|
|
|
|
|
| | Paternity fraud might come to an endPage 7 of 32 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32) |
I think the "duped men" should get back every dime, and I think the women should get some kind of house arrest or something, if they knew for sure he wasn't the father.
Ah, there's the "easy out" for the ladies again... "oh, I was pretty certain out of the 5 guys I screwed that month, that he was the father - so that should be ok because I didn't know for sure he wasn't the father"... ??? C'mon, she knows who she's been sleeping with - if she wasn't sleeping with anyone else then she should "know for sure" he *is* the father - if she *was* sleeping with other guys then she damn well should know that there is a *possibility* he's not the father, and if there is a *possibility* and she chooses to play "ms faithful" and lie, then its fraud.
I see bitter men, who were told that baby may not be theirs initially and took it on anyway, suddenly suing for fraud down the line if shit hits the fan. (because some know and don't care).
Another good reason for mandatory paternity testing - before the man's name goes on the birth certificate, he has the option of knowing the results - if he declines to know and signs the birth certificate he is taking legal responsibility. Of course, he could also choose to know, find out its not his, have whatever "conversation" with her that brings about, and still choose to sign and be legally responsible. | |
|
Eri713
| | Joined: 3/26/2012
Msg: 152 | |
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/23/2012 3:11:27 PM | I had to break this up into two posts otherwise it would have been way too long for just one.
Part 1
Chessman: if you read correctly you'd have seen that I was aiming that comment at women who DO go searching for a paycheck in the form of a man. Re-read it completely and not just the part you qouted and it will make more sense.
Sorry, I did miss the "a woman". But, I did say that I agree that some women might do this.
Chessman: Per my offspring,I don't care because I've never met him
You never met your child, and you feel the way you feel. I don’t have to like it or agree with you, but feelings “just are,” and everyone is entitled to their own. My ex-husband (bio father), however, is beyond contemptible in my book. We separated when my son was only 4 months old. It was only supposed to be a temporary separation for several reasons. A few days later, he threatened to take the baby away from me, so within that week I served him with divorce papers. Then, he put me through a custody battle for about a year or so. Then he doesn’t bother to show up at the final divorce hearing, which worked for me because I got sole custody, and he got supervised visitation once a week. My son is now 16, and there has been no contact, whatsoever, in all these years, from the ex or his family. He flat out abandoned his son. As far as I’m concerned, he doesn’t deserve to even breathe the same air as my son. I do get child support though. It gets garnished through his wages, and I’m lucky that he has continued to work.
Kitten: The court eventually told me that it wasn't cost effective to try to track him down and that they were no longer going to pursue him to enforce our COURT ORDERED child support agreement.
That is appalling! After everything the court tried, the last resort should have been a warrant for his arrest and jail time. I recently had something happen with my child support, but thankfully it’s been resolved. The cs office did tell me all of the steps that would be taken if it was not resolved; last resort was jail.
Clearly, you are a learned family lawyer or judge who has spent many years in a courtroom listening to or reading about every single case in order to hold such a staunch position that everything is wonderful and rosy in your world.
Capitano, everything is not wonderful and rosy in my world. Wish it was. But for the most part, I can’t complain. Although, it would be nice to meet someone and live happily ever after. Were you being sarcastic or sincere about what you said about me being a lawyer? It’s hard to tell sometimes when it’s a written conversation. Either way, I’m taking it as a compliment. I am not a lawyer, although it is something I’ve considered for a long time.
Try a little empathy sometime, trust me, it's never killed anyone in life to show a little empathy.
My master’s degree is in clinical psychology. You don’t know me, but trust me when I say that I am extremely empathetic; sometimes too much. If you have no empathy, the field of psychology is not the path to take.
per Cubanguy: The law is reasoning, free of passion; is not about what we think, we wish, or we want but, about what can be proved.
This is exactly what I’ve been trying to get across. I’ve been talking about facts, not my personal opinion. Cubanguy, you said it better than I did, and it only took one sentence! | |
|
Eri713
| | Joined: 3/26/2012
Msg: 153 | |
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/23/2012 3:22:05 PM | Part 2
You know what? We have actually been talking about apples and oranges this entire time, and I’m bothered by the fact that it took me this long to realize it. Please bear with me while I explain.
