paternity fraud

That is so wrong! In Ca., there's something in the papers every week about some poor guy who's been totally screwed this way. Deadbeat dads should have to pay child support, but only if the kids are really his. That's awful.

yes i know, i am a minor activist in mens rights, this covers men and women and cf, and everyone in between. i agree about deadbeat dads but some dont even know they are a dad until the csa comes knocking..imagine that feeling, and some of those arent even the fathers of the kids either.. quite a few men in that position have actually killed themselves its not common but it does happen. 50% of you wage could be taken off you, to pay for some other mans kids.

not to mention in the UK you get priority housing if you are a single mother and havent a home, (in one case a acquaintence of mine discovered this and she went out deliberatly to have a kid by any man at all so she could have an easy life luckily i saw and i ran like the devil was after me. she had the kid the sperm donor had to pay money for a 1 nite stand he still is as far as i know and they wonder why i am soured)

It's simple to avoid pregnancy. Don't stick your penis in any woman without a condom, no matter what she says about her birth control status. Use plenty of water based lube.

Feh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's simple to avoid pregnancy. Don't stick your
> penis in any woman without a condom, no matter
> what she says about her birth control status. Use
> plenty of water based lube.
>

I would take it one step further... Get a vasectomy. Then go to the doctor to make SURE you're shooting blanks BEFORE having sex with anyone.

If I were I guy, until I got neutered, I would never engage in any kind of sex (including oral), with or without a condom. You never know what could happen if you did... Some women are capable of some pretty underhanded things (I'm sure you can use your imagination.)

Just think of the hell to pay for any "accidents". Better to avoid them completely by assuring you're sterile before engaging in acts. I've known too many guys who've been hoodwinked by crafty broads. (Sorry, girls... I know most of us are decent human beings, but let's face it, there are some real losers out there who are desperate and selfish and will do anything to land a wallet and cruise on easy street.)

There are probably just as many women who've been hoodwinked by crafty men as well..."Really baby, I'll put a condom on", "Just let me put it in for a little bit, I'll pull out".

Like sex, fraud is a two way street.

Feh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are probably just as many women who've been
> hoodwinked by crafty men as well..."Really baby,
> I'll put a condom on", "Just let me put it in for
> a little bit, I'll pull out".
>
> Like sex, fraud is a two way street.
>

Oh yes, very true indeed. However, I'm more concerned about women screwing men over simply because: Once a guy's on the hook, he's screwed because suddenly he has no choice in the way things play out. However, the woman (in the US, anyway) can theoretically still opt out and get an abortion. It may be a two-way street, but the women's direction has more lanes.

i am always careful i carry my penkinfe with me .. i am slightly paranoid about it, i dont want to end up, luckily before i met casey i was celibate for 3 years, so.. unless it was a virgin birth..

Whaaa? Penknife? Celebate? Virgin Birth?


Anyway, abortions are expensive, granted not as expensive as having a kid, but the gub'mint won't help out with those in any way. They also aren't as freely available as one might think, some states have only one clinic (if that), unreasonable waiting periods and other restrictions.

I still say when a woman gets pregnant as a result of consentual sexual activity, both parties take equal responsiblity. There are just as many, if not more, guys out there making babies and not taking care of them because it makes 'em more of a man, or they are big whiny wusses who "don't wannna wear a coooondoom because I caaaaan't feeeeel anything" as there are women lying about their fertility/birth control status to "gets me a man".

its worse than you imagine, in the other comment that two cents asked.

will recap here, you can be claimed as a parent even if you have never ever had any contact with the woman in your life.. true.. yes, even if you have the snip, are sterile, and have lived in another country and never met the woman, you could still be the kids father (in a legal sense)

http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml

It wasn't my intention to turn this into a "who's worse, men or women?" argument. The only reason I made the point above is because I think it's very important for guys to be EXTREMELY cautious about where they stick their little friend, and, importantly, I don't think it's always safe to assume that a condom is a sufficient precautionary measure against unwanted fatherhood/responsibility (and not just because sometimes condoms fail...). The reason the extreme caution is so important is because once conception occurs, the guy could be on the hook (even if it turns out he's not the biological daddy, as has already been stated).

That's all. I'm not trying to say all men are innocent victims and all women are evil dragon ladies. K?

thanks!

PS I hope some young, impressionable boys are reading this. Whatever works....

i know, but if you read reasons you will see even if there is no proof of fatherhood, no access to the mother EVER, even as in not in the same country even, men can still be legally the father by legislation.. i know that guiltfree. but its worse than you imagine. even if you have proof you are not the father it doesnt matter, the law says you are and you are..

