|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, Scott, this is a defeat, but it's not necessarily a statement of the Supreme Court that it's right to defraud men into being fathers. What it IS is a statement by the Court that this is an issue for the states to legislate individually. While I'm disappointed, I do regard this as a good thing for states rights. Besides, the states tend to follow the leader. If we win in one state, which may well be easier than winning the the Supreme Court, given its liberal bias of late, then the others become easier targets.
So, which state do we start with? (From what I've read, Georgia might well be a good place to start.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not certain if such a human rights issue should be handled on a state by state basis, but perhaps it should.
According to the article:
Ohio recently enacted a new law that permits men proven by DNA testing not to be the father of a child to be released from child support payments. Colorado, Iowa, and Louisiana have similar laws... Perhaps these can serve as models.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 19, @02:30PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"While I'm disappointed, I do regard this as a good thing for states rights."
This is an important point, Frank, in that it highlights some of the political differences among men's actvists that arise when finding solutions. On the other hand, no matter what side one takes on this federalism/states rights issue, I can't help seeing a bias against men on the part of the US Supreme Court. If women were routinely being forced to support someone else's children, I doubt the Supreme Court would close their eyes to it.
Also, I'm not so sure that the liberal side of the Court is the one more likely to side against men in every situation. When men sued the government for forcing only men to register for the draft, the Court rejected the claim, but the two most liberal judges (Brennan and Marshall) dissented.
"So, which state do we start with? (From what I've read, Georgia might well be a good place to start.)"
Lately some activists in California and I have been helping State Assemblyman Rod Wright (a black democrat) draft legislation to prevent paternity fraud. At this point, what he has drafted would protect men from being forced to support a child that is not theirs. If it passes, California (the "women's state") might actually take the lead. It certainly will be an uphill battle, but I think we can do it. So if we're going to focus on a Sate, I nominate California as a candidate to keep an eye on. I'll post updates on this as they come.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 19, @02:05PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
An embellished western theme song from the TV sitcom "Married ... with Children".
Who's that riding in the suuuun? Who's the man with the bogus son?
Who's the man who sues for fun?
Psycho Dad, Psycho Daaad, PSYCHO DAAAAAAAD.
He has a stun gun, but he loves his son.
Shocked his wife 'cause she weighed a ton. Psycho Daaad!
A little touched or so we're told, fried his wife 'cause she had a cold.
Might as well, she was getting old...
Psycho Dad, Psycho Daaad, PSYCHO DAAAAAAAD.
He's quick with a stun, and his job ain't done.
Fried his wife by twenty-one, he's Psy-cho Dad.
Who's that riding in Santa's sleigh? Who's he zapping along the way?
Who's zapping unfaithful wives on Christmas daaaay?
Psycho Dad, Psycho Daaad, PSYCHO DAAAAAAAD.
Who's that riding across the pla-ain?
Who's proud 'cause his cheating wife's in pain?
Who's the man who's plumb insane?
Psycho Dad, Psycho Daaad, PSYCHO DAAAAAAAD.
Who is the tall, dark stranger there.
The one with the stun gun and the icy stare.
The one with the scalp of his ex-wife's haaaaaaaair.
Psycho Dad, Psycho Daaad, PSYCHO DAAAAAAAD.
The Madcap Misogynist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__________"This old English common-law doctrine is simply not fair and is damaging to all parties. To those proponents of the current adherence to the obsolete doctrine who say children will be left unsupported if men are not forced to pay support, I say that the men who should support the children should be the biological fathers. Making men pay child support for children proven by DNA testing not to be theirs is not in the best interests of children and families. Although it may be convenient and expedient for the courts and child support agencies to say the married dad is the father, it is not good for the children or the families involved. It also can deprive children of ever knowing their true biological fathers."
I AGREE. Especially with the last sentence. English common law was the best we could do for children at the time, but that time has past. Time to move into the present and the future. There is no reason not to have DNA testing done to veryify paternity for every child born. Not only for the father's interest, but for the child's as well. DNA testing should become common practice in our hospitals and birthing centers.
At one time people believed that mother's determined the sex of a child. Mothers were routinely santioned for producing the too many of the "wrong" sex. A few were even beheaded!! based on this abject scientific ignorance. Once science proved that it is the father who determines the sex of the child, everyone was better off, especially girl children who could no longer be blamed on women.
Now we have DNA testing. Here is another area where children will ultimately come out ahead from knowing who their biological parents are. The transition from the old to the new may be rocky for a few years but the sooner we resign ourselves to the new scientific knowledge and move ahead the better off we'll all be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The opinion piece raises important issues, but I don't think it gets them right. And the discussion, I think, misses some key points, perhaps because some seem distracted by anger about cuckoldry and toward the wife-agent of it (who, you should recognized, may not have intended the resulting outcome).
Please think about this some more. Recognizing the importance of giving men choices consistent with their inherent human dignity implies, I think, that a husband should have the right to ask for a paternity test when his wife has a child. But this should not be legally required. If he asks for the test, and it shows that he is not the biological father of the child, he should not be recorded on the birth certificate as the child's father and he should not be responsible for custodial-parent-of-child support payments.
On the other hand, if a man and woman agree to raise a child together, through some explicit or implicit convenant (and I don't consider having sex to be such an agreement in the US today), they both have rights and responsibilities toward the child in the event of a breakup. This applies to a man even with respect to a child who is not biologically his. A paternity test should not change "real" fatherhood.
We need to think carefully about the meaning of fatherhood. I strongly feel that men and women should reject "biology is destiny" views of fatherhood. Put simply, fatherhood is not primarily biological; it's primarily relational and experiential. If you identify yourself as a child's father, have that identify recognized by the mother, the child, and the community, and nurture and support the child, you are the child's father. That's an affirmative view of men and children.
The alternative view: consider a guy who has casual, conventioal one-night sex with a woman. She gets pregnant (as a result of their sex; I understand where babies come from). She has no further contact with the guy, she doesn't have an abortion, she doesn't abandon the child, she doesn't put the child up for adoption: she raises the child alone for 10 years. Then she decides she wants the cops to go after the guy for some custodial-parent-of-the-child support. He's forced to take a DNA test against his will and is declared legally the father. That, in my view, is an oppressive, unjust legal definition of fatherhood. And that has nothing to do with the truth of biological fatherhood.
Aren't we better of with an relational, experiental definition of fatherhood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly feel that men and women should reject "biology is destiny" views of fatherhood.
Fatherhood is both relational and biological. If a man finds out that he is not the biological father of a child, that he thought was his biological child, he should be able to opt out of paying child support if he chooses. Perhaps a requirement should be imposed that the decision be made within some given amount of time of the discovery. Three to six months might be appropriate to give the man time to deal with his emotional suffering and to make what he feels is a reasonable decision regarding the matter.
As for a man being forced to support a child that was conceived as the result of a one night stand ten years earlier: In a society that allows abortion, a man should be able to opt out of support responsibilities, again perhaps within six months of learning of the pregnancy or birth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 19, @06:51PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
You make good points, plumber, and I respect you for being willing to take such a view here. But it's also true that in many, if not most, cases, where a man voluntarily agrees to raise the child, he's been told it's his, and he bases his decision on trust. Yes, it's true that he could have asked for a DNA test. But it's also true that in many cases asking for one either is costly or can strain a relationship by making him look like he does not trust, or else it's just too much of a hassle and he just trusts, period. In those cases, it is not fair that he gets tricked into something he otherwisee would not do, and then is forced to continue just because he "could" have requested a test.
Perhaps a middle ground would be automatic DNA tests (funded by taxes from marriage licenses or other sources) that, if waived by the male, the female can only force on him if she makes a sworn declaration stating either that it is his or that she thinks it might be his and wants to know whether it is. In that case, I have no problem with him being forced to take a DNA test if he claims the child is not, or may not be, his.
But I don't think a man should ever be forced to pay for a child that isn't his once he finds out it isn't, unless he agreed to raise the kid knowing it may not be his. One possible exception might be where a DNA test is automatic, with no high cost, stigma or other excessive burden to him, and he voluntarily and explicitly waives it (fully informed) and proceeds to raise the child.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The test should be automatic but perhaps not mandatory. But once a man is notified that he is believed to be the father of the child, he should be given a period of time to contest that if he wishes (say up to one year) OR he can waive the test and sign on the birth certificate as the legal father. I don't believe he should be legally able to both waive the test and contest paternity and refuse to sign the birth certificate as father. If he waives the test, there should be no going back later and asking for proof of paternity and/or abdicating parental responsibilites.
I'm all for DNA testing at every birth. Every child deserves to know who his/her real parents are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These tests should absolutely not be taxpayer-funded. The government should not be involved in this at all.
Otherwise I pretty much agree with what you're saying. Hospitals should offer the test automatically. The alleged father must retain the right to either get the test or refuse it. The mother cannot forbid the test from being done.
One thing I would like to add is that a child should be able to force the issue himself/herself upon reaching an age of consent. Everyone has the right to know what their real parentage is. The mother and father should have no right to keep this from a kid who wants to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 20, @12:30PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"But I don't think a man should ever be forced to pay for a child that isn't his once he finds out it isn't, unless he agreed to raise the kid knowing it may not be his."
I don't think a man should be forced to raise a kid that's not his ever. If he agrees to raise it knowing that he is not the father then it's still not being forced. But women and the courts don't seem to give guys any credit to decide for themselves whether to help out or not. After all that would mean taking choice from women and giving it to men and they have only shown interest in the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aren't we better of with an relational, experiental definition of fatherhood?
