True Father is looking for spiritual sons and spiritual daughters and their faith in THE TRUTH is what adopts them . Jesus say: “I am the way the truth and the life. Thus began a revelation on going in our day where sons and daughters of the True God become spiritual fathers and mothers who do rebel as the Nephilim rebel amrrying to rule over the 1% class in the world to produce flesh children dedicated to the WORSHIP of SATAn the DEvil as can be seen by the actions on how they treat the poor beneath them
Well, thank somebody that we’re not governed by the Bible but the Constitution.
Waxwing, you are correct. While the others who believe that this perpetuation of a falsehood under law and science is an abomination of “human” rights, what does that say about what God created between man and woman, forgiveness, and raising a child as if he or she was your own in the case of a blended family? I’ll admit that last point is a tangent, no question. However, when we erupt in indignation about being misled, and the child of the now broken family is the one who suffers, like the first poster Ryan, and even what Tina wrote about “manning up” in the situation that is based on love and the stability this creates for our young charges, seems appropriate.
Ultimately, none of us are going to leave this mortal coil being known by our careers, riches, and hobbies, but how Faith shone through us in the lives of our next generations. Some may find that unpalatable. I just think it is important to not harm the child with the same vigor as the former wife’s dishonesty harmed us.
So the woman gets to use the “innocent” child as a shield to prevent being punished, something like an enemy combatant soldier might use a non-combatant child as a physical shield to prevent being shot at? For that matter, how many men are in prison, who have “innocent” friends and relatives, including children, who are “punished” by the fact that he is there?
David, that sounds great and rousing and … special … in the abstract, but I have seen guys like you get absolutely dusted by less naive women. Like sitting ducks. There is a point, although you may never admit it, where you are just going to get used. And you can hang on to your disillusions about life.
Seek out con men / women and just give them your money, because it apparently doesn’t matter anyway.
(as you acn see i do not spell it out to show still time to repent if ye are really looking for the TRuth
Divorced remained an option even in the New Testament for sexual infidelity. It sure sounds like your argument is that if a woman is going to cuckold her husband, she better be good at the fraud so that it takes him a good long while to figure it out — after, in your greatly one-sided reading, they are already divorced. (There would have been support if they were a married couple; it is clearly not an adoption; stop pretending that the state can just decide you’ve adopted the child by fore as the same thing as it is your free will choice.)
Please, try not to suggest that God is the author of sin in this regard. Your after-the-fact rationalization of a man being hoodwinked by an adulteress and then divorced and then being put on the financial hook to support her lifestyle as some sort of noble calling is disgusting.
i acn see thta clearly..
What’s with the 400-year-old language, waxwing01?
You realize that the King James Bible was only a translation, not even Jesus talked like that.
There’s a new translation available, so now you can talk like normal people.
Keep up the good fight against Satan.
Focus on my dogma not my style. Erudite big boys have perfected their style to seduce people to their perverted dogma
Yes, they use the tools and tricks of Satan: Rationality, logic and reason.
Those are also the tools of the Patriarchy, by the way, that are used against poor helpless women according to radical feminists.
Get ye to a bookstore.
I also find that your non-stop religious crap doesn’t detract from the topic at hand at all. Not at all.
Waxwing appears to be a chatbot of some sort…he keeps pulling bizarre non sequiturs, terrible grammar, and altogether a seemingly random jumble of words. This may well be indicitive of computer generated text. Several programs exist now that can generate (albeit fairly poor) blog posts and even papers on a given topic. Waxwing appears to be one such.
I am a Christian and I completely ignore his (or it’s) comments…there are several intelligent religious commenters here and he is the odd one out.
What he (or it) writes may be crap, but it has nothing to do with his source material and every to do with his inability (assuming it even is a real person) to write clearly, coherently, and intelligently from that source material. Picking random Biblical quotes and then drawing incorrect conclusions from them, wildly out of context, makes for poor argumentation.
Actually, much as I don’t like the religion-pusher-people, I have at least had insightful discussions with serious people who are religious, and I almost think that waxwing01 is here to discredit religion. Seriously. He brings out the worst aspects of religious people, and it’s hard to believe that he/she is real.
WTF, your comment “David, that sounds great and rousing and … special … in the abstract, but I have seen guys like you get absolutely dusted by less naive women. Like sitting ducks. There is a point, although you may never admit it, where you are just going to get used. And you can hang on to your disillusions about life.
