11 Comments

This is all simply the logical result of what an increasingly permissive culture has created. The problem is that some who have helped to make the bed do not want to sleep in it.

The reliance on 500 year old English Common Law about Child from Marriage being legal issue worked when society enforced adultry and had no DNA testing. In today’s society with accepted promiscuous behavior and no fault divorce, this is a weak straw. I’d hate to be a child who learns that Dad isn’t Dad but also I’d rather not be named Dad as a convenient target.

Wavemaker, the problem is that the person being asked to sleep in the bed is NOT the one who helped make it. Why should a man be made to pay for the indiscretions of his significant other?

I also doubt the number of kids from affairs has truly increased. I think we just have better ways to prove it than in the 50s.

I love this quote:

“I think the problem with those laws is that, No. 1, they need to consider a child’s best interest. I’m not trying to minimize the trauma to the nonbiological father, his feeling of betrayal,” Jacobs said.

Let’s take her argument to its logical conclusion. She’s arguing that children need a father, so the state should force whoever the mother picked to be THE father. But wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the child for him to have a rich daddy? Or a doctor for a dad? Or an astronaut for a dad?! What kid wouldn’t want an astronaut for a dad?! If the law can arbitrarily decide that some non-father is the father, why not look out for the child’s best interest and pick the best dad possible?!

And if one rich dad is a good thing, of course it’d follow that having multiple dads would be even better. I’d think that 30 rich dads, so they could rotate throughout the month, to take care of the kid.

And if multiple forced dads benefits the kid, it certainly follows that multiple mothers would be better too. Thus, the state should also randomly force 29 wealthy women to be mothers to the child.

And why only do this when there is a dispute as to custody? Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of all children to have multiple rich fathers and mothers?!

Following the “best interest” argument even further, maybe the state should take all kids away from their parents until the set of 60 “best” parents can be established.

OK, back to reality. I agree that it’s in the best interest of the child to have the real father pay his share. But to force some random guy pay is ludicrous.

RR– allow me to clarify (my very early morning posts tend to be elliptical). I did not mean to imply that the male victims of paternity fraud have to sleep in the bed (isn’t the metaphor almost too much?). The people to whom I refer as bed-makers are those who supported the fostering of a permissive culture in which adultery and unplanned (or unwanted) children are a by-product; and yet they refuse to recognize the right of an innocent victim to be absolved of responsibility for a problem not of his making.

That said, there is (I think) something to say for the laches argument — that is, if you’re not the father, you really shouldn’t sleep on (enough!) your rights and render the child another victim.

There is certainly a strong case for fathers that have been raising children to still be considered the father – call it an adoption, if you will. A small statute of limitations on parental challenges is thus a reasonable position (not necessarily the right one, but reasonable and arguable).

What is NOT reasonable is some states declaring fatherhood by default (when the so-called “father” never even met the woman or heard about the hearing at all!), then making THAT binding, despite proof that the man is not the father. THAT is complete and utter crap.

Courts defend this outrageous paternity fraud by hypocritically claiming that every child has a constitutional “right” to a father.

Yet, hypocritically, they often refuse to respect this “right” by protecting the father-child relationship from infringement by mothers who interfere with visitation.

And single-parent adoption by the mother is permitted in all fifty states.

And under the Supreme Court’s settled “state action” doctrine, constitutional rights apply only against the government, not private individuals (like a father).

In most states paternity cannot be repudiated. If it can, it’s often possible only before an absurdly short period of time has elapsed, like 30 days. In some states he need not be notified. In CA he must be notified, but a notification is considered proper even if the address given by the mother is incorrect or fraudulent. Imagine the following: a woman names Bill Gates as the father of her child. The controlling law is that of the birth state, not Washington state. After a year, *bam* hit him up for a 10 million per year child support award. The award, remember, is based on ability to pay not need. I’m surprised this hasn’t happened yet, if not to Gates then to some other well known wealthy man.

The cure is simple: an action for fraud against the lying mother.

The damages will be the amount of child support.

The woman will pay the damages out of her own pocket whenever the man is forced to make child-support payment to her child.

She pays for her crime. He pays for his child, the child always knows his “father” is paying for him and therefore is not “emotionally wounded” as feminists say he would be if his supposed father is ever permitted to stop paying child support.

No, the damages his mother pays to his “father” is due to her fraud and deceit, and has nothing to do with the child.

So the child has a father who pays. The father has a child who he supports, and the father is never worse off: every month he gives $500 out of his pocket to the kid and gets $500 back into his pocket from mom.

If she insists the child support go up, he can go back to court to get an adjustment to his damages equal to the increase in child support (i.e. equal to his ongoing injury for her lies and deceit).

Bill you assume the mother has the money to repay. Big assumption. Victim expends further funds to obtain civil judgment that remains unpaid (okay, maybe $15 a month). Where’s the real dad?

Big Bill – great! “Solve” this problem with another “lawyer employment act”… which won’t even actually solve the problem, as wavemaker pointed out.

Having to go to court to get something that should be yours automatically, besides having a chance of failure in even the most obvious circumstances (see the recommendations on this very site about “loser pays”, and note the amazing similarities) is both inefficient and stupid.

To make your system work, the mother must have enough money (which she often won’t – see above example about naming a random rich guy) AND she must pay MORE than the child support, as the so-called “father” also has court expenses (lots of them).

And Bob Smith hits the REAL problem of paternity fraud – married fathers that find out they aren’t the father are a smaller and lesser problem (see above about assuming adoption).