Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why men should be able to sue women who lie about who's the daddy
JWR ^ | Nov. 27 , 2002 / 22 Kislev, 5763 | Dan Abrams

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?


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-326 next last
To: babygene
"Weasel"?? Why don't you say what you mean the first time instead of editing later? Duh.
101 posted on 11/29/2002 10:50:14 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
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?
102 posted on 11/29/2002 10:51:50 AM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

Comment #103 Removed by Moderator

To: winodog
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
104 posted on 11/29/2002 10:53:29 AM PST by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: babygene
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.
105 posted on 11/29/2002 10:54:48 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: notdownwidems
Name-calling-- out of the blue. I've never even addressed a post to you. How adult.
106 posted on 11/29/2002 10:57:03 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
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?

107 posted on 11/29/2002 10:59:38 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Unfortunately, things will not change. It would be political suicide for any legislator to attempt to even the playing field.
108 posted on 11/29/2002 11:00:00 AM PST by L`enn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
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.
109 posted on 11/29/2002 11:00:27 AM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
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.

110 posted on 11/29/2002 11:01:43 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
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!
111 posted on 11/29/2002 11:02:15 AM PST by kilohertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: babygene
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.

112 posted on 11/29/2002 11:03:16 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

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

Not all men are rutting pigs.
113 posted on 11/29/2002 11:04:22 AM PST by xdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 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?

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").
114 posted on 11/29/2002 11:05:21 AM PST by kilohertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: L`enn
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.

115 posted on 11/29/2002 11:05:29 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
"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.
116 posted on 11/29/2002 11:12:22 AM PST by Morrigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Thank you
117 posted on 11/29/2002 11:12:25 AM PST by notdownwidems
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
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.
118 posted on 11/29/2002 11:14:06 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
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.
119 posted on 11/29/2002 11:15:40 AM PST by kilohertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Morrigan
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.

120 posted on 11/29/2002 11:15:50 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
You are such a moron. God help any children that come around you. You'd probably elbow a kid out of the way to get a spot on the bus, huh? Equal treatment, after all. Why should a kid get a seat when you can't?

You make me sick.
121 posted on 11/29/2002 11:17:56 AM PST by Morrigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
The women of America applaud your point of view and fervently hope that you have actually put it into practice in your own life."- Clara Lou.

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.

122 posted on 11/29/2002 11:19:11 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Morrigan
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.

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.

123 posted on 11/29/2002 11:19:17 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Morrigan
You are an emotional wreck. Go away. Or better yet, try thinking instead of feeling sometime.
124 posted on 11/29/2002 11:20:01 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
"Why don't you say what you mean the first time instead of editing later?"

The post she is refering to was #90. If you look, you will see that I didn't "edit it" later.
125 posted on 11/29/2002 11:21:39 AM PST by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
To: Balto_Boy As I keep saying to any man who would listen, that it is CRAZY for a man to marry and have children under our current legal conditions in America. Once a man's name is on a marriage certificate and/or birth certificate, he will in one way or another end up an indentured servant at the point of a government gun. Just say no, Men. 8 posted on 11/29/2002 9:39 AM CST by BuddhaBoy [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
So, you said it, but you didn't mean it? How is it "ugly" for me to support your own posted serious remarks? You really do have a sadly and/or conveniently) twisted mind.
126 posted on 11/29/2002 11:25:43 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Morrigan
"Why should a kid get a seat when you can't? You make me sick."

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.)

127 posted on 11/29/2002 11:26:19 AM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Morrigan
Are you a man or a woman? I suspect you are a woman. If you are it's OK, but knowing your sex might help up put your posts into perscective.
128 posted on 11/29/2002 11:27:37 AM PST by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
You have a serious problem. I didnt direct my post directly at another individual. Do yourself a favor and dont post to me. You are logically deficient, and I have no desire to embarass you further.
129 posted on 11/29/2002 11:28:32 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Save it; the emotions have taken over, she/he cant hear you.
130 posted on 11/29/2002 11:29:12 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Balto_Boy
Sounds like the "wife" might be engaged in a conspiracy to defraud. The "ex-husband" should have recourse against the "boyfriend". Also, let the "boyfriend" should be made to start picking up the tab from here on out.

Perhaps if a few of the honey dippers are burned for support it might make them stop coveting the neighbor's wife.

131 posted on 11/29/2002 11:30:25 AM PST by F-117A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutch-Comfort
>>In my humble opinion, the law should require a woman to get a signed and notarized document from any male that she sleeps with before she sleeps with him that any results of his sperm meeting her egg are his financial responsibility. Without it, she should then have sole responsibility for the results<<

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.

132 posted on 11/29/2002 11:30:50 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Morrigan
You know why kids' lives are more important that grown-ups? Because they are f##king kids, that's why.