Seek out con men / women and just give them your money, because it apparently doesn’t matter anyway”….does not mean I have my head buried in the sand. I do have a legal education background myself and understand criminal and civil case law fairly well.
All I am saying is that we do not harm the kid with the vehemence we reserve for the “wife” operating under false pretenses. My life will go on, the legal system will extract its due, but that kid will know that I gave a rip.
BobH:
“So the woman gets to use the “innocent” child as a shield to prevent being punished, something like an enemy combatant soldier might use a non-combatant child as a physical shield to prevent being shot at? For that matter, how many men are in prison, who have “innocent” friends and relatives, including children, who are “punished” by the fact that he is there?”
No, it does not mean this at all. Please do not confuse my point about love of child as a refutation of using the law against a deceiving woman. I am mostly concerned about the vehemence of some who equate the two at the risk of damaging the kid.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people try to portray themselves and wonderfully caring and giving and only concerned about the welfare of others, but usually with somebody else paying the price in pain and money.
that should be “…themselves as wonderfully…”, not “…themselves and wonderfully…”
Right, and it’s all show. Watch what people do, not what they say.
Lots of people want to present themselves as caring, while they work behind the scenes to get everything they can for themselves.
It’s kind of sickening, and it’s more sickening that most people are naive and trusting and don’t perceive what is going on.
This decision is clearly a war on women.
In God’s Word the Bible the prophet Ezekiel is commanded by God to marry a whore.The whore must have agreed. Jesus say: Jerusalem Jerusalem killer of the prophets how often I wanted to gather you together as a hen gathers her chicks but look your house is abandoned to you. The whore rejected Jesus.
In our day USA is part of Babylon the Whore where the demons gather and where the demons gather there is hate lust envy jealous rape murder blame it on child abuse but when pride and arrogance take over tribes are only interested in the idolatry of self protection and not repentance from sin.The Constutition becomes your Word of God, Jesus is rejected and your fate is sealed. Behold ! Your husband comes in the future and he looks like Hitler.
But I love the whore . I pray she repents. I see her as a child in need of good direction. Do not let the demons in your life mislead you
more latter
waxwing01, I’ll let you in on a secret. Don’t tell anyone else, especially since you have to spread the word of the Lord.
Consciousness is kind of one thing. The feeling of you being you, in your own body, is sort of an illusion.
It is a miracle that you have the feeling that you are you. And someday, somewhere, that miracle is going to be repeated in someone who has the feeling of that someone being that someone. That is reincarnation.
Sorry to muddle this all up.
This is not an issue of paternity, it is an issue of fraud. The mother of the child has perpetrated a fraud on her husband and the child produced by her infidelity. Many, many men pay gladly for children that are not biologically theirs, we are adoptive parents! But we were not defrauded! It is the fraud that is the heart of this issue. I do think that a man who was defrauded into supporting and raising a child that was not his should be given the option of taking the child to raise while the fraudulent mother pays current and back child support. Becuase this is a problem of deceit, not lack of responsibility.
Trey
Under the guise of fairness, we have lost the judicial system. Rather than provide remedy for a proven harm, the ‘courts’ have decided that they are in charge of society. So rather than punish the adulterer or abuser, the state punishes victims. Due Process is gone. Proportionality is gone. Fairness is gone. Justice is gone. Instead we have punishment of the innocent and injustice in the name of ideology/religion.
Case in point, under the Common Law a married man was the presumptive father of any child born during the marriage. But that was a rebuttable presumption, not an iron clad rule. But now under Massachusetts case law, a married women who gets pregnant by a lover, while married to another, can get two child support checks. One from her ex-husband, if the child is conceived during the marriage, and another from the lover/biological-father.
So adultery, which is still a crime in Massachusetts, is rewarded with two, tax-free checks with the side effect of punishment of an innocent man who had the crime of adultery committed against him. Quite a moral statement from a legal system that use to believe that 9 guilty go free lest one innocent suffer.
I would flee the damn country if I was cuckolded and still forced to pay child support. My citizenship would be renounced in a second.
I wouldn’t lose sleep about leaving a country that feels that my rights are not to be protected. I really don’t like the direction this formerly great nation is heading.
