Really long NYT Article about Non-Biological fathers getting stuck

I don't think we discussed this before. It's a long read. Here's a rage-inducing sentiment that appears a couple of times within the article:

Quote

In an age of DNA, when biological relationships can be identified with certainty, it can seem absurd to hew so closely to a centuries-old idea of paternity. And yet basing paternity decisions solely on genetics places the nonbiological father’s welfare above the child’s.

link

From the article :"...much pain could be avoided if paternity was accurately established in a baby’s first days. Several suggested that DNA paternity tests should be routine at birth, or at least before every paternity acknowledgment is signed and every default order entered."

Sounds good to me!

To me, forcing men to pay support for children they know are not theirs (especially when the biological father is in a relationship with the mother!) is as offensive as forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

But this article didn't touch on the truly egregious lengths to which paternity fraud can sink. All the "defrauded" men in the article thought they could trust their wives: But in some states, if a man is stupid enough to enter into a relationship with a single mawm, he will not be allowed to quit supporting her child(ren) if their affair goes south, even though he could not possibly be the father of her children and everyone-the mawm, the kids, the courts, the biofather-knows it! In these states, because he willingly took on the role of a parent with her child(ren), he may be forced to continue that role-that of walking wallet-because that's in "the best interests of the child(ren)". IOW, it's easier to force the non related man in the are who has an income than to pursue the ex husband/ex BF, who might be dead, incarcerated, unemployed, or an expatriate.

How horrible, the guy in the story finds out his kid is not his, then his ex is marrying the REAL duh, and the guy still has to pay. Woah, something is way out of whack. The circumstances here should really allow an exception for this poor guy.

Yes, mandatory DNA tests at birth or some kind of waiver that leaves the guy on the hook if he is too stupid to agree to have that test.

As far as some boyfriend living with a moo being tapped, that just goes to show it is just seeking a wallet from anywhere. Hey, never even befriend a chyld of a neighbor, you may be taking on a "parental" role and your neighbor can sue you for support. Why not? It's in the best interests of the brat. Maybe go after the CF uncle who is a male role model for some kid with no duh and seize his wallet.

I remember reading this article when it came out.

It's all about the money. It's easier for the state to go after the guy who stuck around and has the $$$$$ then go after the real sperm donor. The state doesn't care who pays the bill, as long as it's not the state coffer.

Good people of Bratfree, this will never be us

Quote
Peace
I remember reading this article when it came out.

It's all about the money. It's easier for the state to go after the guy who stuck around and has the $$$$$ then go after the real sperm donor. The state doesn't care who pays the bill, as long as it's not the state coffer.

Good people of Bratfree, this will never be us

Thus far.

Of course I warn my fellow males and place great emphasis on the need to use condoms and to avoid single mothers who are quite possibly trying to get knocked up again to earn another meal ticket.

The state's interest in getting somebody... anybody... to pay is immoral. It's the equivalent of throwing a random, innocent man in jail for a crime instead of trying to catch the guy who actually committed the crime.

I propose that EVERY infant be given a DNA test to determine paternity. Guys who knock the women up can pay the penalty, while innocent guys would not be obliged. And keep in mind there are quite a few white knights who could (and do) volunteer to pay for children who are not theirs. I think they're total suckers and fucking idiots, but if they want to pay for other guy's kids, that's their choice to make. I've got no problem with it. What would be the harm in having mandatory DNA tests?

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Of course I warn my fellow males and place great emphasis on the need to use condoms and to avoid single mothers who are quite possibly trying to get knocked up again to earn another meal ticket.

A dry bone supports nothing.




_______________________________________________
“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”

Quote
thom_c

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Of course I warn my fellow males and place great emphasis on the need to use condoms and to avoid single mothers who are quite possibly trying to get knocked up again to earn another meal ticket.

A dry bone supports nothing.

