Why men should be able to sue women who lie about who's the daddy

JWR ^ | Nov. 27 , 2002 / 22 Kislev, 5763 | Dan Abrams

[Balto_Boy]

On Friday, Nebraska's highest court ruled that a man whose ex-wife may have lied to him about being the father of their child cannot sue the woman for fraud and emotional distress. Why not?

IN ANY other realm of the law this would be a classic case of fraud. Robert Day had already been divorced from his wife for six years when he realized he was out of town when she conceived. A DNA test proved with 100 percent certainty that Adam wasn't his. Well Robert Day alleged that mom lied about her due date to fool him.

He had paid child support, medical expenses and even half of his wife's employment-related daycare costs after their divorce. She's since remarried. The court cited a number of psychological studies about the importance of parents bonding with children and held "In effect Robert is saying he's not my son. I want my money back" and that the lawsuit "Has the effect of saying I wish you'd never been born to a child."

No, it says "You lied to me, I want my money back," and the lawsuit has the effect of saying "I wish you hadn't lied and now hope you'll go after the real father for the money you snookered me from me." Look, these cases are difficult and different. If the result would be that the child would suddenly go hungry or lose his home, those special circumstances should matter, but that should be the exception.

The court's opinion focuses solely on public policy. How is it good public policy to encourage a philandering woman to lie? Why shouldn't she at least have to seek out the real father to make him pay?

[Clara Lou]

"Weasel"?? Why don't you say what you mean the first time instead of editing later? Duh.

[Enterprise]

I am curious why society - with all this gooey talk of "feelings" and "self-esteem" - seems to think that men who lose their children do not suffer pain and depression. But hey, what do I know?

[ALS]

Very well put. You just left all the aboriginal pontificators in your dust.

Wrong is wrong. All the skewed logic in the world will never change that.
I have a daughter who I am not convinced is mine. I wasn't defrauded because I knew the EX cheated on me. I gladly pay because I CHOOSE to and I love the child.
IF I was defrauded, I would like to know that my legal protections were the same as the woman's. Because if I CHOSE not to volunteer my livelihood to another, that would be my choice, NOT someone else's choice. I should not be legally obligated to pay for someone else's obligations, especially since all I would get out of the deal is an occasional visitation, subject to manipulation by the cheater in question.

I also think that the fact a woman can take a man to court, play this game in which she divides up her expenses in order to arrive at a monetary value, then she can use the money for anything she wishes, is not only immoral, it's indeed FRAUD. There's NO accounting to the man at all. As a father, he should have a right to know that money does indeed go to the child's welfare. Currently, the woman can use it for drugs or just give it to a boyfriend. As long as she doesn't go so overboard in her behaviors the Child Protection Services step in, she's free to squander.

Perhaps a special credit card, with statements going to the man and the court would end such abuse.

There's no doubt that men get the short end of the stick when it comes to divorce. The courts, and too many women, see the man as just a walking wallet. Few thoughts are given to just how devastating this is to the man. Instead, he's seen as just plain selfish if he doesn't comply.

I know of a local policeman who got severely stiffed in his divorce. He lives on peanuts now. The hardest part of all, is that his ex is living with a man who she refuses to marry in order to keep ripping off the ex-husband via alimoney, and both the ex and the boyfriend work for Boeing and make ungodly salaries, many times over what the cop makes. The courts refuse to give him any relief, and when each child reaches 16, the court automatically ups the amount he has to pay. I suppose that would be fair to the NOW gang, but surely not a normal human.

Anyone that would argue against my points is either ignorant of reality or can't stand that their personal agenda is being threatened with true fairness.

rant off

[FITZ]

It's Christian but that doesn't mean the government should impose it by making it the law. I think it's great if men will be the fathers to children who are not biologically theirs but forcing that is another matter. It does take more than one sperm to be a real father.

[Clara Lou]

Name-calling-- out of the blue. I've never even addressed a post to you. How adult.

[BuddhaBoy]

You are speaking of the root cause of all of this misery; which is emotional reasoning instead of logical reasoning.

Many people here at FR are guilty of this, they talk about the needs of the child and respecting the family and all that stuff which has nothing to do with the subject, because they bring their own emotions into the discussion rather than deal with the issue rationally.

