|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 30, @12:31PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It is enlightening looking at one of the amendments. There are two amendments dealing with the "best interests of the child."
I paraphrase...
First case:
If paternity is disproven, then the court must cancel any responsibility on behalf of the father.
becomes
If paternity is disproven, then the court MAY cancel responsibility ion behalf of the father, UNLESS it is in the best interests of the child.
Second case:
If responsibility of the father is removed, then any visitation rights may be cancelled unless it is in the best interests of the child to have them continue.
becomes
If responsibility if the father is removed, then any visitation rights MUST be cancelled.
It is pretty clear that neither of these really have anything to do with the best interests of the child. They have to do with A. getting money if possible and B. if getting money is not possible, punish the father (and child).
Garth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is pretty clear that neither of these really have anything to do with the best interests of the child. They have to do with A. getting money if possible and B. if getting money is not possible, punish the father (and child).
I would say that is exactly what this is all about. They want a flow of income to the child no matter what damage it may cause to the child or other parties.
We know this because there was a change being made to the declaration of paternity form. That change would have held women accountable if they intentionally committed paternity fraud. The opposition claimed that it was contrary to the states interest to establish paternity. They claimed it would result in fewer fathers being identified and held legally accountable. So the committee removed that provision because they want women to be held immune in paternity fraud matters.
In effect, the CA Committee of Judiciary is using its powers of coercion to force the mother to declare a father. So what happens is that the woman, where there is doubt, performs her own visual paternity test. In that test the women looks at the child, then looks around at the men she had relations with, and finds the man that may look like the child, or she names the richest man, or she uses some other arbitrary means. Then she leads that person to believe she is the father. The CA Committee of Judiciary is fully aware of this practice, and I believe they are intentionally providing women with the means to continue this practice by amending the original document.
Finally, note who is heading the Committee of the Judiciary at the following link: Committee of Judiciary Chair
At one time her biography stated that she has a nine-year-old child. That has been removed now. Gee. I wonder why? Could that be by accident? Now I cannot help but wonder if she has committed paternity fraud, and if she is the driving force behind the sabotage of this bill. My god. I'm beginning to believe this woman is possibly very evil and an outright enemy of the men's rights movement.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 30, @02:43PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Is there an organized men's rights movement in CA that is tending to this matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 30, @02:57PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
There are several. NCFM, Los Angeles Chapter & a Northern CA Chapter (ncfm.org), and there are several fathers rights (men's rights) groups.
I should note that overall the bill does represent an incremental win for men's rights. However, we need more help in shutting down the few opponents that are sabotaging this bill. This fight isn't over by a long shot.
If necessary we will find sponsors for new legislation to counter the amendments to the original AB2240.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The LA Chapter of NCFM helped draft the bill and we got a father's rights attorney and one of his clients to go there and testify at the initial hearing. We also coordinated with the Northern CA chapter to get lots of letters sent in. There was more than enough testimony. But as Scott and others here said, the feminists have alot of sway with these legislators. Our biggest objection is to the discretion the changes have given to the judge. With that change, when a judge forces a father to keep paying for another's child within the judge's own "discretion," it CANNOT be overturned on appeal because it was within the judge's discretion, and the standard one has to prove to win the appeal is that the judge "abused" his/her discretion. When a statute gives a judge that much discretion, an appellate court won't overturn it unless they find it totally outrageous and even then they might not overturn it.
The LA Chapter of NCFM is still working on this. The changes were railroaded quite fast and yes by powerful influences. We are staying on top of the bill and are drafting responses to the arguments they're giving. We debated internally whether to actually oppose the ill now with these changes, but we decided not to oppose it. We will first try to fix some of changes, and they can later be changed by legislative amendments. We will shift our attention to the Senate and will focus on our biggest objection, the "discretionary" clause and the types of changes Anonymous noted above. We plan to arrange testimony too, in coordination with the Northern CA NCFM chapter and others. And we may be arranging a meeting with one or more Senators here in L.A. for support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We debated internally whether to actually oppose the ill now with these changes
I'm not surprised. It sounds gutted at the moment.