Apples: This thread is originally about paternity fraud by mothers against non-bio boyfriends. Ido agree with what everyone is saying; that there are women who try to get away with. It’s wrong and contemptible. I do feel though, that most of the posts written by the men are making it sound like it is the majority of women who try to get away with this fraud. They are not the majority. This is unjust and disrespectful of the majority of women who are not fraudulent.
Oranges: mrcs84 said
You should look up "psychological parent doctrine," "de facto parent doctrine," or "in loco parentis." I know for a fact that from "just dating" them, you most certainly can be on the hook
This is where I first came into the conversation. The doctrines that mrcs brought up are not about child support. They are about the non-bio wanting visitation rights and having a say in decisions concerning the child. These doctrines are NOT about child support. One thing I did say before, “Paying child support is always a factor in custody and visitation cases, so a non-biological father should expect to pay child support as part of any court order giving him parental rights” This is wrong, and I apologize for the misinformation.
The criteria for de facto parents and psychological parents are interchangeable. I’m not going to list the criteria again. In loco parentis exists when an individual intends to take on the role of a parent.
Cubanguy, you are correct in stating that an “estoppel” doctrine does entail child support, however, you referenced the wrong “estoppel”.
Equitable estoppel: this is founded on the principles of fraud. It’s a defensive doctrine to prevent one party from making false representations or concealing material facts from the other party, if the other party would be harmed by the change. Six elements must be proven:
1. There must be a representation or concealment of material facts. 2. These facts must be known at the time of the representation to the party being estopped. 3. The party claiming the benefit of the estoppel must not know the truth concerning these facts at the time of the representation. 4. The representation must be made with the intention or the expectation that it will be acted upon. 5. The representation must be relied upon and acted upon. 6. The party acting upon the representation must do so to his or her detriment.
Example 1: A creditor unofficially informs a debtor that the creditor forgives the debt between them. Even if such forgiveness is not formally documented, the creditor may be estopped from changing its mind and seeking to collect the debt, because that change would be unfair.
Example 2: A landlord informs a tenant that rent has been reduced because there was construction or a lapse in utility services. If the tenant relies on this statement in choosing to remain in the premises, the landlord could be estopped from collecting the full rent.
A parent by estoppels is an individual who, though not a legal parent:
1. Is liable for child support under Chapter 3 of Uniform Parentage Act. 2. Lived with the child for at least two years. 2A. Over that period had a reasonable good faith belief that he was the child’s biological father, based on marriage to the mother or on the actions or representations of the mother, and fully accepted parental responsibilities consistent with that belief. 2B.Continued to make reasonable, good faith efforts to accept responsibilities as the child’s father, even if that belief no longer existed after the two-year period. 3. Lived with the child for at least two years, and held himself or herself out as the child’s parent and accepted the full responsibilities thereof with the agreement or acquiescence of the child’s legal parent, when the court finds that recognition as a parent is in the child’s best interests.
The article, Trusting Mothers: A critique of the American Law Institute’s Treatment of de facto parents http://lawarchive.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v38n04_cc3_wilson_final.pdf It’s very interesting and worth the read. If you read at least to page 15, it goes into great detail about de facto parents, but it’s not dry, at least in my opinion. About half of each page consists of footnotes and the font is big, so up to page 15 is like reading 7 short pages.
“The American Law Institute is the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law. The Institute (made up of 4000 lawyers, judges, and law professors of the highest qualifications) drafts, discusses, revises, and publishes Restatements of the Law, model statutes, and principles of law that are enormously influential in the courts and legislatures, as well as in legal scholarship and education. ALI has long been influential internationally and, in recent years, more of its work has become international in scope.” “The ALI can propose such drastic changes because its recommendations in the Principles are directed at legislators, who have the option to write on a blank slate, as opposed to judges who generally must heed precedent.” | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/23/2012 4:08:51 PM | I would think if your woman is out screwing 5 men, you'd be well aware that the relationship is rocky and insist on the test. That's not the majority of us and many men are saying it is. Just because you are hoping that child is someone else doesn't make it so. My son's father once told me he didn't think his daughter was his.. yea.. I met her.. If my son was a girl that's what he's look like. They could be twins. Wishful thinking doesn't make it true.