Abortions ARE in fact free and low-cost to many low-income women. I guess it depends on the state in which you live. I live in California and had an abortion earlier this year. It was paid for by Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal is financed by federal, state and county funds according to its Web site. According to the eligibility criteria, one has to be a child, an elderly person, a mother of children, a pregnant woman, or a person who is disabled according to Social Security rules to obtain Medi-Cal.
I went to a Planned Parenthood and the counselors there had me apply for an emergency Medi-Cal card. Abortion is considered medical care, and since I was a pregnant woman in need of medical care....
I think it is unfortunate that low-income people who aren't pregnant or are mothers can't get Medi-Cal. But in this society, it's all about the chylldrun....

Sounds like California is pretty supportive then. The south and midwest are horrible.

Yep. California rewards every irresponsible, uninsured pregnant woman. That's what we pay taxes for. So some BITCH can fuck her heart out, and stick the taxpayers for the bill. No, Medi-Cal should not be more widely available. If someone can afford a computer, she can probably afford her own fucking abortion. If not, then why isn't she being forced to sell off some of her luxuries, to pay for her own mistake? The money's there, she's just too Goddamn spoiled and entitlement minded to believe it's her problem. Fuck You, Bitch!

I read the rant on the reason website, and after finding two problems with it in the first few paragraphs, I quit. First, this is one of those "happened to a friend of mine" deals where there is no documentation of the particular people involved, just basic ranting. I can make stuff up and put it on a website, and of course you'll believe everything I say is true, right?

Secondly, if it is true, the guy in question is completely stupid. Did it not occur to him to run immediately to a lawyer specializing in this sort of thing? Did he not get a blood test?

That website sounds like some pissed-off guy trying to justify knocking up some chick and trying to elicit sympathy.

If you don't want to get stuck with child support, keep your dick in your pants, or get snipped. In other words, be responsible for the choices you do have control over.

first of all, it is true, there is documentation, in the press, now if you read it, you will see that he never was with the woman, in the time she claimed it he was 1000 miles away. its not that he had sex with her, HE DIDNT. but he still was claimed by law to be the father.

I'd much rather my tax money go to pay for abortions than unwanted kids. Abortions are cheaper, and don't involve adding another person to this planet.

but feh, thing is he didnt want a kid, he never had sex with that woman he was hundreds of miles away at the time she said it happened, she claimed he was the father of a child just to get money out of a man, thats the only reason, it could have been anyone with any name. if a woman doesnt want kids then i agree abort, but this woman on that site wanted a kid to make her life easier. its easier for her to claim money (more than getting a job).. to claim he did it.

for example.

imagine a woman she has a 1 night stand, doesnt know the name of the father or whatever. then she claims that mr joe bloggs of florida made her pregnant on the 27th of july, in new york, while joe bloggs was out of the country. then the government sends a notification to this persons last known address (usually posted not hand delivered) then he has 30 days to say it wasnt his, even if he wasnt in the country at the time, and he has proof of it. if he doesnt get the notification or he puts it off, after 30 days he is legally the childs father(EVEN WHEN HE HAS NEVER SCREWED THAT WOMAN IN HIS LIFE) and has to pay money to the mother. even with proof, like a passport or whatever that he wasnt in the county it doesnt matter, even dna tests doesnt matter, as legally he is claimed as the father.. the only way to not become the legally known father is to sue the government.

technically any woman can claim any man as the father of a child, even if we have never ever met, after 30 days i am the father. luckily i live in another country where those rules dont apply. can you see how screwed up that is

I guess I just don't understand why a simple dna test wouldn't clear this up.

its got nothing to do with DNA but more to do with the legal presumption of fatherhood. its the presumption of guilt, and as it says extremely difficult to challenge. hope this explains it mentions it in detail so i cut and pasted bits as i quote

""Meanwhile, courts across the country are trying to redraw the legal lines of paternity now that genetic testing and welfare reform are colliding with 500 years of common law tradition, which has presumed that all children born in a marriage are the husband’s responsibility, whether or not he is the biological father. In May 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that men who have admitted paternity, even if the mother lied to them, are not allowed to introduce DNA evidence to challenge support orders. Carnell Smith has been trying to push the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, so far without success.
""
see the courts are biased and they dont want to hear dna evidence..

""I contact Child Support Services, and their whole thing is, ‘Take us to court. You don’t like what we’re doing, take us to court,’" he says. "Whether or not you’re the biological father doesn’t matter -- if someone’s got your name, and you’ve...failed to participate in the court date, then you have an obligation to pay child support, period."

Needless to say, taking DCSS to court is expensive (James says he’s already run up legal bills of $4,000), and success isn’t likely. To add insult to injury, even if you win, you won’t get any of your money back.""




""Considered in zero sum terms, any change that prevents some unjustly named fathers from supporting kids they didn’t sire reduces the amount of money children and single mothers receive while increasing states’ welfare payouts"" they dont care about the men, its all about the money they can raise


""But as long as state and federal laws remain as they are -- with low evidentiary thresholds for issuing paternity complaints, no proof of service required, the presumption of guilt in default cases, a series of short legal deadlines beyond which paternity becomes extremely difficult to challenge, and financial incentive for the government to keep naming dads and extracting money -- these cases will continue to come up.""