Posted on 11/29/2002 7:08:00 AM PST by 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?
Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, dear.
Your snide comment was the beginning of the degredation of this thread, and if you are not smart enough to recognize that then you really are beyond help.
You speaking for 'the women of america' should alarm, if not offend them, as you havent the right.
Apparently, in this case, you are.
What I AM saying is that ultimately lying about your child's paternity hurts your child more.
How did the man who has been forced to pay for a child that was never his lie about the paternity?
Let's confiscate 10% of your paychecks for the next 10 years and give it to a kid who needs to have "a real childhood", and that you haven't seen in 7 years (maybe some neighbor child from a neighborhood you used to live in). After all, it only inconveniences you, and children are more important than you.
There is nothing is his posts to suggest he would elbow a child out of the way to get a seat on a bus. Of course, when I was younger, it was respectful to give up your seat to an elder, but things have changed. (And he does not have the power to make you sick.)
Perhaps if a few of the honey dippers are burned for support it might make them stop coveting the neighbor's wife.
The English common law, and the law of the United States prior to 1972, was exactly that (without the notarized statement).
Children born out of wedlock were the responsibility of the mother (no child support under any circumstances). This was because, in the case of sluts, you can never be sure who the father is.
Children born within marriage were the responsibility of the husband.
The government should not support fraud. What makes anyone believe that the child will benefit from this money anyhow? The nonfathers forced to pay support to children that aren't theirs aren't giving the child the check, they're giving lying whores the check.
Could you point me to that law, Jim? I would love to read about how it was abandoned, as if we didnt already know.
Thanks.
I basically agree with you, it's just a shame the child has to grow up being raised by a woman who would do this kind of thing. What kind of future can a child that is raised by someone that unethical have? Too bad there isn't some better way.
Life isnt fair.
You dont compound one wrong with another. No man should be forced by the government to raise another man's child.
The woman who committed the fraud should be charged with the expense of finding the real father, who should be paying instead of the duped man.
However, if women didnt have the Courts to depend on in these cases, they might think twice about becoming pregnant or sleeping around in the first place.
I know ---it's sort of like the forced welfare/charity programs we have ---the government only promotes fraud and irresponsibility when it forces one group to provide for another group with the second group not to be held accountable in any way. The Constitution never gave the government this kind of control over our lives.
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.