~~~~~~~~~~
If you want to make a case about personal lies in social interactions or to make from the free will a case of reward without accountability by personal decisions... go for it.
~~~~~~~~
No,.. I just see what happened when other laws governing things like this and saw how it spiraled to ridiculous. what you are talking about isn't far off from what i suggested. Paternity tests are available to anyone and I agree that you shouldn't be held accountable to a baby that isn't yours unless you chose to raise it knowing that fact. And I also think you should be "reimbursed". but what other punishment/outcome do you advocate?
~~~~~~~~
It won´t the first time some women get financial gain from personal choices.
~~~~~~~~
Some men get financial gain from their personal choices as well, lying about things that leads to the woman supporting them or paying for something they wouldn't pay for otherwise. And yes.. it's a growing trend.. you can read all about it on other forums. If that's the case I should be compensated for the money my ex stole from me fraudulently, because he chose to lie about thing. It's not much different, except for the length of time and obvious things. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/27/2012 12:53:43 AM | I suspect has returned under judgeLiz....now of whitby rather than Toronto!
Glad to see you have returned Lizzie...from your exile! And was there not once another handle you used before lizbeth2.....just lizbeth? I just cannot remeber what you went under before 2007....~Tealwood~
Yeah, I suspect you are correct, Tealwood.... I wasn't really paying attention until you mentioned it...
... same style, still hasn't learned how to quote properly, though I have to say, it seems like she's trying to disguise herself by trying to actually put a coherent sentence together....
.... with little success, but she's tryin'....~ capitano_blaugh~
^^^^^Ohhh, I think you boys are crazy...extremely paranoid....and a little slow..Really?...come on...
Geeze, the list of people who have complained and tattle-taled when they do not want to answer the tough questions just got alot shorter now hasn't it?
Back to the origional topic...Paternity fraud is not as previlent as you Teal lead people to believe.
I do believe that lizbeth, cindraizzie asked you Tealwood to find caselaw where a man was actually held accountable for in loco parentis for children that were not his own...and for some reason...I personally cannot find that data if you posted it!
The bottom line is, imagine your daughters Tealwood getting knocked up by a guy who didn't have the courage to stick by his responsibilities...I would love to hear your feedback now that your girls are at the age where this is a very real possibility now that they are young adults.
Hey cappy....still have that creepy red nose? :) | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/27/2012 7:07:00 AM | You´re a such good troll that I´ll respond:
- Capitano, is a case law for loco parentis in Canada.
- Steve Barreras, is a case law for paternity fraud in US.
It was published that even though the United Kingdom government exposed 4,854 cases of false paternity claims there had not been a single prosecution for the crime. (Daily Mail, London, August 1, 2008 edition)
| |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/27/2012 7:46:06 PM |
Another good reason for mandatory paternity testing - before the man's name goes on the birth certificate, he has the option of knowing the results - if he declines to know and signs the birth certificate he is taking legal responsibility. Of course, he could also choose to know, find out its not his, have whatever "conversation" with her that brings about, and still choose to sign and be legally responsible.
That option exists NOW, and with no cost to uninterested parties. Before we begin the argument about why taxpayers should assume these costs, I will state that, for me, I would rather be forced to spend a few extra dollars to feed children than to ensure that those who choose to lay with liars bear no consequence.
btw, fraud, particularly in these instances, is difficult to prove as the proof requires that misrepresentation exists, rather than a mistake. I am not saying that those who lie about paternity aren't lying, only that it is hard to prove that they weren't merely mistaken. Hence, "he said, she said". I would imagine also that because legally it must be shown that the plaintiff's reliance was justifiable, and that "upon reasonable inquiry would not have discovered the truth of the matter", paternity fraud is a difficult crime to prosecute. If you engage in sex with the town tramp, it would seem reasonable that one would not rely on their word alone, don't you think? Certainly, an argument in favor of a man's request for a paternity test, but not a strong argument in favor of prosecution in general. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/27/2012 10:56:08 PM | - Capitano, is a case law for loco parentis in Canada.