1691fed57292dd8ec03b85e58710d4e4.jpg

I only wish that were true for the guys in the original article, linked above. Being forced to pay, by government decree, for a child which is not yours is absolutely deplorable and no free society should tolerate this kind of injustice.

I agree, guys should be responsible. The reward for being responsible is that you don't pay for mistakes which are not yours.

And again I'm not sure what's wrong with requiring that every baby born be tested for paternity. This would be beneficial for all fathers and non-fathers.

"The state's interest in getting somebody... anybody... to pay is immoral. It's the equivalent of throwing a random, innocent man in jail for a crime instead of trying to catch the guy who actually committed the crime.

I propose that EVERY infant be given a DNA test to determine paternity. Guys who knock the women up can pay the penalty, while innocent guys would not be obliged. And keep in mind there are quite a few white knights who could (and do) volunteer to pay for children who are not theirs. I think they're total suckers and fucking idiots, but if they want to pay for other guy's kids, that's their choice to make. I've got no problem with it. What would be the harm in having mandatory DNA tests?"

Reminds me of this poor fellow, even though the brat is his: http://drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/4701/?id=4701&showID=1150

He was forced to provide for a biological child he never wanted -- he made it crystal clear beforehand that he was not ready to be a dad -- and his ex told him she was on birth control (for other reasons) and also had a condition that made her unable to get pregnant.

Well, she got knocked up anyway, and he was forced to provide financially.

I'm on the poor dude's side 100%.

When you're in a relationship with someone, you tend to trust your mate, so he rightfully assumed she couldn't reproduce.

Maybe she herself didn't know she could get pregnant either -- I'm not saying there was deceit on her end -- but I still don't believe he should be made to pay for a brat he made clear was unwanted before it was even conceived.

JMO.

Quote
videogamesforeverkidsnever
"The state's interest in getting somebody... anybody... to pay is immoral. It's the equivalent of throwing a random, innocent man in jail for a crime instead of trying to catch the guy who actually committed the crime.

I propose that EVERY infant be given a DNA test to determine paternity. Guys who knock the women up can pay the penalty, while innocent guys would not be obliged. And keep in mind there are quite a few white knights who could (and do) volunteer to pay for children who are not theirs. I think they're total suckers and fucking idiots, but if they want to pay for other guy's kids, that's their choice to make. I've got no problem with it. What would be the harm in having mandatory DNA tests?"

Reminds me of this poor fellow, even though the brat is his: http://drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/4701/?id=4701&showID=1150

He was forced to provide for a biological child he never wanted -- he made it crystal clear beforehand that he was not ready to be a dad -- and his ex told him she was on birth control (for other reasons) and also had a condition that made her unable to get pregnant.

Well, she got knocked up anyway, and he was forced to provide financially.

I'm on the poor dude's side 100%.

When you're in a relationship with someone, you tend to trust your mate, so he rightfully assumed she couldn't reproduce.

Maybe she herself didn't know she could get pregnant either -- I'm not saying there was deceit on her end -- but I still don't believe he should be made to pay for a brat he made clear was unwanted before it was even conceived.

JMO.

If not him who pays, then who? The state? I feel bad for him too, but maybe he shoulda wrapped it up or gotten a vasectomy just to be SURE he didn't knock her up.

Quote
videogamesforeverkidsnever


Reminds me of this poor fellow, even though the brat is his: http://drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/4701/?id=4701&showID=1150

He was forced to provide for a biological child he never wanted -- he made it crystal clear beforehand that he was not ready to be a dad -- and his ex told him she was on birth control and also had a condition that made her unable to get pregnant.

Well, she got knocked up anyway, and he was forced to provide financially.

I'm on the poor dude's side 100%.

When you're in a relationship with someone, you tend to trust your mate, so he rightfully assumed she couldn't reproduce.

Maybe she herself didn't know she could get pregnant either -- I'm not saying there was deceit on her end -- but I still don't believe he should bye made to pay for a brat he made clear was unwanted before it was even conceived.

JMO.

