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?
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.
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.
The Constitution IS a social agenda.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many already have.
This is a major problem, but it arises because of the very recent separation in the law between responsibility and authority.
Under the common law, children born to a married man are indeed his responsibility, without possibility of appeal and this is an issue for which actual (literal, genetic) paternity has no significance.
BUT....
Those that the common law made "children of his marriage" also were, by the common law, his chattels and in addition to being his sole responsibility they were his sole possessions.
The idea that some cheap whore could steal his children and make him pay for the favor was, and should still be, inconceiveable.
These problems begin when a man signs a birth certificate, unknowing of the fact that the child that he has just signed his life away for, isnt his.
If a man knows a child isnt his, he doesnt have to sign the certificate at all, and the woman is then forced to PROVE paternity in court.
This is what the courts want to avoid. You have never seen such pressure as that for a man to sign that certificate IMMEDIATLY upon the birth of a child. Once they have his signature, it is all over for him if he is wrong. The courts will not help him.
I'll go along with that sentiment. And I'll say further that it applies to women as well. To me, that's an argument for getting rid of all these child support/alimony laws, or at least keeping them as simple and unobtrusive as possible.
Hope you don't spend too much time thinking up those epithets. You implied that no woman is trustworthy enough to marry. If I'm wrong, illuminate me, please.
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.