^^^aww poor muffin...please elaborate? CANII doc file #?? (or just a bleedin heart?)
Steve Barreras, is a case law for paternity fraud in US.
^^^^Who is he...state case law doc #?..I don't live in the US..I live in the real world where just cause you can say it dosen't make it case law or true! Just sayin | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/28/2012 5:08:46 AM | If I had a daughter and some no'count loser knocked her up, I would not be interested in him pretending to "shoulder his responsibilities," getting my daughter and the kid entangled in a sordid mess, and leaving a mass of debt and possibly criminal complaints behind.
First I'd say I hoped she was at least TRYING to use contraception, and then I'd encourage her to get an abortion. But of course that would be her decision, if she was of age of majority, and I'd try to let her make her own decision if she was younger and I believed she was able to make it in full awareness of her situation.
ED BEAR
Admittedly, not a parent. But old enough to have seen that play too often. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/28/2012 8:10:08 AM |
I am not saying that those who lie about paternity aren't lying, only that it is hard to prove that they weren't merely mistaken.
And I find that total BS. Seriously, I understand the 'mechanics' of conception aren't 100% 'accurate to an exact moment' ... but seriously, you're banging 2 different guys in a span of say 6 weeks ( sperm doesn't stay viable *that* long, unless you're freezing it or something) and a month later you find out you're pregnant, it *could* be either of them. It's simple enough for *her* to say "I *think* it's yours, I'm 99% certain, but I was slept with this other guy too in that timeframe" - then, if he accepted it as his without testing, his fault. If she chooses *not* to say that, even if, "in her mind" its a "remote" chance it was the other guys - she's making a choice to hide reality - isn't that a self-serving lie?
And while I agree, it's not "easy" to prove the difference between a lie and "being mistaken", it *is* easy to prove it was either of those, a DNA test does that.
If you engage in sex with the town tramp, it would seem reasonable that one would not rely on their word alone, don't you think? Certainly, an argument in favor of a man's request for a paternity test, but not a strong argument in favor of prosecution in general.
Now you're breaking into apples & oranges - *I'm* the guy, if I'm banging 3 different women and one gets pregnant, and I don't know if they're banging others too, of course it's reasonable to question it. In fact, I could get all 3 pregnant and wind up paying child support for 3 different children to 3 different mothers (and it would 100% be my own fault, spreading the 'gift' of my sex leading to the spreading of my wallet to multiple women  ).
But we're not talking about that, we're talking about the *woman* - this is the person who is 100% positively, under any circumstance other than something majorly planned (artificial implantation), definitely the mother of the child. A person who will most likely *never* wind up paying child support for a child that "isn't hers", because it being hers or not is *obvious*. Women also generally get physical custody, I'm not sure I've ever seen (or will ever see) a woman paying multiple men child support for children the men each have primary custody of. If we ever get to that point, where men are actually equally considered for primary custody, and a woman has a reasonably good chance to paying child support to multiple men for her own children, I might start believing women having a good understanding of it. Until then, in *most* cases its the man paying the woman for child support (whether they really pay, and enforcement of that, is a different subject).
Seriously, if I'm dating a woman for 6 months I met on POF (or whereever), I know "some" stuff about her, but certainly not everything, and she tells me she's pregnant, of course I'd question it. Maybe she is the "town tramp"  ?
If I'm *living* with my wife of 5 years, in "our" home, and say already have a 3y/o child together, and she "gets pregnant again", unbeknownst to me because she's been banging the neighbor on occasion, would you consider it 'reasonable' of me not to have questioned it?? If a year after said child is born, she's walking out the door and we're getting divorced, and I figure out that child isn't mine (DNA test), should I be paying child support to her for that child? Heck, maybe she moves in with the neighbor - seriously, I should be paying child support for a child that isn't mine (I would of course pay for 'our' 3y/o we had together in this example), when she's living with the child's real father, because she lied and being my 'wife' at the time I believed her??
I do agree, its a tough one, and where to draw a line presents interesting legal questions. On the flip side, *mandatory* testing at birth eliminates virtually all of those questions.
That option exists NOW, and with no cost to uninterested parties. Before we begin the argument about why taxpayers should assume these costs, I will state that, for me, I would rather be forced to spend a few extra dollars to feed children than to ensure that those who choose to lay with liars bear no consequence.
And I'll state that, for me, I'd rather be forced to spend a few extra dollars to feed children *and* do mandatory DNA testing than those same dollars going to the military to blow up 'brown people' (different color, different religion), fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, children, with drones, Hellfire missiles, and 50-cal machine guns, in other countries around the world. Mandatory DNA testing I'm sure would cost a small *fraction* of what we pay blowing up 100's of thousands of people around the world... "bringing them freedom". In fact, the cost of medical equipment (MRI machines, etc) has been falling for a decade as technology improves, and probably is for DNA testing equipment too... unlike most military equipment. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/28/2012 11:29:00 AM |
And while I agree, it's not "easy" to prove the difference between a lie and "being mistaken", it *is* easy to prove it was either of those, a DNA test does that.
A paernity test proves paternity, nothing more. It can't prove that a woman lied to a man about having had her tubes tied any more than it can prove that man lied about a vasectomy. Is is also unlikely to foster evidence that a woman (or her doctor) miscalculated by a few weeks in either direction. The liar you slept with is likely to remain a liar in the courtroom. From a legal standpoint, fraud is difficult to prove in such cases, that's all I'm saying. A government mandate might establish a fact but does nothing at all as far as proving fraudulent misrepresentation.
Mandatory testing & paternity fraud are two distinct issues, let's not add a third argument in the form of the costs of the military! I just don't see how mandating tests will lead to the cessation of paternity fraud. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/29/2012 8:58:06 AM | I'm not willing to throw a man in jail for being behind on payments. Most single parents I know do not like or agree with that. Thank the government for that consequence. I told the cs worker I don't want him thrown in jail. He told me that's admirable, but I can't stop them from doing it. So the men who end up there, bring it on themselves.
No.. you can't. You can prove that you are not the father, but it would be very hard to prove that the woman knew for a fact that you're not the father. Unless you've got in in writing or have a recording of her stating she knows you are not the father, then you'll have a hard time proving anything. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/29/2012 9:07:10 AM | Personally, I do agree that women who commit paternity fraud should be prosecuted. There is no such thing as simply being "mistaken" on paternity. A woman KNOWS if there's a possibility a man may not be the father of her child, and should be telling him of that possibility upon finding out she's pregnant. If a woman tells a man he's the child's father, despite KNOWING there's a possibility he may not be, she is guilty of fraud and should face the legal consequences of that choice.
That said, I do not support mandatory testing. I do not believe it to be such a wide-spread problem to justify invading the privacy of all parents/children and forcing a test upon them -- in a sense, mandatory testing assumes one's guilt rather than innocence. In Western society, we do not accuse people of a crime and expect them to prove their innocence when no crime has yet been committed, which is what you are advocating by supporting mandatory testing.
All men have the right to ask for a paternity test for any child they are said to have fathered. If a man is that concerned about raising a child if it were to turn out not to be his, then he should be asking for the test upon birth. If a man chooses to sign the birth certificate without a dna test, that's his choice to assume the role as a father. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/29/2012 9:22:02 AM | ~~~~~~~~~~~~
you can however tell if a woman lied about being able to get preggo,you can tell if a woman knowingly kept the fact that she cheated on her husband from him. Think about it...as the example above stated...married couple,she cheats but he thinks it's his (afterall he has no reason to suspect his wife is roaming) only to find out years later it is'nt his...but he's still on the line for that **stard child.
~~~~~~~~~~
Well then.. the men should be held to the same standards.. I'm fine with it.. as long as it pertains to both people. When the man lies about being sterile or having a vasectomy he should be held to the same repercussions as a woman who lies about these things. Cause that happens too.