We will shift our attention to the Senate and will focus on our biggest objection, the "discretionary" clause and the types of changes Anonymous noted above.
Good luck. This is an extremely important battle.
as Scott and others here said, the feminists have alot of sway with these legislators.
FOG: Feminist Occupied Government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the type of thing that gives me headaches when I am attempting to read laws. One would think that allowing more freedom in a law would allow for greater justice but this is true only when the people interpreting the law are just and fair. While I love children and love my daughter I fail to see how forcing a person who is NOT the biological parent to pay for the childrearing for a child is fair. Why not just create a draft that assigns men to pay for a random child? Would not that be in the best interests of a child?
At least on the upside the issue of false paternity has been opened up for discussion. I justr hope that the men who this would effect do not get buried on the hill dead and forgotten with nothing to mark their grave.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why not just create a draft that assigns men to pay for a random child?
There is an increasingly prevalent, international, feminist scheme that is not far from this. (You're probably well aware of it, Tony, but I point it out for other readers.) The plan is to have the government pay mothers (not parents, mind you, mothers) to stay at home with their children. The people (mostly men) who then work to create the hard wealth (air conditioners, homes, highways, semiconductors, whatever) will have their money taken from them by the government to pay to raise children, with whom the workers (again, mostly men) will have no contact and no rights to have any contact.
We are not far from outright apartheid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's called "redistribution of wealth", and that, I submit, is the true goal of most feminist-extremists. It's not about women's rights. It's not about protecting women.
It's about $$$. It's about acquiring unearned wealth. Or rather, it's about acquiring wealth that someone else has earned.
It's not surprising that most feminists fall left-of-center on the political spectrum. If you take redistribution of wealth out of the equation, extreme feminists are suddenly powerless.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The plan is to have the government pay mothers (not parents, mind you, mothers) to stay at home with their children.
Some countries, like the Philippines, are enacting laws that will require the husband to pay the wife for staying at home. Yes this is becoming a reality.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 31, @02:24PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I just hope that the men in the philippines, (and eventually in the US, for that matter) have enough self-respect to simply refuse to marry women. If there are no husbands, then there are no husbands to pay pennance, no? Of course, eventually other laws will be enacted to circumvent this scenerio, I'm sure... It's sad that men are still so brainwashed by chivalry and the need to satisfy wimmin that they continue to happily give their few remaining rights, freedoms, and money away and reduce themselves to slave workers just for a piece of a$$ or a smile.
On the other hand, more and more men (and women) are waking from this progressing nightmare, and our numbers will someday be strong enough to turn the tide.
Of course, first we'll have to stop the male suicide epidemic long enough for our numbers to grow. But wait - that would mean we first have to convince people that men's lives actually matter!
God, this is going to be hard...
-hobbes
---
"If you're not mad, you're not paying attention"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just hope that the men in the philippines, (and eventually in the US, for that matter) have enough self-respect to simply refuse to marry women. If there are no husbands, then there are no husbands to pay pennance, no?
Not really. The feminists have thought this out and have their solution. They plan on having the government tax employed workers (mostly men) and give the money to women to stay at home and raise their children. When the feminists have gotten that enacted, and they are very close, they will have effectively barred men from the family while forcing men to pay for the family.
That will be slavery. Feminists are pushing for it around the world and they have a great deal of support.
Refusing to get married or to become involved in a long term relationship may make sense to a man. Refusing to let any female become pregnant with his sperm may make sense to a man. But men, a minority group, will also have to refuse to let the government enslave them. Given the history of the all-male-draft, it would be foolish to be sanguine.
Feminists are driving the world to a flash point. More women (and men) need to wake up and realize this fast, because women will suffer as much as men, if and when things explode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The LA Chapter of NCFM is still working on this.
Marc,
I've been thinking. Maybe there is a cleaner approach. What if a negative DNA test automatically terminated ALL parental rights and responsibilities, but the man in question had an unrebuttable right to adopt the child - no paperwork, no waiting, no one can object. Through that adoption he would gain all parental rights and responsibilities, including at least joint custody.