Relationships that are years in duration, in my opinion, should have some establishment of trust. Unfortunately the world is an imperfect place and some people are devious a and treacherous.

That being said, I think there are sometimes warning signs prior to an "oopsing".

I was, for example, in a four year relationship many years ago. Ex had no problem with me never-ever-ever wanting kids. By the fourth year however she was beginning to turn breederish. She was having problems at her job, and difficulty finding a new job. She mentioned that she wanted to "just work part time as a school lunch lady or something." (I shit you not... I can't even make this stuff up.). Then she started getting on me about "demonstrating responsibility and settling down." Then she started chiming in with the fact that we were so lucky that she hadn't gotten pregnant yet... but she'd make a great mom if she did, she just knew it.

After saying this two or three times I of course responded with the "never-ever-ever" do I want kids speech. Then she went on a distinct rant about how she would do just fine as a single mother. Her mother was a "strong single mother" and she assured me that she would be too! She went on another rant when I explained that there are a few strong single mothers but most just made bad life decisions and were as a result, in poverty with little hope of getting out.

That did it. I felt like I was being set-up and I bailed. Looking back on it I am thankful and relieved that I escaped but also angry at myself for wasting a huge amount of time with a wanna-breeder in disguise for no good reason. In retrospect, this person lacked talent, ambition, direction, you name it.

Quote
mumofsixbirds

Quote
videogamesforeverkidsnever
"The state's interest in getting somebody... anybody... to pay is immoral. It's the equivalent of throwing a random, innocent man in jail for a crime instead of trying to catch the guy who actually committed the crime.

I propose that EVERY infant be given a DNA test to determine paternity. Guys who knock the women up can pay the penalty, while innocent guys would not be obliged. And keep in mind there are quite a few white knights who could (and do) volunteer to pay for children who are not theirs. I think they're total suckers and fucking idiots, but if they want to pay for other guy's kids, that's their choice to make. I've got no problem with it. What would be the harm in having mandatory DNA tests?"

Reminds me of this poor fellow, even though the brat is his: http://drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/4701/?id=4701&showID=1150

He was forced to provide for a biological child he never wanted -- he made it crystal clear beforehand that he was not ready to be a dad -- and his ex told him she was on birth control (for other reasons) and also had a condition that made her unable to get pregnant.

Well, she got knocked up anyway, and he was forced to provide financially.

I'm on the poor dude's side 100%.

When you're in a relationship with someone, you tend to trust your mate, so he rightfully assumed she couldn't reproduce.

Maybe she herself didn't know she could get pregnant either -- I'm not trying to say there was deceit on her end -- but I still don't believe he should be made to pay for a brat he made clear was unwanted before it was even conceived.

JMO.

If not him who pays, then who? The state? I feel bad for him too, but maybe he shoulda wrapped it up or gotten a vasectomy just to be SURE he didn't knock her up.

I read ya, I really do. Tax-paying citizens may end up paying anyway, unfortunately, in cases like these.

I know at least 2 young couples on welfare/WIC (are they the same thing?) and a single mommy who shat a semi-fresh bastard relatively recently. She gushed about how "lucky" she was to have the dad involved, even though they are not together anymore, and is now lamenting the fact that he's not...well...too involved after all.

First couple had brat number two within 2 years of the eldest's birth.

She claims that they were planned. LOL!

All a man has to do is request a paternity test. If he is too big a pussy to tell his wife or girlfriend he thinks she's screwing around I have no pity. In spite of the myth, a woman can't just "put" a man on a birth certificate. The man has to sign the birth certificate.

Walgreens sells home DNA paternity kits. I bet walmart does too.
Probably two cheek swabs you mail off for testing, but this shit is available to the general public already.
Decidedly worth whatever cost if there is any suspicion of infidelity.

Quote
evilchildlessbitch
All a man has to do is request a paternity test. If he is too big a pussy to tell his wife or girlfriend he thinks she's screwing around I have no pity. In spite of the myth, a woman can't just "put" a man on a birth certificate. The man has to sign the birth certificate.

