Posted on 02/12/2007 11:18:56 AM PST by PercivalWalks
SB 56, the new Colorado paternity fraud bill, addresses the dilemma faced by men who discover that the children they are paying child support for are not biologically theirs. The bill would allow “duped dads” to terminate their support obligations by utilizing DNA evidence. In a recent Rocky Mountain News column, Editorial Page Editor Vincent Carroll labels these men “the picky type whose parental love depends on a genetic link” and says they seek to throw their nonbiological children “overboard with a minimum of fuss.”
Carroll does have a point--SB 56 allows the duped dad to sever financial ties between the children and the only father they have ever known. Carroll, and the women's advocates who oppose SB 56, are concerned that the bill will destroy close father-child bonds.
In many cases, however, paternity fraud claims arise after the duped dad has been pushed to the margins of the children's lives during a divorce or separation. Sometimes the mother even attempts to use the fact that the man is not the biological father as a way to get the family court to limit or deny him visitation time, while still demanding that he pay child support. Perhaps a Gandhi or a Saint Joseph might be content to pay their exes a large portion of their income in such situations, but they may be the only ones.
Carroll, and practically every other person who has ever written about paternity fraud, misses an important point—many duped dads still want to parent their nonbiological children, provided they are allowed a meaningful role in their lives. Some duped dads even wage long, expensive legal battles to remain in the lives of the children with whom they have bonded. Paternity fraud receives substantial media coverage, but these men rarely make the news stories.
For these men, SB 56 is not a way out of fatherhood but a way back in. It would give duped dads the bargaining power they often need to preserve their relationships with the children. Under SB 56, a duped dad could say to his ex-wife, “Yes, I’m willing to help support the children financially, but you first need to allow me to have a relationship with them.”
Carroll and others seem to equate child support with fatherhood. There is nothing in SB 56 which prevents a father from continuing his relationship with the children, or from financially supporting them, as long as the mother allows it. If the bill’s opponents want to effectively preserve the bonds between these duped dads and their nonbiological children, their focus should not be on child support but instead on creating a presumption of shared parenting after a divorce or separation. Under this presumption, as long as both parents (including nonbiological fathers) are fit, they will each have the right to substantially equal physical time with their children. Such legislation would greatly reduce the number of men seeking to disestablish paternity.
Even for those duped dads who do want out, opponents of SB 56 should be more understanding. Some of these men are heartbroken that their wives lied to them and the children over such an important and intimate matter. Many feel a burning sense of humiliation. Some have been manhandled by the bungling, often abusive child support system, and have no desire to remain under its heel for another 10 or 15 years.
It is true that these men sometimes don’t handle the situation as well or as nobly as we would like. Nonetheless, they deserve better than to be harshly denounced as they grapple with the terrible problem their ex-wives created for them.
This article first appeared in the Denver Rocky Mountain News (2/7/07).
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization. Their website is www.acfc.org.
Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
Is this about Chelsea's real father?
I wonder how many people here will favor forcing a non-biological duped "dad" to continue paying child support for a kid that isn't his. Because it's for the children, of course.
Legally, Fatherhood is based on blood, unless the Father adopts. It makes sense to give a duped "Father" that right.
I notice there is no mention of any type of reimbursement to the "duped dad" for expensives and child support already paid.
Seems to me that most female freepers support sticking it to duped guys.
Is there anything to make the mothers cough up back payment to reimburse the men for this civil wrong?
Oh wait, the women are innocent "victims" in all this.
Now this p!sses me off. Again, no matter what, the man is the PERP.
Never mind that some evil, conniving c*** lied like a rug and cheated the guy, now its STILL his fault because he doesn't like being cheated!
How about this as part of the bill, any woman who KNOWINGLY lies about paternity should get FIVE HARD YEARS in the slammer, bunked up with Big Butt Betty the lezzy.
This stuff would come to screeching, grinding halt, yesterday.
This is simply an appeal to guilt, and to "political correctness".
This is and should remain an individual choice.
"Noble" or patsy. What a choice!
And then there's question of the real criminal in the whole process.
The problem is that many mothers refuse to permit the father (duped or not duped) to have visitation or they are sharply limited. Courts are very reluctant to tackle this issue and it creates great bitterness.
It's been awhile since I've seen a thread on this topic here, but I remember some being in support of forcing continued child support.
What they don't realize is that by forcing a duped dad to pay child support, that is effecting his ability to have children of his own that he can support. So not only is he forced to pay for another man's kid(s), he's being forced into a decision where he either doesn't have his own kids or makes his biological children get by with less.
People who would support something like that make me sick. Mush minded simpletons, driven only by their soft headed emotional thought process.
Such decisions for "nonbiological children" may also be laying the groundwork for getting same sex couples to pay "child support" after separation.
True enough, but what bothers me even more is that the biological father is getting off free-- while some other man pays for the rearing of his child. To read some arguments, you'd think that removing the obligation of the "duped dad" would leave the child without financial support. Just because the husband isn't the biological father does not mean there isn't a biological father out there!
This is one aspect studiously avoided in these discussions, because it involves work and unpleasantness and the recognition that, in most cases, the slimeball "mother" knows exactly who the biological father is.
Typical FemiNazi tyranny and deceit. If he is not the dad, the cuckholded dupe should at least get simple justice.
No way should he be FORCED to do any such thing. However, if he truly wants to have a relationship with the child, including one of financial support, but the mother won't allow anything but the financial support...to heck with her.
In most cases, once a man finds out he is not the biological father the decision should be left up to him. I'm sure many will come up with reasons that I can't think of off the top of my head, which is why I said "in most cases."
"Seems to me that most female freepers support sticking it to duped guys."
Ex-wives are often like government. They want the money, they want it now and they want all of it.
not this one
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.