If she's cheating.. how much sex are you having in a relationship? This happened to my uncle. he knew it wasn't his as soon as she admitted she was pregnant. He wanted to raise the child as his own anyway, but she left. I still don't think it's as prevalent as people here are trying to make it seem to be. (I'm not condoning her actions, just an example) | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/29/2012 5:23:31 PM |
I do not believe it to be such a wide-spread problem to justify invading the privacy of all parents/children and forcing a test upon them
Hmmmm...
Well, the well-known study that was done found that of almost 400,000 DNA tests done, 30% of them proved that the tests were negative... in other words, more than 100,000 kids in the U.S. were matched to the wrong father. Now, granted, these were tests that were requested over a period of time and the study was done a number of years ago, but that is 100.000 cases.
The most conservative number I've found is 3-4% of births involve a woman who has named the wrong father in North America. This translates to about 100,000 PER YEAR....
... that's fvcking insignificant?
I read one paper that analysed the numbers, I wish I could find it again, but they pointed out that as the number of women who fvck around on their SO increases, which it is doing, the numbers of kids born with the wrong father named on the birth cerificate will also increase.
100,000 a year......
What I keep seeing from the women-folk in this and similar threads reminds me of what I've heard from the low-lifes and shitheads of the world:
"I ain't illegal or wrong unless you get caught"
 | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/29/2012 5:26:17 PM |
Simply put lying about the ability to get pregnant is fraud,period point blank. Lying or keeping the truth hidden about paternity of a child is also fraud. Why are'nt we as willing to convict women who commit this as we are willing to throw men in jail for being behind on payments? We CAN determine if someone is lying,we've had that technology for the last 50 or so years.
Who's "we"? I, for one, have never said that women shouldn't be convicted of paternity fraud, only that it is a difficult crime to prove. Men should also be prosecuted for lying about having a vasectomy, or being sterile, but I can't imagine that there would be many sucessful prosecutions either way. Who mentioned throwing men in jail for back cs? btw, there is hardly a plethora of men in jail for cs arrears. In any case, while I might agree that lie detecting technology is available, it is not admissable in court, right? | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/29/2012 10:32:51 PM | Well, the well-known study that was done found that of almost 400,000 DNA tests done, 30% of them proved that the tests were negative... in other words, more than 100,000 kids in the U.S. were matched to the wrong father. Now, granted, these were tests that were requested over a period of time and the study was done a number of years ago, but that is 100.000 cases.
As you yourself have admitted, these studies were done in cases where paternity was ALREADY in question. This is NOT evidence that 100,000 women a year were trying to dupe the fathers about paternity. In that sample, there are very likely several cases where a woman has tested ALL her sexual partners to establish paternity. If a woman had sex with 4 men and tested all four for paternity, only ONE of them is going to come out with a positive result, whereas 3 of them would come out as not the father. There is no evidence at all that fraud was being committed or that she was lying to the men -- in fact, I think it's more likely she's being honest with them about the possibility they may not be the father, which is why they sought testing.
The ONLY way for anyone to know how big of a problem it is, is to do random sampling from the general population. You cannot extrapolate that test results from cases where paternity is ALREADY in question have anything to do with the general population.
As I said before, we live in countries that pride themselves on the tenet of innocent until proven guilty. You are wanting to "try" women for "crimes" that haven't even been committed yet...simply on the basis that they COULD do it. You COULD rape a woman or commit a crime, it is in your power to do so, and many men do...that does not mean we as a society expect you to have to defend yourself against accusations when a crime has not even been committed yet, just because you COULD do it.
In Canada in 2009, there were 383, 863 births. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth85a-eng.htm
Even given your 3% statistic (which I do not believe to be accurate given NO studies being done on the general population), that means 11, 515 children MAY have the wrong father listed on the birth certificate. HOWEVER, this still does not take into account the number of men who may choose to sign the birth certificate KNOWING they are not/may not be the child's father. Furthermore, I don't believe it to be right to force a test on 372, 348 people who are telling the truth about their child's parentage because a very small group of people either don't tell the truth or choose to ignore that knowledge and take on a child as their own anyway.
