Posted on 03/29/2008 8:43:32 PM PDT by neverdem
Thanks for posting this scary stuff.
These tests may bring some big changes to this industry that feeds on these guys.
I’m not excusing guys who are responsible for the pregancies and resulting children.
However, we may find out that many, who have been hammered by courts and police for child support were not the DNA fathers.
Instead of congress(Rep Waxman(D) CA) going after baseball players on HGH...He should focus on this
Shine the light on this great evil being done to millions and millions of fathers.
This way many can understand the anger and hatred that is growing each day (inside the U.S.)in our inner-cities.
Having a good father around benefits all.
It is an exceedingly sad commentary on our times that so many women do not know who the father of their baby is and that so many kids are coming into the world as the result of casual sex. Obviously the ‘safe sex’ indoctrination of the last two decades has fallen on deaf ears as well.
Carol Rhodes exposes the corrupt child support agencies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOC58c-Ibdk
http://forum.counterpulse.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3&start=30
ps. still working on site
It started in 1966(Welfare) then in 1969...No fault divorce...then came child support in 1976...to recover the afdc welfare money...then came 42/666 in 1986(The killer)
Family law
Entering into marriage
Prenuptial agreement · Marriage
Common-law marriage
Same-sex marriage
Legal states similar to marriage
Cohabitation · Civil union
Domestic partnership
Registered partnership
Putative marriage
Dissolution of marriage
Annulment · Divorce · Alimony
Issues affecting children
Paternity · Legitimacy · Adoption
Legal guardian · Ward
Emancipation of minors
Parental responsibility
Contact (including Visitation)
Residence in English law
Custody · Child support
Areas of possible legal concern
Spousal abuse · Child abuse
Child abduction
Adultery · Bigamy · Incest
Conflict of Laws Issues
Marriage · Nullity · Divorce
No-fault divorce is divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require fault of either party to be shown, or, indeed, any evidentiary proceedings at all. It occurs on petition to the court, typically a family court by either party, without the requirement that the petitioner show fault on the part of the other party. Either party may request, and receive, the dissolution of the marriage, despite the objections of the other party.
Contents [hide]
1 Russian history
2 United States history
3 Australia
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References
[edit] Russian history
No-fault divorce was pioneered by the Bolsheviks following the Russian Revolution of 1917.[citation needed] Before the Revolution churches, mosques, and synagogues defined family life. It was the ecclesiastical law of the various denominations that controlled the family, marriage, and divorce. For example, the official registration of birth, death, marriage, and divorce was the responsibility of the church parish. Under these non-secular laws, divorce was highly restricted.
The 1918 Decree on Divorce eliminated the religious marriage and the underlying ecclesiastical law, by replacing them with civil marriage sanctioned by the state. Divorce was obtained by filing a mutual consent document with the Russian Registry Office, or by the unilateral request of one party to the court.
[edit] United States history
Modern “no-fault” divorce came about because of widespread disgust among lawyers, judges, (and the general public[citation needed]) with the legal fictions that had become commonplace since the mid-20th century.
Prior to the no-fault divorce revolution, a divorce could be obtained only through a showing of fault on the part of one of the two spouses in a marriage. This was something more than not loving one another; it meant that one spouse had to plead that the other had committed adultery or abandonment or some other similarly sinful act. However, the other spouse could plead a variety of defenses like recrimination. Often, a judge might find that the defendant had not committed the alleged act. Or, the judge might accept the defense of recrimination (essentially an accusation of “you too”) and find both spouses at fault for the dysfunctional nature of the marriage. Either way, the judge would refuse to dissolve the marriage.
Obviously, these rules were problematic in situations where both spouses were at fault, or where neither spouse had committed a truly sinful act but simply could not get along with the other. Lawyers began to engineer creative methods to bypass the rules. New York was notorious for its “collusive adultery”, in which both sides deliberately agreed that the wife would come home at a certain time and discover her husband committing adultery with a “mistress” obtained for the occasion.[1] She would then swear to a carefully tailored version of these facts in court (committing perjury in the process), the husband would sheepishly admit to a similar version of the facts, the judge would convict the husband of adultery, and the couple would be divorced.
In most other states, especially California, the most popular grounds for divorce was cruelty (which was unavailable in New York). For example, by 1950, wives were pleading cruelty in 70 percent of divorce cases in San Francisco.[2] In case after case, wives would testify to the same pitiful facts: their husbands swore at them, hit them, and generally treated them terribly.
This procedure was described by California Supreme Court justice Stanley Mosk in a passionate dissent:
Every day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the “innocent” spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed “cruel.” — In re Marriage of McKim, 6 Cal. 3d 673 (1972) (Mosk, J., dissenting) [3].
Needless to say, such empty procedures were appalling to both lawyers[citation needed] and judges, who felt that they made oaths meaningless and threatened to destroy the integrity of the American justice system (by making lying in court into a commonplace occurrence).
Indeed, as early as the 1930s, a treatise on American family law had complained:
In divorce litigation it is well known that the parties often seek to evade the statutory limitations and thus there is great danger of perjury, collusion, and fraud .... In many cases no defense is interposed, and often when the case is contested the contest is not waged with vigor or good faith.[4]
Starting in the 1960s, numerous commentators pointed out that it might be best to recognize that two spouses who were determined to end their marriage would get what they wanted by any means necessary. Therefore, they argued, the law should adapt by providing a straightforward procedure for ending a marriage, rather than forcing a couple who just couldn’t get along to choose between living together in “marital hell” or lying under oath in open court. The most prominent advocate of this position was law professor Herma Hill Kay (the future dean of Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school)[5].
