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?
Exactly!
No, really-- you seem to be the spokesman for the "women of America." And I'm telling you that, by far, most women in America do not agree with what you attribute to them above.
What about those of us who realize that being a father and husband is not an artificial creation of a state and its legal rules but an essential part of who God made us to be?
What about those of us who have found a virtuous and beautiful woman, on the inside and out? What about those of us who have a chance to spend the rest of our life and our live with a woman who loves us deeply and absolutely, and shares our view of life and our religious beliefs? Who has an equal and strong commitment to and ability for building a God-pleasing family? Who we know we can trust and want to be with for the rest of our life together?
I am one of these men and I have a such a woman who I am seriously considering proposing to in the near future. Are you really going to tell me I shouldn't marry her? Even if I know I can trust her with everything forever, just as my parents and both sets of my grandparents have trusted each other, for 40, 50, and 60 years together for their entire lives together?
Think carefully about your advice, it says more about yourself than the unfair laws you are criticizing.
I am not anyone's spokesman. My statement is a generality, but you are free to prove me wrong that women who have a baby do not EXPECT economic support as a result of having a baby, or that they generally refrain from going to court to FORCE some man to pay support. In this thread, a man who is not the father has had to pay for the child. It is profound proof that women are vengeful about child support.
That sounds very reasonable ... BUT ... many men are so immature when they marry. Their only criteria for a wife seems to be: "She's alot of fun!"
No it doesnt.
I didnt mention my values at all. It says something about those who feel they have the right to determine the values of others.
Those of you who feel different, should act differerent. Isnt that simple? Those of you who feel that my advice is somehow attacking your values, should just ignore it, as it isnt for you anyway.
My advice is for those who wish to avoid the consequences of potential fraud perpetuated against them. I have no problem with those of you who wish to roll the dice. I'm not attacking differing opinions, so I see no need for some to attack mine either.
Some of us are able to see differing opinions without feeling threatened. Feeling insecure about others differing from you, says more about YOU than about me.
I have done exactly that, and I am not ashamed to say so. This was after seeing the consequences first hand from friends who's wonderful little princess turned into the devil herself after getting her ring.
No one saw it coming, so I decided that it is never going to happen to me.
Studies have been done showing that of all babies born IN WEDLOCK in the USA, about 5% are not the biological child of the husband.
This is quite common, and the law and customs need to address it! Saying the baby looked more like the milkman than like his putative "father," is no joke!
As you said, sex has consequences. And if it took him six years to realize this and do the math, he's already hooked. And as Jimmy Carter once said, "Life is unfair". So, since he was a bit slow on the uptake, child support, "father" status, all the stuff that is needed for public policy went into effect.
Men are morally responsible for where they place their seed...tricked or not.
This is especially true with underage women. Something about statutory rape really kind of erked me in law school, 'cause ya feel for the poor soul who looks at jail time because of a fake ID, she told me she was 18, she looked like she was 18, etc, but if she is 17, you're dead meat.
But like this thread, and your observation, you gotta be responsible, and sex has consequences. It's much more difficult to be convicted of a crime or falsely accused of being the father if you actually meet the parents of the significant other prior to consumating, or more discreet with whom you recon with....
Pookie & ME
Why?
Please explain why a childs life is automatically MORE important than the life of a grown man.
This is the most fascist of beliefs. If all men are created equal, why then do some become LESS equal as they age?
No child is more or less important than anyone else, and this "for-the-children" rhetoric that has become so popular in today's culture is responsible for some of the most egregious attacks against our rights in the history of mankind.
At the rate we are going; someday, out of the blue, children are going to be assigned to people, purely out of need, and it will be mandated that they are provided for, regardless of no parental link.
This is no different then what is occuring today with men who have been defrauded by women who wrongly assign them as father on a birth certificate.
I have seen studies where that figure is quickly approaching 10% in urban America, and over 20% in low income areas.
There needs to be a law passed mandating DNA testing of parents before the signing of a birth certificate, something that feminists are fighting against like mad. They have no problem with men being duped into supporting other men's children.
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.