Probably, but a whole lot of people feel blood is thicker than water. Witness the slew of adoptees Lorianne has talked about who devote such great energies to finding their biological parents, unfulfilled by those who merely raised them. Just because it solves many problems doesn't mean many will accept it.
Myself, if I were to find that a child I had embraced as my own was not actually mine, I would work at excising the deceitful woman from my life rather than the kid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I would work at excising the deceitful woman from my life rather than the kid."
Ooops! Forgot to add: But that's whole 'nother nasty problem, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 20, @02:10AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"These tests should absolutely not be taxpayer-funded. The government should not be involved in this at all."
You'll probably disagree with this point as well, but I want to clarify that I didn't mean 'taxes,' I meant a marriage license fee (as they do for domestic violence shelters in California), to help men who cannot afford the high cost of a DNA test. Otherwise low-income men will be especially vulnerable to paternity fraud and will constantly wind up forced to support children that aren't theirs just because they "waived" something they couldn't afford. In California, a man can ask for a DNA test and the County will initially pay for it, then he is responsible to pay for it *only* if the child is his. That seems more helpful to low-income men than making them pay no matter what. And even that can discourage some of them from having the test done. Maybe it could be on a sliding scale?
Anyway, this is a side issue and I certainly respect disagreement over it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than keeping the government involved in marriage (which they shouldn't be) just so we can use marriage license fees to pay for these tests, I would rather see private sector father's rights groups offering vouchers or other aid for men who want DNA tests but cannot afford them. These same groups can also rally for health insurance plans to cover these tests.
Someone told me that right now these tests cost about $1,000. This is only because the technology is so new. As the technology gets better, the cost will go down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree with Claire's ideas about the involvement of government and private organizations. As for the cost of the tests, I've read that they're now about $300. Perhaps in a few years, if there's enough demand (and God knows, it's growing fast), chemical companies will come up with an over the counter test that uses saliva or hair and costs about $10. In any case, if the demand is strong enough, technology will probably bring the price way down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that the DNA test be done pre-natal.
I suggest that to waive the test is to waive your right to walk away without paying child support.
To walk away you must do so within 60 days of a negative test result.
I wince a little when I hear the word "fair" used in legal contexts. It is a tricky word to reason with. One helpful function of good law is to hold us firmly during crissis.
I see this as a classic dilemma.
Can adoptive parents just walk away?
Would you argue injury for a man who has fatherhood in mind when he marries a woman only to discover in time that she knew she was sterile but never told him?
Does the duped father have the right to recover expenses for upbringing from children discovered to be genetically unrelated?
If you tie financial responsibility for children strictly to genetic association, can you do so without affecting the legal (not logical - legal) definition of association?
We are dealing with complex issues. Simple solutions either rarely exist, or solve for only selfinterest.
Someone has to care for the children, and we don't have a whole lot of choices - either its going to be the state, or individual citisens.
Gender Feminists believe, de facto, that the state is ultimately responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the test would be better done prenatally too, but I don't know if that's possible at this time. ??? Could it be done with cells extracted during an amniocentesis?
>Would you argue injury for a man who has fatherhood in mind when he marries a woman
>only to discover in time that she knew she was sterile but never told him?
That's a good question. People who are engaged often lie to each other, naively thinking that the other person will magically change their mind after the vows are sealed. What about a man who thought he was marrying a career woman, only to see his wife quit her job and announce she wants to be a SAHM? What about the opposite?
>Someone has to care for the children, and we don't have a whole lot of choices -
>either its going to be the state, or individual citisens.
I'm for giving minors more power to emancipate themselves from parents who refuse to care for them. Often these minors could go live with another relative or with a neighbor, but the laws are biased towards bio parents even if the bio parents are completely unsuitable as parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 20, @01:48PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't think a man should be forced to raise a kid that's not his ever. If he agrees to raise it knowing that he is not the father then it's still not being forced."
This is a VERY valid point of contention and I'm not entirely resolved about it. In fact, it is also true that forcing someone to pay just because he voluntarily supported a child that wasn't his would discourage alot of men from supporting kids that aren't theirs in the first place, out of fear of being legally locked into it. This is definitely a good point. Some of the people I know that are working on the anti paternity fraud bill in California want to make it so that, if a man finds out the child he's raising is not his, he can have a choice as to whether he continues his relationship with the child *regardless* of whether or not he decides to continue supporting the child. The more we discussed this, the more sense it made. Otherwise, it's too easy to use paternity fraud to lock men into supporting the child. That is, they find out they're not the father, and then they're given choice: either support the child financially or have no right to see the child. The fact that he has been duped into believing it's his should give him the right to choose one and not the other, both, or neither.
This will be a fascinating area of law to watch evolve. It's up to us to make sure that enough men's rights groups are involved in the process, or we'll be taken again as we have been over and over in the past.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any source containing a complete cell will do; 9/11 families were bringing hair brushes for DNA analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