“No-fault” divorce was pioneered in the United States by the state of California with the passage of the Family Law Act of 1969. The Act was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on September 4, 1969,[6] and it took effect on January 1, 1970. It abolished the old common law action for divorce and replaced it with the proceeding for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of “irreconciliable differences.”
By late 1983, every state but South Dakota had adopted some form of no-fault divorce (although some forms were not as easy to obtain as that in California).[7] The no-fault revolution was complete when South Dakota finally adopted no-fault divorce in 1985. Somewhat surprisingly (given its reputation as a fairly liberal state politically) the state in which it is hardest to obtain a “no-fault” divorce is New York. To obtain a “no-fault” divorce in that state, both the husband and wife have to sign and notarize a separation agreement for the judge and be separated for a year before no-fault divorce proceedings can ensue.
[edit] Australia
Main article: Australian family law
The Australian family law on divorce and other family law matters were overhauled in 1975 with the enactment of the Family Law Act 1975, which established “no-fault” divorce in Australia. Since 1975, a divorcing couple need only establish a twelve month separation and need not show any “fault” by either party to be granted a divorce by the Family Court of Australia. However, a residual “fault” element remains in relation to child custody and property settlement issues.
[edit] Criticism
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2007)
Members of the fathers’ rights movement propose “reasonable limits” on no-fault divorce when children are involved.[1]
The most common criticism of no-fault divorce is that it has created an economic incentive for mothers to initiate unilateral divorces when no grounds, such as adultery or violence, exist. When the mother is granted custody of the child, the Courts order the father to provide the mother with child support.
A minority of family law scholars, of whom the most well-known is sociologist Lenore J. Weitzman, have argued that even though no-fault divorce succeeded in reducing the widespread problem of perjury and in making divorce less destructive by taking it out of the adversarial system, it also had the unintended consequence of causing divisions of property and alimony to be much more unfair to female spouses than under the old system[8]. However, in 1996, sociologist Richard J. Peterson reevaluated the data acquired in Weitzman’s influential 10-year study. He demonstrated that her analysis was fundamentally flawed and severely overestimated the economic impact of no-fault divorce; she subsequently conceded that his critique was correct[9].
A greater criticism is that the current form of no-fault divorce is a unilateral dissolution of marriage, home and family, with no recourse by the other spouse. The petitioner has the opportunity to prepare for the battle to follow, while the respondent often is trying to hold the marriage together. Thus, an unfaithful wife who becomes pregnant in an affair may end her marriage, take possession of the home, custody of the children, and collect a portion of her husband’s income for years into the future. An abusive husband can file for divorce and force his wife out of the home, close her out of the family finances and close all credit cards and bank accounts at the time when she needs them in order to mount her own legal defense. In neither of these examples does the respondent have any meaningful recourse in an effort to seek reconciliation, hold the family together, and maintain or restore previous, jointly stated vows of commitment.
The “revolution” in no-fault divorce is now entering the third generation in some families, leaving children with parents, grandparents and even great-grandparents who have been divorced. According to Judith S. Wallerstein, director of the long-term study on the effects of divorce begun in the early 1970s, “divorce is a long-term crisis” which inflicts permanent psychological damage on children of divorce, who themselves are more likely to suffer failed marriages (”they don’t have the template to follow”) or even avoid marriage in order to avoid divorce. “A huge number are staying single.”
[edit] See also
Fathers’ rights and Men’s rights
Feminist movement
Marriage strike
Masculism
Relationship Education
[edit] References
^ Bishop, Katherine. “Sweet Victory for Feminist Pioneer at Law School.” New York Times, 3 April 1992, sec. A, p. 19.
“No-fault” divorce was pioneered in the United States by the state of California with the passage of the Family Law Act of 1969. The Act was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on September 4, 1969,[6] and it took effect on January 1, 1970. It abolished the old common law action for divorce and replaced it with the proceeding for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of “irreconciliable differences.”
why?
The mother's DNA is not necessary, but if it is included, that increases the accuracy of the test.
http://www.dnatesting.com/resources/biologicalMother.php
Why on earth does the author believe that only mothers would be interested in this? Pretty dumb. Uncertain fathers will buy these kits by the gazillion.
This was done as a favor to all past, present and future Governors of NY.
I wonder what color(s) the sky is on this reporter's world.
Personally, I think EVERY child should have a DNA test done.
Then, if “Daddy” is proved not to be the father, he won’t have to pay child support. We all know that once he starts paying child support, he won’t be off the hook until child is an adult, regardless if the child is his or not.
You would think NY would want to get on the band wagon - think of all the tax money they could collect from the sale of the DNA kits.
Plus the “unsure father” can do the test easily and surreptitiously. All he needs is his cheek tissue sample and the baby’s. While his wife needs to get a sample from him and the baby. BUT-—>>> If wife had only one boyfriend in the time frame of conception then she could do the test on boyfriend and baby and learn something
Lets remember that part of the reason Jews are identified as Jews via their mother is that the bearer of the child is always identifiable as Jewish. While the man who impregnated her and gave half the DNA to the child might be in question. That’s how it always was until the DNA testing we have today
That reminds me of the blonde joke about the blonde that was pregnant. But she wasn't sure it was hers.
Except he needs a swab from her as well.
Good luck with getting that.
8^)
“Shine the light on this great evil being done to millions and millions of fathers.
This way many can understand the anger and hatred that is growing each day (inside the U.S.)in our inner-cities.
Having a good father around benefits all.”
Yes, indeed.
As opposed to the folks who purchase because they, and noone they know, needs the test?
Henry Waxman does evil. He does not shine lights on it.
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.