He shouldn't have to request anything. A paternity test should just be part and parcel of what happens with any birth. I'm not sure what good reasons there are to oppose this sort of thing becoming de jure policy.

There is no better way to find out who the actual father is. A man whose wife is cheating and sluices out a kid who isn't his is the victim here, not the cheating wife.

Hypothetically speaking, how would you feel if we reversed the scenario? Tomorrow morning a court order shows up at your door claiming you are the mother of a child, requiring you to pay $x per month when you are clearly not the mother?

Watching trash-TV like "Maury" from time to time, I'm positively shocked to hear so many women, men, and Maury himself, get up on a proverbial soapbox of feigned moral superiority and claim that it's a noble thing for a guy supporting a kid that isn't his. Except that in reality, it isn't. It's fucking stupid. It's like doing someone else's work for no reason. Oh and that someone else is a real dickhead and is laughing in your face! Fuck that noise.

The only people who should be nervous of such a law are cheating wives and girlfriends who won't be able to practice fraud and extortion on their unknowing men.

Quote

He shouldn't have to request anything. A paternity test should just be part and parcel of what happens with any birth. I'm not sure what good reasons there are to oppose this sort of thing becoming de jure policy.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand I can see where the state would have a compelling interest to make sure someone isn't saddled with paying for a child that isn't his.

HOWEVER, I'm also resentful that taxpayers are YET AGAIN paying for the products of irresponsible breeding. Let these jerks sort out their own messes. If a man thinks he's not the father, let him pay for his own test, then submit that to a court. It seems cost prohibitive that every baybee be DNA tested when in some circumstances, paternity is never in question and never will be questioned.

"family court" is another example where we as a society TAKE IT UP THE ASS to pay for

----couples who got married and then changed their mind and are sparring over their DNA products and custody and counselors. Their cases clog up the courts with custody battles, custody enforcement, etc, all because they HAD TO BREED with partners who were likely unsuitable in the first place.

---child protective services: to take care of the kids that losers crank out. Think of all the wasted dollars on social workers, bullshit parenting classes for people who will never be fit parents, the cost and time spent by law enforcement tracking down parents who are abusing their kids, documenting the abuse, having to house these kids and find new homes for them, all because Mummy and Duhddy's reproductive organs worked when their brains did not.

It kills me to hear assholes pontificating that childfree people are a drain on society. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? All I do is pay and pay for other peoples' kyds and their resultant problems.

Quote
bell_flower

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand I can see where the state would have a compelling interest to make sure someone isn't saddled with paying for a child that isn't his.

HOWEVER, I'm also resentful that taxpayers are YET AGAIN paying for the products of irresponsible breeding. Let these jerks sort out their own messes. If a man thinks he's not the father, let him pay for his own test, then submit that to a court. It seems cost prohibitive that every baybee be DNA tested when in some circumstances, paternity is never in question and never will be questioned.

"family court" is another example where we as a society TAKE IT UP THE ASS to pay for

----couples who got married and then changed their mind and are sparring over their DNA products and custody and counselors. Their cases clog up the courts with custody battles, custody enforcement, etc, all because they HAD TO BREED with partners who were likely unsuitable in the first place.

---child protective services: to take care of the kids that losers crank out. Think of all the wasted dollars on social workers, bullshit parenting classes for people who will never be fit parents, the cost and time spent by law enforcement tracking down parents who are abusing their kids, documenting the abuse, having to house these kids and find new homes for them, all because Mummy and Duhddy's reproductive organs worked when their brains did not.

It kills me to hear assholes pontificating that childfree people are a drain on society. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? All I do is pay and pay for other peoples' kyds and their resultant problems.

If the government can't protect your rights, or safety, what exactly is the point of its' existence?

Mandatory paternity testing isn't expensive and is certainly a lot less expensive than having couples duke it out in family court, or to finance children who will be served by cps at some point, as you mentioned.

