[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Kathleen Parker on Paternity Fraud
posted by Scott on Saturday February 24, @03:53PM
from the reproductive-rights dept.
Reproductive Rights Kathleen Parker wrote a column for Town Hall which discusses the uncomfortable subject of paternity fraud. A man from Georgia has been trying to get a law passed that would allow victims of paternity fraud to absolve themselves of child support and relations with the child, if desired, and give fathers who dispute their paternity the legal right to having a DNA test. Parker's sympathy for both men and children in cases such as this is well balanced: "How can you suddenly stop loving a child for whom you've always been Dad? How can you abandon a child who needs you? These are tough questions and prompt emotions that interfere with one's usual impulse to fairness. But fair is fair, and the truth looks like this: The mother who lies about paternity is guilty of fraud and deserves condemnation at least equal to what we assign fathers who abandon their children. In no other imaginable scenario, meanwhile, do we punish victims of a false allegations."

UCLA Daily Bruin Prints Article On Anti-Male Bias | Man Leaves Prison After 10 Years in False Accusation of Rape  >

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The slogan "in the best interest of the child" (Score:1)
by Mars on Saturday February 24, @04:40PM EST (#1)
(User #73 Info)
The state's power to protect it's own interests vastly exceeds the power of any individual to protect his or her own interests.

Accordingly, if the state were truly concerned about "the best interest of the child" it would adopt the children it seeks to protect, instead of making indentured servants out of men (and women) who may or may not be able to pay. The state should not entrust its deeply held concerns to individuals.

If the state's interest is in equal protection under the law, then that interest supercedes any relationship between a child and a guardian previously assumed to have been the father. This is a matter of law, not a psychological matter.
State sponsored extortion by any other name... (Score:1)
by BusterB on Monday February 26, @02:45PM EST (#2)
(User #94 Info) http://themenscenter.com/busterb/
Once again the hypocrisy of "the best interests of the child" becomes obvious.

When some down-and-out mother gives up her child for adoption and then two years later comes back to the adoptive parents and sues for custody of "her baby", we go all verklempt trying to a find a solution to the "dilemma". Biological ties, it seems, are oh so very important to children.

However, when some father discovers he's been paying for years for a child that isn't his, suddenly biological ties mean a whole lot less, and the fact that he's been capable of forking out dough means a whole lot more.

Mars is right. This isn't an emotional issue or a philosophical issue. It's a situation in which the law says one thing, but what society really wants is something different. The courts waffle between the two. It's a clear case of hypocrisy (or inconsistency if you want to be kind) in the justice system.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]