I can hear the screams of those who believe no man should go unpunished, but it should seem reasonable to the reasonable. Either you're a father or you're not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garth,
I am literally stunned that they could modify the bill so blatantly as shown in your two examples.
Even if these people are truly unconcerned about the rights of men how can they do such harm to children.
What I find significant is that they are willing to do it so overtly.
Is there any way that they can have added the UNLESS it's in the best interest of the child for money and removed the UNLESS for visitation.
As you imply it can only be one or the other. I shall add it to my collection of obscene examples of anti male legislation.
I like to believe that the spring of liberal people is being wound by the fema fascists to a point at which it will break and good people will stand in significant numbers and demand their voices are heard, but when I see such blatant abuse of the rights of men and children I fear that day is a long way off.
SteveNewton.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I like to believe that the spring of liberal people is being wound by the fema fascists to a point at which it will break and good people will stand in significant numbers and demand their voices are heard, but when I see such blatant abuse of the rights of men and children I fear that day is a long way off."
Although I try to stay away from left/right politics, this interesting point is hard to ignore.
It is worth noting that the author of this paternity fraud bill, Rod Wright, is a liberal democrat who also wrote a letter to each of the LA County supervisors supporting our (NCFM's) request to create a commission for men. I think he's an example of a liberal who recognizes the overwinding.
You're right, for too long fema-fascists have indeed "wound" the spring of liberal people, since it is mostly (though not entirely) in the liberal camp where feminists have been given leeway to strive freely without challenge. There's exceptions to that, and I think the exceptions are growing, slowly. I very much want to see that continue. And I believe it can. That's largely why I think it's critical that the men's rights movement consciously make itself welcoming to people of all political backgrounds by leaving left/right politics out and focusing specifically on men's rights. That what attracted me to this site from the start, and I think that one of the reasons for this site's success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The paraphrasing by 'anonymous' is misleading - go have a look at the actual document before you all get your knickers in a twist. I believe it is sound.
What it is attempting to guard against is a situation where a child is living in a father/child relationship for an extended period before the father finds out he is not the bio father. Would you walk out on a seven, ten or 15 year old that you had thought was your child on the basis of a paternity test or would you consider that the time you spent parenting them made them your child in some way?
If it is the case of a woman claiming you are the father of a child that you don't want from the beginning you are home and hosed with this legislation if you turn out to not be the bio dad and that is a good thing.
But there is one other thing about this legislation - it can be used by the mother not just the father. Now say you are happily living in this marriage with your three kids and when the oldest is ten the wife leaves you for that lover she has been playing around for two years unbeknownst to you and you are shattered and then she drops the bombshell - oh by the way they are not your kids anyway and you are never going to see them again. Well with this legislation she can't - in fact one of the factors that a judge can take into account when deciding whether or not to enact this legislation is whether the father WANTS to continue access to the children or not. And the bit about denying the father access to the child - that only happens if the father doesn't have to pay for the child - you will not wind up having to pay for a child you don't see and if you were the one who brought the action - who cares you didn't want the kid anyway.
The main thing is if you have been acting as the father to the child you will still have rights to be considered the father (okay so this is whether you want to or not - but how would the kid feel about it if he thought you were his dad for 12 years and then you say - shove off your not mine any more).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 03, @10:14AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
> What it is attempting to guard against is a
> situation where a child is living in a
> father/child relationship for an extended
> period before the father finds out he is not
> the bio father. Would you walk out on a seven,
> ten or 15 year old that you had thought was
> your child on the basis of a paternity test or
> would you consider that the time you spent
> parenting them made them your child in some way?
Maybe yes. Maybe no. It depends on the situation.
All I know is, I'd want to make that decision for myself. I don't want the courts making a decision whether or not I am a father or not to a kid that is not genetically mine. That's up to me as an individual.
> Now say you are happily living in this marriage
> with your three kids and when the oldest is ten
> ... oh by the way they are not your
> kids anyway and you are never going to see them
> again. Well with this legislation she can't -
Says who?
Point the the specific wording in the pending bill which says she won't be able to do that.
There is nothing written in current law, and nothing that anyone has shown me in the pending bill as it has been modified now, which suggests to me that a woman CANNOT deny her ex-husband / father visistation rights using a negative paternity test.
All this law says, if that a man rebuts paternity successfully in the courts with a negative test, he is denied visitation rights. It does not say what should happen if there is a negative paternity test but legal paternity is not deemed rebuttable.
And in case you seem incredulous, that's exactly the way things work now in most states. Armed with a negative paternity test, a man in most states cannot rebut paternity BUT a woman can use that same negative paternity test result to prohibit him from ever seeing his kids again (on the basis that is might be "confusing" for the child).
> in fact one of the factors that a judge can
> take into account when deciding whether or not
> to enact this legislation is whether the father
> WANTS to continue access to the children or
> not. And the bit about denying the father
> access to the child - that only happens if the
> father doesn't have to pay for the child -
Again, point to the portion of the pending legislation that says that. So far as I know, the current bill does nothing to change the current state of affairs, which allows a woman under most circumstances to deny a man visistation rights using a negative paternity test, ragardless of whether a man succeeds in rebutting paternity in the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I have to admit that it is up to the 'judge's discretion' which certainly isn't the same as being hard and fast law - but it is encouraged to retain a pre-existing relationship between the father and child.
Here is the part of the legislation I was referring to:
7648. If the court finds that the conclusions of all of the experts, based upon the results of genetic tests performed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 7550) of Part 2, indicate that the previously established father is not the biological father of the child, the court may, nevertheless, deny the motion if it determines that denial of the motion is in the best interest of the child, after consideration of the following factors:
(a) The age of the child.
(b) The length of time since the entry of the judgment or order establishing paternity.
(c) The nature, duration, and quality of any relationship between the previously established father and the child, including the duration and frequency of any time periods during which the child and the previously established father resided in the same household or enjoyed a parent-child relationship.
(d) The request of the previously established father that the parent-child relationship continue.
(e) Notice by the biological father of the child that he does not oppose preservation of the relationship between the previously established father and the child.
(f) The benefit or detriment to the child in establishing the biological parentage of the child.
(g) Whether the previously established father was led to believe he was the biological father due to fraud or deceit by the mother or lack of knowledge regarding genetic testing.
(h) Whether the conduct of the previously established father has impaired the ability to ascertain the identity of or get support from
the biological father.
(i) Additional factors deemed by the court to be relevant to its determination of the best interest of the child.
and as for having your own choice in the matter to the exclusion of the child's, the mother's and society's choice well I would like that too - but I trust me to make the right decision unfortunately they don't ;)
You say
"All this law says, if that a man rebuts paternity successfully in the courts with a negative test, he is denied visitation rights. It does not say what should happen if there is a negative paternity test but legal paternity is not deemed rebuttable."
No it doesn't but wouldn't that mean that if legal paternity is not rebutted then it is not rebutted? Doesn't legal paternity guarantee access rights to the child provided there is no abuse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> "All this law says, if that a man rebuts
>> paternity successfully in the courts with a
>> negative test, he is denied visitation rights. It
>> does not say what should happen if there is a
>> negative paternity test but legal paternity is
>> not deemed rebuttable."
>
> No it doesn't but wouldn't that mean that if
> legal paternity is not rebutted then it is not
> rebutted? Doesn't legal paternity guarantee
> access rights to the child provided there is no
> abuse?
No. Just because you are the legally declared father, does not mean you have automatic visitation rights, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody.
The courts will simply decide what is "in the child's best interest," and if the mother claims that maintaining contact with the man would be "confusing" for them, the court will most often take that into strong consideration.
Just so you know, It is not uncommon at all for men who are not the genetic paterents, denied the right to rebut paternity, to be held accountable for child support, while at the same time they are denied visitation rights based on the results of the same paternity test.
See:
http://www.sunjournal.com/story.asp?slg=011902dadd y - remove space between the "d" and "y"
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/temp/0115-101.ht ml -- remove space between the "t" and "m"
Sorry, don't know why the board added those spaces
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems it is very different in the US to Australia - so please forgive me for my ignorance.
In Australia you can only deny visitation rights by proving physical or sexual abuse or severe neglect. Although I have one friend who lost visitation rights when his wife claimed he abused the children when she had no evidence - but that was because he did not defend the case and the courts don't like it when the father doesn't turn up.
And the CP cannot easily move interstate legally either.
I can't find much information on non-biological fathers but the Family Law Act doesn't recognise them as fathers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...but how would the kid feel about it if he thought you were his dad for 12 years and then you say - shove off your not mine any more).
No law or court in the world can prevent that. Only a man's conscience.
That's what frustrates me about these debates, people talk as if a court ruling "This man has legal paternity" will somehow prevent a child from finding out the truth or will convince a man he has a relationship he doesn't believe he has.
A court ruling "This man does not have paternity" will not convince a man and child they don't have a bond, though it may destroy it by ending contact.
The emotional trama, confusion and pain is there to be dealt with somehow and the law can't affect that in any way. It just decides who gets a check and MAYBE enables a parent and child to see each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 03, @04:26PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"It just decides who gets a check..."
and that is the basic premise of the family court: transfer of funds. It is not about the best interest of the children. It is not about fatherhood or motherhood or anything even remotely related to the family structure. It is about the dollar sign, and consequently it has not only obliterated the concept of the father, but it has reduced the parent down to a resource to be exploited. A father is now only worth as much as he can pick, I mean, earn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one can force anyone to take access to a child - access legally is considered a right not a responsibility. So you can't have a relationship forced on you if you don't want it - the legal system is not even going to try that. So that leaves the check. And a child/ren without a father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been asking around about this issue and was advised by someone that it is estimated that 25% of children born within wedlock are not biologically the fathers. I was aghast - I couldn't find out the source for this statistic - anyone know?
I also found this bit of historical information about marriage:
"The presumption that a child born in wedlock is the biological offspring of the husband is one of the oldest and strongest presumptions in the Anglo-American legal tradition. It often took the guise of an evidentiary rule barring husband and wife from testifying about lack of sexual intercourse around the time of conception. The principle is also known as Lord Mansfield's Rule, named after an English noble, who articulated it in the name of "decency, morality, and policy" to prevent husband and wife from bastardizing the children of their marriage, 98 Eng. Rep. 1257 (1777), at 1258. A number of reasons have historically supported adherence to this rule: The expediency of establishing filial relationships and the attendant rights and obligations on the basis of the marriage of the parents, especially in the absence of means to prove biological ties; the community's interest in reducing the public burden of supporting "children of no one"(filii nullius); and the public interest in protecting children against the loss of legitimacy, parental care, and rights of inheritance."
So from 1777 marriage became an agreement between husband and wife that any children born in wedlock would be considered the husbands whether he was the bio father or not. WOW! I didn't know that. I guess it was expedient seeming as they didn't have DNA testing. But combined with the above statistic of 25% it does make you really wonder. I know that infidelity is rampant both from males and females but 25% of children!!!! I guess the above law also meant that a man didn't have to take any responsibility for any children born outside wedlock so that if he was the unfaithful one he had an advantage and it wasn't all just disadvantages. But our ancestors certainly seemed to have made a hardnosed practical decision based on human nature rather than a romantic decision based on the assumption of a loving and faithful relationship there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been asking around about this issue and was advised by someone that it is estimated that 25% of children born within wedlock are not biologically the fathers. I was aghast - I couldn't find out the source for this statistic - anyone know?
The only number I've ever heard attributed is that someone asked a DNA lab how many paternity tests they performed were negative and they said about 30%. That's obviously a self-selected sample and can't be interpreted to apply to the whole population.
Short of instituting mandatory DNA testing at birth, the actual percentage is anybody's guess. My guess is that it's a lot lower than 25%, but maybe I'm just not cynical enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read a number of times, though I can't remember the specific citations, that sexologists estimate that 10% of the children in the world and in the US are being raised by men who think they are the biological fathers, but who are not the biological fathers. One place I read this (again, no specific citation) was a London Times report on a conference of sexologists in London.
I've also read two studies indicating that women under the age of 35 cheat on their partners more often than men under the age of 35.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