The root of most of societal problems are unwanted children. Mandatory paternity testing would reduce "oopsing" and therefore reduce the number of unwanted children. The cost to the taxpayer would be minimal. If you're not a single mother looking to stick a sucker with a bill for a kid that isn't his, you've got nothing to fear.

I think mandatory DNA testing for everyone would create less stigma attached to the request, male breeders found to have fathered more kids than they can afford should also undergo mandatory sterilization, moos should have to undergo mental evaluation a low score resulting also in mandatory sterilization.

Thus preventing idiots from mass breeding and reliying on others for financial support. The tax payers money would probably be used less in the long run of this, because its not being wasted on 18years of supporting a oops child or the mass breeding heefer attached to it.

I have concerns with mandatory DNA testing. One is that privacy is being eroded on all fronts and we do not know what else is being done with that DNA. Is it going into a database to be matched against DNA collected at criminal cases (a bad idea, since cold hits give a lot of false positives)? Is it being sold on to companies who will use that material in research, perhaps in ways that the original supplier would consider unethical? Will it be used in the future against us, for example by denying insurance for conditions you seem likely to develop? Without all these questions being answered by a strong regulatory framework mandating destruction of the material once the basic result is determined (and sufficient reason to believe the law is being followed), I think collecting the DNA of every newborn as well as every man accused of paternity is potentially a bigger invasion of privacy than plastering children's photos all over Facebook.

The second problematic issue is that such a set-up would feed directly into the claims of MRA groups: "Look, all women are cheating sluts, mandatory DNA testing proves it!" The social consequences of this could be increased mistrust toward all women and more open misogyny. At the same time, I do feel that we must protect men who are not fathers from being forcibly treated as fathers. It's difficult because we should not adopt a solution which leads to false accusations, but we should also be accutely interested in the victims getting justice.

A start, obviously, would be throw out the nonsense idea that the non-custodial "parent" has any financial obligation toward children which are neither his/her the biological nor adopted children. (I mention that it could be a woman for the sake of including those rare cases where it could go the other way, but 99.999% of the time it's a man, I'm sure.) It is not in the interests of society to ride roughshod over an individual's rights "for the babyeeee". It's a slippery slope any CF person should fear, and it's an injustice even if it doesn't deteriorate.

I suppose my starting point to tackling this problem would involve the following steps:

1. Freely available and easily accessible contraception - it's cheaper for society than abortion
2. Mandatory and comprehensive sexual education for all children, based on factual information rather than religious views
3. Free and accessible abortion - it's still cheaper for society than unwanted children
4. Public funding for research into male contraceptive options - big pharma doesn't see the market for it and thus isn't pursuing clinical trials, so we should fund it, because men need options to take control of their reproduction just as much as women do
5. Treat reproductive coercion, when proven, as the serious crime it is regardless of whether the man or the woman is the perpetrator and highlight these cases to diminish current social acceptance of women unilaterally opting for parenthood

Hopefully these steps would vastly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies carried to term. I also wouldn't be opposed to the idea of people making up contracts about what they would do in the case of unwanted pregnancy, allowing men at least a paper abortion when they don't want to be involved.

As for the costs to society for these children, I am hoping they'd be reduced by the availability of contraception and abortion, and changing attitudes toward sex and reproductive abuse. But, at any rate, I think we are talking largely about children we would have to support anyway, even if there was a man that could be held responsible for paternity. So I'm not sure letting men off the hook (a few innocent, many guilty) really has such a negative impact, given what kind of men the guilty ones are.

