[an error occurred while processing this directive]
CNN Coverage Of Choice For Men Issues
posted by Scott on Wednesday January 03, @02:56PM
from the reproductive-rights dept.
Reproductive Rights CNN is reporting on the new Ohio law that allows men who were tricked into paternity to stop paying child support and sue to recover past payments in the event that a DNA test proves that they were not the father. It is great to see more coverage of this issue, and there are several anecdotes in the story from men who've been tricked into fatherhood and are still forced to pay. Interesting fact: "Lab directors say that in about one-third of the welfare cases and 10 percent of other cases, the father named by the mother turns out not to be the biological parent."

<  Deconstructing "Machismo" | Scientists Grow Sperm In Laboratory  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Once again this touches on technology (Score:1)
by BusterB on Wednesday January 03, @05:39PM EST (#1)
(User #94 Info) http://themenscenter.com/busterb/
Ten years ago this would have been impossible: simply "ordering up" a DNA test.

I can see it being routine ten years from now. How about a law that makes DNA tests standard for all newborns? Unless you specifically decline, Daddy, mommy and kidlet all get their DNA checked. When the technology becomes cheap enough and widespread enough, who would support a law like this one? Well, I sure would!
Mandatory DNA Test Before Ordered Child Support (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on Monday January 08, @02:15AM EST (#2)

States can easily remedy this situation by determining paternity by ordering mandatory DNA tests prior to ordering child support payments.

I also fully support allowing men to collect full damages for past payments, court costs, and attorneys' fees with interest against women who have tricked men into paternity and/or fought against a real determination and/or acted negligently in failing to identify the real father.

Such a law would encourage women to reveal the identity of the real father and it would discourage them from taking advantage of other men.

I won't hold my breath for it, though. The feminists will fight against anything that could potentially hurt women even if that means allowing the blatant enslavement of innocent men.


"Interests of the Child" (Score:1)
by BusterB on Monday January 08, @03:21PM EST (#3)
(User #94 Info) http://themenscenter.com/busterb/
Courts that are still resisting this trend (with help from the feminists) are singing the old song of the "best interests of the child."

For example, many courts still say that a man must continue to pay support for a child that isn't his because cutting off support would leave the mother and child destitute, which would not be in the "best interests of the child."

Of course, what must happen is that this whole idea that the courts act in the best interests of the child must be shown to be the sham that it is. The courts do not currently act in the best interests of the child: in most cases they act in the best interests of the woman, then dress up the decision to make it look as thought they're protecting the child. Since the woman and the child are almost always left together, this is easy.

As a clear example of this in action, the courts have no problem ordering the non-custodial parent (usually the father) to pay more and more support, which is good for both the custodial parent (usually the mother) and the child, but never, ever demand from the custodial parent an accounting of where the money went, which would be good for the child and the non-custodial parent. Viz if it helps the child and the mother, then it's law, or at least policy. If it helps the child alone then it may be policy. If it helps the child and the father at the expense of the mother, then it's taboo.

The courts and women regularly hide behind this sham; it's about time they were exposed.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]