I am not saying that it is okay to commit fraud. I have disdain for those who lie to someone about the possibility a child may not be theirs. But I also believe in upholding people's right to privacy and not having the government mandating dna testing on people. I believe that if a man is led to believe a child is his, and it turns out it is not, then the woman should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I do NOT believe, however, in expecting people to prove their "innocence" when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. That is simply not how it works in Canada or any other westernized country. We do not chase after people on the off chance they MIGHT commit a crime...we do, however, prosecute crimes AFTER they have happened.
"I ain't illegal or wrong unless you get caught" I never once said anything of the sort, and have numerous times said how disgusting I believe it that some women would commit paternity fraud. I simply said I do not believe in trampling the rights of all because of the actions of a few. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/30/2012 12:43:31 AM |
we live in countries that pride themselves on the tenet of innocent until proven guilty.
Tell that to any man accused of molesting a child or beating his wife.
try" women for "crimes" that haven't even been committed yet...simply on the basis that they COULD do it.
Police checkpoints come to mind. So does airport security, and getting a background check prior to buying a firearm.
I simply said I do not believe in trampling the rights of all because of the actions of a few.
Do children not have a right to know who their fathers are? Perhaps some medical background along with it? "The best interest of the child" only seems to hold water when mom wants money. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/30/2012 3:10:03 AM | Giving birth does not make one a potential criminal or terrorist.
I really dont need security checkpoints involved with my birthing experiences.
I dont even like too much medical intervention, which is why i hired a holistic midwife to attend my last birth. Let alone other peoples drama that has nothing to do with me. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/30/2012 7:03:13 AM | Tell that to any man accused of molesting a child or beating his wife.
Ah, but we don't expect all men to prove they aren't child molesters or wife beaters when there hasn't even been an accusation made that they are one! In the case here, some people are arguing that ALL children should be tested, even when paternity is not in question by either parent, because some people do question paternity and need testing (essentially, forcing a mother to prove her innocence when a crime hasn't even been committed or she hasn't even been accused of said crime). We do not force all men to submit to dna tests because some men are rapists and therefore, all men COULD commit that crime -- we wait and prosecute after an accusation has been made because any less tramples one's rights.
Police checkpoints come to mind. So does airport security, and getting a background check prior to buying a firearm.
None of which currently force a person to give up a sample of their dna. Apart from the fact, people have the RIGHT to have children....flying, owning firearms, etc....are privileges. There is a difference.
Do children not have a right to know who their fathers are? Perhaps some medical background along with it? "The best interest of the child" only seems to hold water when mom wants money. Did I say they don't? I said several times that I believe that those who do defraud the fathers should be prosecuted. I just don't believe the problem, as relatively small as it is, warrants trampling the rights of all.
BTW, just because a child may know who it's parents are does NOT guarantee knowlege of medical background. Nor did I say ANYTHING regarding child support...you're grasping at straws now and trying to make it out to be something it's not. Child support, custody, and dna are all separate issues. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/30/2012 7:44:42 AM |
But I also believe in upholding people's right to privacy and not having the government mandating dna testing on people.
People willingly give up their rights to privacy all the time. In the case of DNA testing, how is THAT privacy any different than your personal information your doctor already holds in confidence? Pregnant women go through many tests, blood tests included, so adding the early DNA test in there is not any more inconvenient. The information could be held by the doctor who simply has to say "Yes" or "No" about a match to the supposed father.
As for the rights... The KIDS' rights are being trampled when they don't know their bio father. One of the Universal Rights under the UN is that every child has the right to know his or her parents. So, mothers feelings supercedes the childs right to know his or her father?
Cheers.
| |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/30/2012 8:37:05 AM | People willingly give up their rights to privacy all the time. In the case of DNA testing, how is THAT privacy any different than your personal information your doctor already holds in confidence? Because it is information WILLINGLY given. Mandating, by definition is forcing it upon people, hence, not WILLINGLY.