Yurble, you bring up some good points. This is chilling:

"...so far, those who have been swept up in cold-hit investigations have mostly been convicted felons and sex offenders, because theirs were the only profiles in the databases, and the possibility that people who have committed vicious crimes might be getting shabby treatment from the courts is far less likely to stir public outrage. But the list of groups cropping up in these databases is expanding rapidly. Last year, California and at least fourteen other states started cataloging DNA of anyone arrested for a felony, rather than just convicted felons. At the same time, the FBI began collecting DNA from detained immigrants and anyone arrested for a federal offense, including those charged with petty misdemeanors, such as loitering on federal property. As a result, more than a million new profiles are being added to our nation’s offender databases each year, and as DNA testing becomes more routine, it is likely that these systems will grow to include an even wider cross-section of the public. Of course, as the number of profiles in the databases swell, so do the odds of accidentally fingering innocent people...."

TPTB will proclaim that the DNA results will be destroyed as soon as the results have been made known to the parent(s),and the birth certificate filed. Anyone believe that? Didn't TPTB promise up, back in the 1930s, that a social security number would never,ever be demanded as a unique identifier?

You may have already been following the latest FBI crime lab scandal; but if not, you and others might find these of interest:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/19/1378671/-Just-reported-FBI-admits-hair-evidence-is-false#

As for what to do about paternity cases : I have no clue. Best option as far as I can see is to release non biological fathers from financial obligation-with the caveat that they therefore also lose any custody rights to the children they had been raising. Yes, that's major blackmail and many men would therefore keep on paying. And for those that don't , yes, it will be the taxpayer that gets the bill AGAIN. At the very least, non biological fathers who didn't even enter the picture until years after the conception should never be put on the hook for "the good of the children" nonsense, which is done in too many states.

I do agree with your 5 points, with this caveat : 4 won't matter at all if the law still proclaims that any child born within a marriage is automatically considered the father's child. That pre scientific notion no longer serves a purpose . It's based on old English law that held a child was to be considered his father's heir , if he were born 365 days after his father's death! But how can we determine actual paternity without mandatory DNA tests, with all the problems that entails ?

(Oh, and for paternity cases, make it easier for results to be set aside in cases where the summons was sent to the wrong address/wrong person, and the guy never even got the summons until long after the case was decided-with his status as a no show automatically making him the father! In too many cases, all the woman remembered was,"He said his name was Steve and he worked in accounting". So the courts send out a summons to any "Steve" they find , of more or less the right age, in the area, who works in bookkeeping! There've been cases where the man didn't even know what happened until his wages started being garnished; he shows up top protest, the single mom TELLS the court,"That's not him" : And the courts still refused to vacate its judgement! See Bernard Goldberg's Bias ; he devoted a whole chapter to the problem. )

Yurble, your post rocks!

I might add, who is going to pay for all this DNA testing? If the state pays, then our taxes will go up to cover the added costs. If health insurance pays for it, then our insurance premiums will go up to cover the costs. Either way, DNA testing isn't free, and I personally don't want my taxes, or insurance premiums to increase because some man thinks he's entitled, yes, ENTITLED to a DNA exam. If he wants his kid tested, then he should pay for it. A DNA test isn't health care. It's not a requirement to life. It's a luxury product that certain men want.

While I feel bad for men that are paying for children that aren't theirs, I'm not paying for their DNA test. As a CF woman, I pay taxes for kids and schools, something I will never use. My insurance premiums cover mandatory pre-natal and well baby care, something I will never use. I'm not now paying for a man's DNA test. He fucked the beast, so the costs are on him to prove the child isn't his.

I guess it all goes back to trust. If men took the time to get to know the woman, to feel they could trust her, to try to have a relationship first before the sex happened, rather than just fucking her after the 3rd date, then you'd have less problems. If men wore a condom every time they had sex, or were snipped, then there would be less problems. But I guess it's easier to call a woman a slut, a whore, and demand a free DNA test.

Nope, I'm not paying for it.

While I think it's awful that innocent men are being forced to pay for another man's child I have NO sympathy for the main character in this article. He WANTS to still act like this girls father, but just not pay for it. Nope, buddy. He even signed government papers saying he was her natural father when he KNEW it was a lie. He's had now committed fraud also.

This quote says it ...

