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 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-326 next last
To: Enterprise
How long do you think it will be before women begin to demand polygamy?

At the rate things are going, I would guess less than 20 years before polygamy is considered a viable option for women.

It isnt that the good men are all taken, its that the good men are running like hell from today's modern woman, and her built-in hostility and agenda. Some are choosing women from other cultures, some like me, are choosing only to date multiple women at a time with nothing permanent intended.

And yes, regarding the apartments, I usually run across women who without saying so directly are looking to trade sex for free rent. They are easy to spot and avoid.

301 posted on 12/01/2002 8:22:57 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
"It isnt that the good men are all taken, its that the good men are running like hell from today's modern woman"

LOL! That brought laughter tears to my eyes!

"I usually run across women who without saying so directly are looking to trade sex for free rent. They are easy to spot and avoid."

AND AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE! The first chance the little minxes get they will complain to some fair housing authority agency about being forced to provide sex for rent. Man oh man, the LAWERS would descend like the proverbial hoard of locusts! I wonder though, how long it will be before Bill Clinton purchases an apartment building.

302 posted on 12/01/2002 8:33:10 AM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
You see, their religion is Oprah Winfrey.

It's all about fulfillment at any cost. Once they have bought into that fantasy, then their primary objective is to find a source of FUNDING for that fulfillment.

That is where WE come in, and it is on those terms only, that we are evaluated. Good looks and personality are only a bonus to them, these gals want to get PAID.

The only thing a man can do is to continue to throw them back, like undersized lobsters, secure that more will be along shortly. One only need take care to avoid a nasty bite. Use "gloves" LOL!

303 posted on 12/01/2002 8:45:59 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
I am really commenting on the subjects that unattractive women major in vs. attractive ones.

You wont find a majority of hot women getting advanced degrees or technical degrees for that matter, because they dont have to.

I'd love to see the statistical evidence of this. Ah well, let me say this- any woman, attractive or not, better learn to take care of herself the best way she can. Any woman, regardless of looks, should major in a field she is interested in that can also support her. Pretty girls get dumped by their husbands too. They also have to live in an economy that often requires two income just to survive.

Unattractive women know at an early age, that their prospects for finding Prince Charming to take care of them are low, and they hit the books, studying harder than pretty girls do.

This statement is an insult to all the pretty girls who bust their butts to prepare for and advance in a career.

304 posted on 12/01/2002 9:10:03 AM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: mafree
This statement is an insult to all the pretty girls who bust their butts to prepare for and advance in a career.

That doesnt make it any less true.

305 posted on 12/01/2002 9:14:39 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
It isn't true- come with your factual evidence of such.
306 posted on 12/01/2002 9:16:35 AM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: mafree
Look at the anger on this thread. That is all the evidence one needs. I have no desire to argue about it; you can believe what you want. Or, if you are ever in my town, you can hang with me some night and see for yourself.
307 posted on 12/01/2002 9:37:51 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
but I fret for my brothers in crime. )))

I'm glad you care for someone, since you claim to prefer having intimate relations with those you hate. Curious..."post coitus animalus tristum est"...but haven't yet explored the tenet of "post coitus Buddhaboy detestum her." Does the disdain (disgust?) appear pre, during, or post? Do you start out with goodwill, only to find that the act itself engenders the hate? I'd bet money on a little "projection" going on.

You could be a good chapter in a psych text.

308 posted on 12/01/2002 1:53:24 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Do you always continue to talk when no one is listening?
309 posted on 12/01/2002 1:55:45 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Wow! That was really quick!
310 posted on 12/01/2002 1:57:56 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Well, dont flatter yourself. It was a coincedence that I came here after the game was over, and poof, there you were, spewing psychobabble.

No matter though, I'm not here for a popularity contest. If I raise people's blood pressure, its only because what I say hits too close to home.

As if I care.

311 posted on 12/01/2002 2:08:43 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
My view is consistent with the definitions of fraud and responsibility. We are a nation of laws. Many people have lost sight of this. It is in vogue to obey one's feelings and espouse to whacky ideas. Neither is still correct. Perhaps the judical branch will change soon and judges will go back to interpreting the law, not legislating based on their emotions.
312 posted on 12/01/2002 4:08:01 PM PST by glockmeister40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Look at the anger on this thread. That is all the evidence one needs.

Of the original article, sure, but you and I were arguing a side issue.

I have no desire to argue about it; you can believe what you want.

Just like you do, eh??

313 posted on 12/01/2002 7:45:48 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: mafree
I can prove my point any night of the week, and you know it. The problem is, since you are a woman (I've lurked long enough to know) you cant admit that your sisterhood has sold out their respectibility in favor of instant gratification.

My offer stands, we dont need to argue, because every point I have made, is something that I see in reality every day.

You are arguing for the way you would like it to be, but I think you are smarter than that. Dont forget; I offered to PROVE it.

314 posted on 12/01/2002 7:50:53 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
I can prove my point any night of the week, and you know it.

I'd be glad to give you the chance to do so if I'm ever in your town or you in mine.

The problem is, since you are a woman (I've lurked long enough to know)

All it takes to know my gender is to click to my profile page- you wasted your time trying to guess by lurking.

you cant admit that your sisterhood has sold out their respectibility in favor of instant gratification.

That's where you're wrong- I can admit anytime that some women have done that, but don't sit here and tell me that all of us have. I know better, and you do too.

I think what you'd like to find is more women who want to play the dating/romance/whatever program your way. Well, plenty of them will but not all of them will.

I personally prefer to remain single myself but I don't waste any time second-guessing or putting down women or men that want to commit or marry.

315 posted on 12/01/2002 8:22:41 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: mafree
Well, plenty of them will but not all of them will.

I assure you, I dont need all of them. But thank your for admitting all that I have been saying.

I dont view many profile pages here, I'm not that interested, I just like to debate.

If I over-generalized, then I apologize. There are exceptions to everything.

As to what I would like to find; I do so all the time. I'll die single, but not alone. Just me and my hubris.

316 posted on 12/01/2002 8:31:35 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Well, plenty of them will but not all of them will.

I assure you, I dont need all of them. But thank your for admitting all that I have been saying.

If you'll look back at my posts on this thread it was never the point I was trying to argue in the first place. You may have me confused with others on this thread.

317 posted on 12/01/2002 8:34:41 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: mafree; BuddhaBoy
BuddhaBoy is an idiot. Posting to him is like slapping Tar Baby.

And Budda, yes, I'm talking about you, but no more.

318 posted on 12/01/2002 11:39:33 PM PST by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: xJones
Name calling starts when one has no argument. Sticks and stones, Genius.
319 posted on 12/02/2002 5:55:27 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
You, are obviously, not a man. A boy, maybe. I always get a kick out of the weird psychological problems one encounters here. Fojiao, BOY - an apt name for you.

you, obviously, do not know *squat* about punctuation.

320 posted on 12/02/2002 1:45:18 PM PST by banjo joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-326 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