Paternity Fraud Victims Needed for New National Survey‏

What exactly is paternity fraud? It seems to have a wide definition. Is that what most men term any paternity test that comes out negative? Are you only using situations that insinuate that the woman is in the wrong in the definition?

In casual relationships, it is common sense to order a paternity test before paying child support. If it does not come out the way expected, I think "fraud' is too strong of word. I think the situation could be summed-up as "this is why we do paternity tests" (from what I understand, both men and women can request paternity testing- so really they are both in the wrong if they let the situation get out of hand).

Is it 'fraud' if the man denies he could be the father, but paternity testing proves that he is? What about men that hide from being served with paternity test orders so they can't be served? What about men that have a look-a-like take the test for them (common in the black community)?

The only time I can think that someone is really fraudulent is within marriage when it is trusted that the husband is the father of the children and he really isn't, or if a girl knows that a guy IS the father, but she tells him he ISN"T to purposely keep him away from the child, or if a man knows that he is possibly the father, but refuses or runs from paternity testing or cheats the test.

BTW- True paternity fraud is really sad. It is one of the worst crimes I can think of (perpetrated by men and women). But I do not consider all 'negative' paternity tests as 'fraudulent' situations.

The biggest victim of paternity fraud is the public. Sometimes a mom will say she does not know who the father of her child is (even though the father acknowledges the child in every way, sometimes even living in the home) so that the family can collect welfare and benefits without the state ever coming after the father for re-payment.

Kris,

Paternity fraud is the fraudulent (meaning, knowingly misleading) identification of a man as the father of a child. It is often done for financial reasons but there can be other reasons too. If it is intended to mislead then it is fraudulent. The allegations is usually based on biological paternity but is not necessarily restricted to that. For instance, one can falsely claim that a man acted as the father of a certain child in order to get that man stuck on child support by "paternity by estoppel."

Obviously, not all cases of misidentification of a father are "fraud." There are cases of mistake. However, we generally use the term "fraud" because it is our opinion (and I'm speaking about most MRAs that I know) that even in cases of mistake, usually there was serious recklessness going on and a lack of candor as to the *possibility* that the father could be someone else. So generally speaking, I believe most of the misidentifications are fraudulent to some extent, whether intentionally or recklessly.

Also, the "fraud" is also committed by government entities that force the wrong man to pay support, or by a person who made a genuine mistake but later attempts to enforce that mistake on the wrong father. So there is plenty of "fraud" going around in the entire field, and I think it justifies using the term "paternity fraud" even if some of it is not fraudulent in the strict sense of the word.

Former Governor Gray Davis of California specifically called it "paternity fraud" and I appreciated that.

"But I do not consider all 'negative' paternity tests as 'fraudulent' situations."

You're correct, Kris. Absolutely. In fact a number of paternity tests are done precisely because a woman was honest with the man and said she's not sure if he's the father, so he gets a test. Nobody is really saying all negative tests are fraud. But IMO whenever a woman falsely identifies a man as the father when she knows he is not, *or* knows he *might* not be but isn't up front about that, then it is a form of fraud. And I agree that a man can commit paternity fraud too, such as when *he* falsely claims he's the father or falsely claims he's not when he knows he is (such as if he has a DNA test and knows he is but lies), or when a man conspires with a woman to falsely idenitify another man as the father, etc.

Shouldn't the definition also include men that knowingly deny paternity to avoid providing financial support and care of their children?

If a man denies paternity and provides no care for the children, and then later a paternity test proves that he is the father, wasn't he not acting fraudulently during the time he was denying?

I understand that this is a men's rights group and you are looking at the angle of paternity fraud that effects men, but there is a whole other side to paternity fraud that men perpetrate by denying paternity or avoiding the ability to be served with paternity test orders (ever heard of a guy leaving town when he knows he will be served paternity papers?). Sometime paternity is already proven and a guy works under the table to avoid paying CS.

In my family's business, we hire a lot of day laborers and temporary workers. You would not believe how many men try and request cash payment as they freely admit that they are avoiding child support. Isn't that a type of fraud by knowingly avoiding paternity responsibilities and passing the responsibility onto the public?

Don't get me wrong, I hate paternity fraud committed by either gender, and I especially think laws should be changed when a man is forced to pay even after child(ren) are proved to not be his.

But from my perspective men are the major perpetrators of paternity fraud.

If a woman is trying to commit paternity fraud a man can request a paternity test to get to the truth in a timely manner. But when a man commits paternity fraud, he usually cannot be found so the truth will never be known, or he cheats the test (sends in a look alike to take the test), or he works under the table to avoid paying CS. It can take years to solve. Finally the woman just gives up.

All of the men you are talking about are protecting THEIR self interests from women who thought of ONLY HER SELF INTERESTS when they CHOSE a man to impregnate them when they knew damn well he did not want the kid.

You see Kris, as you and I have discussed earlier, it is WOMEN who have 99.9% of all the reproductive options and rights, and therefore should shoulder 99.9% of the responsibility for getting their dumb selves knocked up. If she had THE SLIGHTEST HINT he did not want kids, she should have

a) TAKEN THE APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID PREGNANCY

b) OR JUST NOT FUCK HIM AT ALL

c) IN THE EVENT THAT SHE COULD ONLY THINK WITH HER PUSSY AND GOT KNOCKED UP, ABORTION, ADOPTION,OR ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER OWN STUPIDITY AND LACK OF SELF CONTROL

I would be on your side, I really really would, but in a world where ONLY females have any reasonable amount of control over fertility and reproduction, I just can't call guys who run for the hills instead of subjugating themselves to an immature, irresponsible woman who practically unilaterally decided to conceive, carry to term and accept responsibility for HER baby. By rights it's her property, so she can deal with it.

100% of these guys you condemn would have opted for a paper abortion if said option was legally available to them instead of running and hiding like hunted criminals. Since we DO NOT label women who have abortions criminals or fraudsters, we cannot label men who HAVE NO RIGHT TO PAPER ABORTION as such.

I know, you do not believe in contraceptives, or abortion personally. You've told us all the story. Well, please see option b) as what to do if it is ever in ANY doubt that he may not want kids. Don't think with your pussy, that's what your very intelligent brain is for.

Till you are in favor of MENS reproductive rights, you have ZERO right to accuse men of fraud or criminality for taking the ONLY options available to them.

GOOD FOR those men your parents employ to pick the cotton in the fields or whatever, for vocalizing their protest to their lack of rights and protections under law when it comes to their reproduction. THEY ARE HEROES for opposing an unjust, unfair, imbalanced system. I would NEVER call that fraud until the day comes that MEN can claim the SAME REPRODUCTIVE OPTIONS women enjoy today. If men ever get reproductive rights and options, I'll defend your point of view here absolutely, till that day which likely will never come, it is WOMEN who commit paternity fraud, not men. Plus, if we gave men the right to paper abortions, that would solve your concern of tax payers paying for unwanted children cause women would OVER NIGHT become MUCH MORE DISCRIMINATING in who they fuck because they would have no guaranteed option to blame their irresponsibility on the guy she chose to fuck. If you do not believe that it is women who choose the sex partners in this country, please see the HUNDREDS of stories of FALSE rape charges that have been posted to this site over the years. She's pissed at him AFTER THE FACT, he goes to jail. If you cannot recognize that as indicative of women having the lions share of the rights and the only reasonable way to judge who is the decision maker in initiating sex, then you are willfully blind to the plight of males because you are unwilling to give up female privilege you enjoy

>"All of the men you are talking about are protecting THEIR self interests from women who thought of ONLY HER SELF INTERESTS when they CHOSE a man to impregnate them when they knew damn well he did not want the kid"

That may account for some of them, but not all of them. Many men tell a woman he will be supportive of a pregnancy, but then change their mind after the children are born, or perhaps they were lying about their intentions in order to have sex with the girl. (I can't imagine a girl having an ongoing sexual relationship if a guy tells her he will not be supportive if she gets pregnant. But I do agree with you that she should not keep a baby if the man is vocal about not wanting it from the start)

In my definition of paternity fraud I am also addressing the 'single mothers' that use and abuse the welfare system. Many are not as 'single' as they imply. In many cases the father lives in the home, but is not listed on the birth certificate because as a 'single mother' and 'father unknown' the family can collect more benefits. This paternity fraud is cheating the public, IMO. Both the mother and father are part of the fraud.

Since reproductive laws favor women and screw men, and men are well aware of this, I would recommend that men that do not want kids use the options of (a) not having sex or (b) wearing a condom (you even acknowledged in a previous thread that men DO HAVE these options) I think a man is stupid to engage in unprotected sex if he does not want a child. Perhaps men are also thinking with their genitals and lacking in self control in this situation.

On a personal note, when it comes to casual sex, I have little sympathy for either gender when it comes to unpleasantries in regards to pregnancy, paternity or child support issues. I think a girl is stupid for having a child with a man that obviously does not want a child, and I think a man is stupid for having unprotected sex with a girl he does not want to risk pregnancy with. I don't care much about the current laws, and how/why they should be changed, etc. I think casual sex is STUPID, STUPID STUPID and stupid people get what they deserve.

> "Till you are in favor of MENS reproductive rights, you have ZERO right to accuse men of fraud or criminality for taking the ONLY options available to them."

I have the right to post my opinion, and you have the right to disagree.

And I am in favor of changing laws to be more supportive of men.

I am addressing the men that do not want to provide support to the children they willingly created and wanted, but later changed their mind. And to the men that live with and care for their children but purposely keep their name off the birth certificate and documents so the family can receive additional welfare benefits. These are two examples of paternity fraud that men engage in all the time.

Sure you have the right to express your opinion, but when you are accusing a group of being criminal for vocalizing their lack of rights as you did when referring to day workers picking cotton or whatever they do in your family business. You can think whatever you want of them as human beings or have whatever opinion you want of their character them as a group, I don't care, just don't generalize them as criminals here cause this is after all a site involved in men's rights.

It's fine that you have no sympathy for them or the plight of men in general as appears to be the case in saying, "I don't care much about the current laws, and how/why they should be changed, etc." Though I think it is sad that you do not care about laws that will effect the lives of your two sons. I disagree for some posters here that claim women in general are incapable of sympathy or empathy towards men, but my opinion may be starting to waiver a little in that reagard.

But, about the men you seem to hate who abandon new mothers. Perhaps it is your personal bias because of what happened to you, but statistically, men running for the hills AFTER the baby is born is a very rare occurrence as men have strong paternal instincts and a strong desire to love and care for their children just as women do. If he changes his mind and leaves when he desires children, it is NOT THE KID HE IS FLEEING. That happens as often as mothers leaving babies in dumpsters. It happens rarely, and usually out of desperation, but it's hardly the norm. Men fleeing their families is usually because they either are trying to get away from the woman, or they feel they cannot care for their children either financially or emotionally and their only recourse is to leave. Just like moms who abandon their kids, dads usually do so mistakenly thinking that it is in the best interest of he kids if they are not around, and just like moms are in need of CARE AND SUPPORT not court orders and prison to get them involved in their family.

I fully agree that people who have no desire to start a family should not go around making babies, but it happens and we DO NEED TO CARE about BOTH PARENTS and getting them involved in the child's life. Easier said then done I know, but right now the laws do not make it any easier. Plus, if the laws were written with the notion that the ONLY THING that is in the best interest of the child is involvement of both parents and set up to facilitate BOTH parents, then your gripe about WELFARE FRAUD (not paternity fraud, as they are not cheating the father they are cheating welfare and as you noted both parents are in on it) would solve it's self. Laws would not exist to give moms a free meal ticket if the laws were written to help BOTH mom and dad be INVOLVED (not pay for) the kids. Welfare should help moms and dads be a part of their kids life not just write checks and not even come to the house. The check should be for a trip to the zoo, or a musical instrument, or a recital costume, or knee pads, or a catchers mit and receipts demanded. Welfare should pay for things that benefit the kids directly and encourage parental involvement and receipts should be demanded to prove the parents really did buy the things they said the would. There will always be abuses of any system, but the system we have now is an abuse all by it's self.