Quote

 In reality, however, the requirement to cut ties often destroys the relationship by forcing men to choose between their desire for retribution and their desire to remain the child’s parent.

And also...

Quote

“Every time he was given a chance to deny paternity, he never did,” Elliott said, according to the transcript. “He signed consent order after consent order because he wanted to be the father. The testimony here today is that he only did it because of some philanthropic belief that he wanted to step up. That’s not true. . . . He fought for every other weekend. He fought for having her overnight on a Wednesday. He fought for having her not be able to leave the jurisdiction. These aren’t things that someone does because they are just philanthropic. He wants to be the dad; he just doesn’t want to pay support.” Elliott’s accusation infuriated Mike, who believed it accurately described Rob, not him.

You can't remain the child's parent but not pay any money towards the upbringing of the child. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby. And don't think maybe, if you can't feed your baby."
- The wisdom of the late Michael Jackson
"The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children." - Paul Ehrlich

Quote
mumofsixbirds

Quote
videogamesforeverkidsnever

Reminds me of this poor fellow, even though the brat is his: http://drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/4701/?id=4701&showID=1150

He was forced to provide for a biological child he never wanted -- he made it crystal clear beforehand that he was not ready to be a dad -- and his ex told him she was on birth control (for other reasons) and also had a condition that made her unable to get pregnant.

Well, she got knocked up anyway, and he was forced to provide financially.

I'm on the poor dude's side 100%.

When you're in a relationship with someone, you tend to trust your mate, so he rightfully assumed she couldn't reproduce.

Maybe she herself didn't know she could get pregnant either -- I'm not saying there was deceit on her end -- but I still don't believe he should be made to pay for a brat he made clear was unwanted before it was even conceived.

JMO.

If not him who pays, then who? The state? I feel bad for him too, but maybe he shoulda wrapped it up or gotten a vasectomy just to be SURE he didn't knock her up.

Exactly! If you let him off the hook, every guy will make the same claim. He's a big boy, he knows how babies are made. If you don't want kids, get snipped.

Quote
jmc
You can't remain the child's parent but not pay any money towards the upbringing of the child. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

jmc,

You do bring up a good point here.

I am more speaking for the "That isn't my kid and I want nothing to do with it" crowd than I am the "Cuckolded but proud!" crowd.

Let me also say that breeder "logic" often leaves me baffled. Why the fuck would anyone want to continue to act as a father for another man's kid with that man still very much in the picture? And after being publicly humiliated?

The best thing for all parties is, upon revalation of such circumstances, to execute a clean breakup in terms of custody and finance. This guy is just delaying the inevitable pain which will occur when his eventual teenage (non) daughter pulls the "you're not even my father!" card when asked to do something she doesn't want to do.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when this happens. This guy who has invested all kinds of time, energy, and money into a kid that's not his is going to be mighty, mighty ticked off and disappointed. That should make for a very interesting family dynamic.

I don't think mandatory DNA tests are a solution, that's just my opinion. Just like Yurble said, how far could it go? Would it be long before medical insurance companies would require everyone to take a DNA test or refuse to issue a policy? Will certain DNA strands not qualify for insurance? This could be used against people really quickly.

I feel bad about the dude in the article. The cheating ex wife is a scandalist drama queen. However, let's not forget, this guy WANTED TO BREED. We all know that all kinds of problems and risks come with breeding and when people choose to breed, somehow they have this imagination that they are just going to be able to pick and choose the good parts and leave the bad parts out for someone else to deal with. That does not work that way. This guy wanted to breed, he rode bareback and a kid arrived. Based on his actions, he concluded that the kid was his.

If the dude in this article was CF, things would have been different. He likely would have left the wanna breeder drama queen before she cheated on him. Then, if she did get in pig, he would have done a paternity test as soon as the kid was born. If he knew that the kid was not his as soon as the kid showed up, he likely would have had more legal recourse.