I am a firm believer of “trust but verify” when it comes to paternity – primarily because when I was younger I tended to have sex with a lot of married women, who were interested in having a child and hubby wasn’t doing his job. So while I enjoyed every second of it – it taught me something very valuable, women will do what they think they can get away with. So always demand a paternity test…
Well I have read the story and I can tell you I never realized the power that a woman truly has in the matters of pregnancy. I’m speakin from experience here so let me tell you a little story. I was involved with a married woman back in March up until May. Her huband was gone he came back home April 1st we saw eachother twice after he had gotten back and then I got the call April 21st I’m pregnant. I asked if she knew it was mine she told me 98.5% sure it was. So I’m like “oh no”. She says it’s been 10 years since she was pregnant last and misscarraged no scares or nothing til she met me. She tells me she will know for sure at the ultrasound May 17th we continue talking seeing eachother on avg. once a week. I go to the first apt. and the ultrasound tech says 8 weeks pregnant then she does the blood work and comes back and says they told her 8 weeks and two days putting the due date at 25th of Dec. I say okay it’s mine not knowing the minus two weeks. The mid wife knew she had a husband and asked if she should mention me at any further apts. she says she don’t know if he’ll be at them so they leave it blank. We leave I think it’s mine then I get the text and I saw this coming from a mile away but negelcted my instincts. I get the text it’s impossible for it to be mine because the online due date cal. says the child was concieved April 3rd most probable the 4th. Closest I slept with her to that date was March 29th late evening so I knew it was possible and with how many times it accoured from the 28th to the 29th and that weekend April 6th I knew he had to get it in there just right and even if the dates were spot on conception commonly happens five days prior to ovulation. I know everything is estimated and a 8 week trans. vaginal us can very commonly be off by 2 days. Need less to say I agreed assuming that it’s his and getting a paternity test later on rather than destroying the marrage for nothing. Well she doesn’t even want to let me get the test we haven’t had contact since early June. All that I wanted was to know so incase he it comes to light later or she could find out and maybe make the write decision and give him a choice if it does comeback as biologically mine. The point I’m making is that even if there is a man that wants to support his child she would choose to lie to her hisband to save face and have him unknowingly support someone elses offspring and say I didn’t know because of what some online conception calculator has said.
They say equal rights in the work place and all that but what about equal rights when regarding paternity? In my opinion if they arn’t going to make paternity tests mandatory what about better male education or a contract like the a.o.p. men are asked to sign if not married stating that there is no possible way another man can be the biological father and if it’s found to be he has absolutly no finacial reaponsability to that child if it’s ever found different. You can’t tell me that it’s in the childs best interest that he finds out years later that his father is not his biologically. Why do we see adopted children seeking out their birth parents. It’s because the child actually. Also what about in cases that the husband is military? Why should the public’s taxes go to support the heath care for a child that isn’t biologically connected to the military. Or in states Like VA where a father can contest paternity at any time and stop child support payment regardless of when he finds out and then the mother and child get financial aid and medicare though the state that tax payers pay for.
In my situation have come to the conclusion that I won’t break a marrage apart if she doesn’t want me to be the father even though I’d want nothing more than to support my offspring and be a father. I know she’s only going to say something if she’s caught or he gets the test if he suspects it isn’t his. She hasn’t had the child yet but I asked her if she was concerned about the future and she said no. They have no prior children to compare it too. Women hold all the power and make selfish choices based upon what is best for her, not anybody else involved.
The child will eventually find out. Imagine finding out your mother is a liar and your father is coward for not standing against something he knew was a lie. Imagine yourself a teenager or young adult who now knows that daddy isn’t daddy after all. But…you also now know that grandma, grandpa, aunts, uncles and cousins are not yours either. The damage to a man’s wallet is but one aspect of women lying about paternity. If anyone really thinks this protects children, they are fooling themselves, as you are certainly not fooling the children. When these children become adults do you really think they will say thank you, I really appreciated you lying to me and all the people I came to know and love. Think again, they will not. Women, ask yourself is the money really worth what you will have to face later? If you will lie about something as important as paternity, you will be have a hard time being trusted by anyone who knows.
Am I missing something here? The man did not sue the child and ask for his money back, he sued the Mother. Where is the damage to the child? The Non-Father doesn’t want his Non-Child. Get a grip, he doesn’t want millions of children.