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.

133 posted on 11/29/2002 11:32:25 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
and the law of the United States prior to 1972,

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.

134 posted on 11/29/2002 11:33:00 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: kilohertz
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.

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.

135 posted on 11/29/2002 11:34:51 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
You have a serious problem. I didnt direct my post directly at another individual. Do yourself a favor and dont post to me. You are logically deficient, and I have no desire to embarass you further.
~snicker~ Your'e here venting your spleen publicly. You've obviously got a HUGE chip on your shoulder, I repost your original words (which you seem meant at the time, but now you don't?), and that's all you've got to say? Someone is embarrassed all right, but it's not me.
136 posted on 11/29/2002 11:35:28 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Still here? I dont know why. You dont understand a single post. I doubt you understand your own. You can have the last word, I have no need to converse with you.
137 posted on 11/29/2002 11:38:15 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
What kind of future can a child that is raised by someone that unethical have?

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.

138 posted on 11/29/2002 11:40:53 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
You dont compound one wrong with another. No man should be forced by the government to raise another man's child.

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.

139 posted on 11/29/2002 11:49:46 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
But the court had its reasons for ruling as it did, and the opinion spells them out pretty clearly.

Yes the court had its reasons, none of which are based on the law. Social agendas are un-constitutional.
140 posted on 11/29/2002 11:53:05 AM PST by Crusader21stCentury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Morrigan
Well, which is it? Are you a man or a feminazi?
141 posted on 11/29/2002 11:55:19 AM PST by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
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.

This is why people are left with only the option to go along or opt-out altogether.

I can forsee a society where women are left with nothing but the dregs of society availble for marriage someday. Men with something to lose are not going to put their future's at risk under these conditions if they continue along their present path.

If you look at that disgusting "The Bachelor" show, you can see that women are already desparate for a decent man to marry. Men need to make these conditions even worse for them if they are to regain control of their futures, and can marry and father children without the threat of indentured servitude at the whim of an angry spouse.

142 posted on 11/29/2002 12:01:00 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
The case is:

LINDA R. S. v. RICHARD D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) 410 U.S. 614,

and it overturned the laws of Texas and all of the other states, which at that time followed the common law that bastards are not entitled to child support.

143 posted on 11/29/2002 12:03:28 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Crusader21stCentury
Social agendas are un-constitutional.

The Constitution IS a social agenda.

144 posted on 11/29/2002 12:04:01 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Morrigan
Putting your children ahead of your spouse is a recipe for a bad marriage. Proceed at your risk.
145 posted on 11/29/2002 12:08:33 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Morrigan
Yes, the lives of my children are more important to me than a grown man's life.

That's kind of a strange thing to say. The woman in this case had an option right from the start ---she could have been honest and told the husband she was sleeping around and that the baby probably wasn't his. It seems to me the entire responsibility for the problems her child faces are completely her own.

146 posted on 11/29/2002 12:11:48 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
The lack of emotional and financial attachment will help set a non-father free

Not in ohio if your married and your wife has a child thats not yours while you still being married to her the courts sees that child as yours hands down DNA test or not ive seen guys fight it and go to jail over child support of children who are not theirs.

147 posted on 11/29/2002 12:13:37 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
I think you have overstated your case here. Lots of men get married, stay married, have kids and never have any government agents show up at their door. It's just important to pick the right woman and treat her well. As it always has been.

Amen. BuddhaBoy's rhetoric sounds similar to the feminazi's diatribes about how all men are rapists, etc. Tiresome, and it's getting old. And so unlike the Enlightened One whom he chooses to identify himself with.

148 posted on 11/29/2002 12:21:22 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
I can forsee a society where women are left with nothing but the dregs of society availble for marriage someday. Men with something to lose are not going to put their future's at risk under these conditions if they continue along their present path.

BINGO!!!!! You win. Thats the botoom line. The LCD (least common Denominater)

If the courts and women continue down this path what you have said is what will will happen. Womens rights have to work both ways. The old ways of marriage worked mighty well for centuries.

Its true that women didnt have a lof of say and the man may have had a mistress but when society awards women for screwing around on their husband and allows her to leave him knowing she will get the home, the children, a portion of his wages and the right to screw around with whoever she wants, children suffer and it is after all for the children

I know many of you will say a woman should not have to stay in a abusive relationship yet on the other hand you say men who have children with women who are not loyal are the dumb ones and should have to pay.

Its not right, the old way wasnt perfect either but it worked. Just like capitalism does not make for the perfect world but its the best of all other choices.

149 posted on 11/29/2002 12:22:38 PM PST by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Men with something to lose are not going to put their future's at risk under these conditions if they continue along their present path.

Many already have.

150 posted on 11/29/2002 12:23:10 PM PST by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-326 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson