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?
At a minimun, she should be required to get the father's permission, in writing, if she wants an abortion or wants to put the baby up for adoption. Either the baby is 50-50 or all bets are off.
I have advocated the prison term for lies about rape myself. Excellent to see someone else has an understanding of Justice.
My, my, you are naive. Men haven't said no since Eve gave the apple to Adam and you'll never change it.
IMO, it should be the biological father and mother unless other arrangements are sanctioned by a judge (ie, adoption, foster parents, etc.).
A child you raise is not a pair of shoes.
It's not something to return if you find out you've got the wrong one by mistake.
I think you get it and actually are getting the point.
http://webmd.lycos.com/content/article/1728.56699
Men Liberation!! Men will soon be burning their jock straps.
Because the law assigns custody rights to the woman. Rights and responsibilities should go together.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
That's true. I guess it comes down to DNA testing if there is any question of who the father might be. If the mother is sleeping around, she's likely to choose the one with the highest salary instead of the one she knows is the father, if she's sleeping around a lot, she really may have no clue.
You mean they can't?
If not, that is a perfect illustration of the distinction between a "moral" law and a "Legal" one.
We've collectively been run over by lots of immoral laws and people are getting really pissed!
I know a woman who has a child from an affair she had with a married man, she sued and won child support. I heard his wife took the 1/4 loss of his income hard ---but not so hard because the wife stayed with the cheater.
The view of women of America seems to be that if a woman has a baby, then she is ENTITLED to economic support. And she doesn't care who gets the bill, the real father, Society via welfare, or some poor guy she can dupe into believing that it's HIS. She had a baby, and by God, somebody has to pay!
To be fair, this scenario has been the most common by far, until women's liberation freed women to behave as sexually immoral as men. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it pinches a bit, eh?
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.