Posted on 04/11/2002 5:51:52 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
It's hard to feel sorry for a billionaire whose ex-wife asks for $320,000 a month in child support, even when DNA evidence proves he is not a father.
After all, what is $320,000 to the 46th richest man in the world? Certainly sympathy would be easier to come by if the dollar amount might even put a dent in Kirk Kerkorian's budget. To do so would undoubtedly take far more than thousands of dollars a week for "play dates" and upkeep of a 4-year-old girl whose silver spoon most certainly came encrusted with pave diamonds.
But the real injustice facing the MGM mogul remains that no matter how much evidence he offers refuting paternity -- DNA tests, proof of his sterility -- California's legal system offers little hope that the truth will prevail. For Kerkorian and men of much lesser means, the most credible evidence to refute paternity would be a DNA test, offering a 99.9 percent certainty of whether a man fathered a child. Even though DNA evidence has been used to free falsely convicted murderers, and individuals unfairly convicted of rape and other crimes, courts are slow to accept it as proof that a man should not have to pay child support.
Although this logic defies conventional wisdom, the "presumption of paternity" is a long-standing legal principle. This tenet of common law states that unless a man can prove that he is sterile, impotent, or away from home at the time of conception, he is the legal father of any child born to his wife during their marriage. The Romans first adopted this rule, and later, the English incorporated it.
Instead of acknowledging near-perfect proof of a child's paternity, courts in most of the 50 states rely on 500-year-old English common law, promulgating an epidemic of paternity fraud. Because none of the 50 states require a mother who files a claim for child support advise the court and child support agencies of uncertain paternity when another man could potentially be the father, thousands of men are paying child support for children that may not be their children.
Many states have opted to look the other way when it comes to adopting legislation against paternity fraud. Only two states have instituted legislation that allows men unlimited time to challenge paternity using DNA testing: Maryland, which passed legislation in 1995, and Ohio, which passed its bill in 2000. The Georgia State Legislature recently passed a paternity fraud bill that now awaits the Governor's signature.
Other states have addressed this problem by limiting paternity challenges: Iowa allows a maximum of three years for such challenges, Colorado allows 5 years, and Louisiana 10 years. None of these states require mothers make full and accurate disclosure of potential paternity disputes within the time limits set by states.
Alaska requires that unwed parents establish paternity through genetic testing. In doing so, child support orders are only issued to biological fathers. Even so, Alaska remains the only state with such legislation.
In contrast, Los Angeles County fails flagrantly in its success rate in assuring only men who fathered children pay child support. In 2000 alone, more than 79 percent of L.A. County paternity judgments were assigned by default, meaning that the suspected father never had his day in court. Worse, once a judgment is established, it is difficult, if not impossible, to remove.
In his best-selling book "Bias," Bernard Goldberg chronicles the inner workings of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and its efforts at obtaining paternity collections. According to Goldberg, then-District Attorney Gil Garcetti obtained default judgments of paternity after failing to notify "fathers" of court hearings. Once the court established paternity, Garcetti refused to rescind judgments against men who later proved through DNA evidence that they were not the fathers of their alleged children.
The case of MGM mogul Kirk Kerkorian and his ex-wife, Lisa, illustrates at the extreme the absurdities of paternity findings:
If DNA proof cannot clear a man's name, what will?
Should any man, rich or poor, be legally and financially responsible for a child that is not biologically his?
Do children have the right to know the identity of their biological fathers?
Must courts hold mothers accountable when they make false statements regarding paternity?
The emotional nature of the issue clouds the patent reality that paternity fraud is a crime and must be treated as such.
In 1999 alone, almost 30 percent of 280,000 paternity cases evaluated by the American Association of Blood Banks excluded the tested individual as the biological father. Today, California has before its legislature a bill that would correct this injustice. The California Paternity Justice Act of 2002 (Assembly Bill 2240) would require DNA testing in cases of disputed paternity.
Sadly, the nearly 84,000 children who in 1999 learned their alleged fathers were not related are not alone. While bills such as AB 2240 do little to bring peace to these children and their families, they bring them closer to two goals that are equally noble: truth and justice.
I would argue that if infidelity is the cause then the legalities of the marraige are in question. After all, is not infidelity illegal if in no other sense that the moral one? And is not the continued deceit a detracting factor from the marriage? While I think I understand your argument, I disagree with the implicit premise that the woman has no responsibility to the relationship and that the father caught in such has the burden of raising another man's child.
DNA only 99.9% reliable as testing device for paternity?! ANY comment, by anyone who knows sumptin on matter? many tx
Wouldn't that encourage infidelity from both partners? If I can go have an affair with a married woman I don't have to fear the consequences, her husband will be responsible for my actions. Wrong! The hallmark of being a grown up is taking responsibility for your OWN actions.
A man should pay the costs for a child not biologically his own only if (a) it's legally adopted by him or (b) he has custody.
Why force a man to pay for his unfaithful wife's sin? Why rub salt continually in his wounds just because he's the man. Why keep reminding him of his ex-wife's treachery every single month? She is the one who sinned, she should be the one who pays.
[of course I do not accept the concept of no-fault divorce either. Someone caused the marriage to fail, they should be the ones to suffer from it]
God Save America (Please)
I agree that this is cruel and inhuman.
Why force a man to pay for his unfaithful wife's sin? Why rub salt continually in his wounds just because he's the man. Why keep reminding him of his ex-wife's treachery every single month? She is the one who sinned, she should be the one who pays.
Because he's the grownup and the child is not. He chose her, he married her and this is a result of his choice. People make mistakes, but the child should not be made to pay for his poor spouse choice.
Let's examine the FACTS, shall we?
First, Marriage is a Legal Binding Contract (hense the Royal pain in the a$$ of getting a Divorce). At the establishment of the said contract, certain assurances of fidelity are made, before witnesses, which establish the contract on very clear terms.
If the "wife"/"Partner" is running around, willfully violating that said contract, without the knowledge and consent of the "husband"/"Partner", she has violated the Contract, both verbal and written. Why should she be entitled to anything? I would propose quite the contrairy, it should be the Violator who is held responsible for costs and damages
Her actions amount to Fraud, which in ANY other Contract situation would make the violator 100% responsible for violating the contract, and any damages from that violation.
Including any Bastard children which may result from her willful violation of the marriage Contract.
Sorry M'Lady, but simply because there are children involved doesn't move me one iota. The unfaithful "wife"/Partner" needs to accept her responsibilities, which include the costs of raising her children. If those responisibilites are to much for her then she needs to address that with the said "sperm donor" and leave the real victim of her actions alone to get on with his life, without her dipping into his financial resources, thereby rewarding herself for Fraud, and flagrant violation of a written/verbal contract.
If she is unable to accurately identify the "sperm donor", to bad. Maybe she can work two jobs, since she obviously had more than just a bit too much time on her hands before.
Sorry to sound like Scrooge here, but no other area of Law can Fraud and deceit be rewarded with monthly payments from the victims of that Fraud, and the perp be the recipient of that reward.
No doubt you're hoping that only men respond to your point, but, as a woman, and a mother, I find your stance disgusting and immoral. Presumably the biological father of the child is also an adult and I see absolutely no reason whay he should not be held jointly accountable with the biological mother of the child. If he is a poor provider, then the onus is on HER and HER poor choice for the father of her child, not on her cuckolded husband.
If my marriage vows meant so little to me that I was willing to set them aside for a sexual encounter with another man, how could I possibly expect to hold my husband accountable to a higher standard regarding the 'unity' of the family than I am willing to hold myself?
And the mother also married the man who was in bed with her when the ex-husband arrived on the scene.
The law has is indeed blind in many cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.