They mistakenly feel that their emotions are just as important as the facts at hand. Look how quickly they go on the attack at an opinion that offends their delicate sensibilities, instead of arguing the issue at hand.

This is what is bringing down America, and it is no different then what drives those fanatics in Islamic cultures who want to silence anything not keeping with their religious beliefs. In short, facts dont matter, just dont offend them.

It's too bad, because it limits discussion, and brings animus to these threads where it isnt needed. It's the same with society. When was the last time you saw a Liberal and a Conservative actually debate an issue, instead of accusations flying back and forth, with nothing getting resolved?

[L`enn]

Unfortunately, things will not change. It would be political suicide for any legislator to attempt to even the playing field.

[Hostage]

It is easier to pick the right investment such as a publicly traded equity than it is to pick the right woman. In the former, you have financial disclosures and independent audits available (although recently there have been some problems, the market was quick to discipline those who strayed). In the latter, you can call up private investigators for background checks and you can propose a pre-nup. But if you play it by heart or hormones, you take a huge risk because the current system of justice is stacked way against you.

Sounds like you got lucky and you think you're smart because of it. Try humility. I'll bet you're just lucky. The odds are in my favor.

[BuddhaBoy]

Name-calling-- out of the blue. I've never even addressed a post to you. How adult.

I am not shocked that you are not bright enough even to realize that you started the personal attacks yourself.

Dont you have laundry or dishes to do? You are not ready for this discussion.

[kilohertz]

Wife lied to him.
Fraud.
Kid still his.
Case closed.

I what way is the kid still his? The new father has adopted, the cuckold does not have any visitation rights, and has not seen the child in years. In law and in fact, the child is no longer his!

[FITZ]

What is Christian about being taken advantage of - or condoning it as in the case of Tallhappy.

I also don't think he was condoning being taken advantage of either ---I'd go further and say that the father (biological or not) might be even more Christian to demand custody of the child and raise him a better home than allow that type of woman to bring him up.

[xdem]

> Men haven't said no since Eve gave the apple to
> Adam and you'll never change it.

Not all men are rutting pigs.

[kilohertz]

I am curious why society - with all this gooey talk of "feelings" and "self-esteem" - seems to think that men who lose their children do not suffer pain and depression. But hey, what do I know?

Because the Divorce Industry makes its money by taking a cut of payments from men to women, of course ... therefore the need to play up the case of women and children ("for the children! but think of the children!"), and minimize the case of the men ("deadbeat dads").

[BuddhaBoy]

You are right, which is why men must take it upon themselves to protect themselves.

We live in a country where we no longer leave our doors and windows open at night. We need to adopt the same mentality for relationships instead of remaining victims to a system that is not at all equitable.

[Morrigan]

"Please explain why a child's life is automatically more important that the life of a grown man"

Here we go with the lily livered, whiny, selfish man rhetortic.

You know why kids' lives are more important that grown-ups? Because they are f##king kids, that's why. Grownups can take it. Kids shouldn't have to. They need to have a real childhood, and telling them things like, "Mommy was a slut, and Daddy is not really your Daddy, so sorry, you won't be seeing him anymore", is not only wrong, but evil. And if you have to be slightly uncomfortable for a few years in order to make a kid happy, oh well. I'm not saying that these guys should be forced to pay for kids that aren't theirs. What I AM saying is that ultimately lying about your child's paternity hurts your child more.

Obviously you don't have kids. Yes, the lives of my children are more important to me than a grown man's life.

So go ahead. Start whining about how you should be treated better than an innocent CHILD.

[notdownwidems]

Thank you

[Clara Lou]

Please point out a personal attack on this thread by me. You need to get rid of that ugly chip on your shoulder. The world would be a brighter place for you.

[kilohertz]

I also don't think he was condoning being taken advantage of either ---I'd go further and say that the father (biological or not) might be even more Christian to demand custody of the child and raise him a better home than allow that type of woman to bring him up.

But in this particular story, the woman already has custody, the "father" has no visitation, and that is unlikely to change, regardless of his demands. Besides, the man wasn't suing the child, but the adulterous mother, for money he paid her under a pretense. He was taken advantage of, and should have done what he could to recover his money.

[BuddhaBoy]

And if you have to be slightly uncomfortable for a few years in order to make a kid happy, oh well.

Come back when you can recognize the fascism in this statement.

The rest of it is so nonsensical as to not warrent a response.