In my opinion, marriage is just too great of a risk. With divorce rates being around 50%, I say it is time to look for safer options. Would anyone buy a very expensive stock with their lifelong savings if the failure rate was at 50%? Probably not. Why are so many people still getting married, I am yet to find an answer to that. I know of a small number of reasons where a marriage is a must to get certain benefits, but most of the time, there are better alternatives.

The dude in this article has learned absolutely nothing. What does he do? He gets remarried. He is insane because he continues to do the same exact thing and expects to achieve a different result. He is going to get fucked over again and crying in the bathroom, like he did in the article, will again be as useless as it was the first time. Our society has fallen apart long time ago and men like this one is a product of it.

Insanity definition

Quote
Techie
In my opinion, marriage is just too great of a risk. With divorce rates being around 50%, I say it is time to look for safer options. Would anyone buy a very expensive stock with their lifelong savings if the failure rate was at 50%? Probably not. Why are so many people still getting married, I am yet to find an answer to that. I know of a small number of reasons where a marriage is a must to get certain benefits, but most of the time, there are better alternatives.

Your mention of 'expensive stock' reminded me of something ~

The gist of it, from memory ~
(If I try to open another tab here I'll get bounced off the net. We're on the verge of a bad storm also, I'm just waitin on the power to fail ~)

In any case, there were these people in - IIRC it was in the US SW. There was an investment scheme, I suppose something like an REIT, which was focused on buying up old, decayed urban properties, rehabbing them, and then offering them at reasonable prices to young urbanites on a budget. These projects were confined in the same area - I wanna say Phoenix, AZ, but I don't remember.

I read this long, detailed, article about this, including the lamentations of 'those who got took' - yes, it failed. DUH. Oh, surprised this went under? Various Boomer Yuppies including one with plenty of money / was some VP somewhere, they were all like that.

And I'm shaking my head and thinking - How goddamned dumb can you be? You don't even need to be any kind of 'financial whiz' to realize that you can't buy, then pour lots more money into something - and then sell it at "affordable prices", and this is going to be profitable? Er, NO. =/= . Do not work.

Jesus. How goddamned dumb ARE people???

Also - I thought of a 'legal idea' that might be sim to what some are trying to do with kids ~

Here (US, Canadian Great Lakes region) - water is carefully analyzed and parceled out. If you are not 'in basin' - no water for you. But what people try to do is - sneak in. Say even a 'small part' of your community lies within the basin. These types will try to get the Lake water piped in. First they must show that their own ground water is too 'bad'. And they are only supposed to get water, if approved, to the small area that is 'in basin'. But - they try to 'sneak more in'. Like a reverse Moochelle Duggar Clown Car - it's not one trying to creep in - it's 19. Eg. Politicians and Biz's involved have other plans - such as Nth more subdivisions once they can get the water ~

And then, the reasoning goes - Well - the people *have it now* and they are *used to it* and it would be *cruel* to take it away now ~ ~

That's how they try to sneak water here. And it has been successful in the past, too. Many are wise to these tactics now, but they are still used.

This struck me as having some parallels with these child support things. Someone gains something through questionable means, then argues access or support must continue - because the benefactor is 'used to it now'.

For water use - this is called Riparian rights. For those who've been 'screwed over' by the legal system - perhaps there may be some sim ideas and answers to be found in this arena? I don't know, I am a biz person, not an atty. This is highly specialized law also. And for the US - Eastern and Western Riparian law differs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

I could see using some of this as argument against non bios paying support -
Just because you're used to something that doesn't mean you get to keep it.

And since it looks like I can get another tab up here -

OK, I'm pretty sure that several large insurers ALREADY HAVE vast DNA data bases - I Googled that, there's too much to link. I'm not seeing a definitive answer but I'm pretty sure that several large UK and US insurers *already have* plenty of (personal) DNA on file. Enough police / prison systems must too. Anyway, you can Google that - I'm pretty sure that *this has already happened*. So.
(But I'm not 100% sure.)