Pregnant women go through many tests, blood tests included, so adding the early DNA test in there is not any more inconvenient. Tests that are not FORCED upon them if they choose not to. Doctors cannot force a medical procedure upon a patient against their will -- that would be in violation of their human rights.
One of the Universal Rights under the UN is that every child has the right to know his or her parents. I agree. However, people also have the universal right to not have medical procedures forced upon them against their will. Also, although ideally all children should be able to know both parents, there are millions of them who have been abandoned by one parent....do we force people to obtain licences to have children because some people choose to run and therefore the child would have their rights trampled on? No, we have to trust (however misguided it may be in some cases) that people will do the right thing by their children because although some people don't, the vast majority do -- we don't assume everyone is guilty for something that hasn't even happened yet just because there is the remotest possibility that they could do wrong by their child.
So, mothers feelings supercedes the childs right to know his or her father?
I didn't say that. What I did say is that you cannot trample the rights of all when in most cases, it isn't warranted. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/30/2012 8:54:54 AM | Oh well, the way I look at it is I'm not raising a finger for a child that I dont know is mine. And of course, I dont know its mine until there is a DNA test.
There have been two women that got pregnant while messing with me, and have had the child obviously not be mine. What sucks is that my stats (job/car/past) made me the best "candidate" and so they acted upon their natural desire to have the best man raise the child. However, I did nothing knowing that we werent exclusive, and by the looks of the children, we all knew. But the saddest part these women wouldnt have stopped me from raising their children, had I been THAT guy. And I truly believe the majority of women would do the same.
On the other side, there is a child who is obviously mine, and other than that woman telling me the child's name, and birthday, and a few other things, this woman has her own thing going on, and has said nothing else. She even started a family after having the child. I am not as easy about that as it may seem, but she chooses it to be that way. Lets just say that child looks like a female me, and I look nothing like the woman. The woman is white, as is the rest of her family. That child is obviously going to have some questions later in life. But in the end, no DNA test = nothing coming from me, cause nothing is 100% these days.
The whole state of these things are a mess these days. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/30/2012 9:17:25 AM |
Oh well, the way I look at it is I'm not raising a finger for a child that I dont know is mine. And of course, I dont know its mine until there is a DNA test.
Which is well within your right to request if a woman points the finger at you as the daddy.
There have been two women that got pregnant while messing with me, and have had the child obviously not be mine. What sucks is that my stats (job/car/past) made me the best "candidate" and so they acted upon their natural desire to have the best man raise the child. However, I did nothing knowing that we werent exclusive, and by the looks of the children, we all knew. But the saddest part these women wouldnt have stopped me from raising their children, had I been THAT guy. And I truly believe the majority of women would do the same.
What a child looks like is not necessarily an indication of who the father is. My child is my mini-me, does that mean because she doesn't look like her father that she doesn't have a father? Remember, as a father, the child only inherits HALF your genes. I have a cousin who has 4 children with his wife. The first born is NOT his biologically (the mother had sex with another man while they were separated for a brief time). He knew when she was pregnant that the kid would not be his, yet chose to get back together with her and raise the girl as his own. All three children they had after the first (all were tested for paternity and confirmed the first was not his, but the other three were) look the same (just younger versions of each other), because they all look like the MOTHER.
I know that I would NEVER lie to a man about paternity, and I do doubt that "most" women would (and, even if one accepts a 3% paternity fraud rate, which, I will add again, has no basis in proof regarding the general population, it still means 97% -- most -- women ARE being truthful about who their child's father is).
As for your experiences. Without a paternity test, there is no way to tell for sure that those kids weren't yours based on what they looked like alone. And, you should consider that the common denominator in those situations was YOU. | |
|
| Paternity fraud might come to an end
Posted: 7/30/2012 9:30:30 AM | The liar you slept with is likely to remain a liar in the courtroom.
The penalties for perjuring y0urself are quite stiff. The penalties for paternity fraud are apparently non-existant. Which is to say, there's far more likely to be a "Why not lie?" attitude about paternity, if there are no clear-cut sanctions about it. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
7
of
32 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
|
|
Home
login 
